SSS Employees Association vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.

85279, July 28, 1989] Facts: The petitioners went on strike after the SSS failed to act upon the unions demands concerning the implementation of their CBA. SSS filed before the court action for damages with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners for staging an illegal strike. The court issued a temporary restraining order pending the resolution of the application for preliminary injunction while petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging the courts lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Petitioners contend that the court made reversible error in taking cognizance on the subject matter since the jurisdiction lies on the DOLE or the National Labor Relations Commission as the case involves a labor dispute. The SSS contends on one hand that the petitioners are covered by the Civil Service laws, rules and regulation thus have no right to strike. They are not covered by the NLRC or DOLE therefore the court may enjoin the petitioners from striking. Issue: Whether or not SSS employers have the right to strike Held: The Constitutional provisions enshrined on Human Rights and Social Justice provides guarantee among workers with the right to organize and conduct peaceful concerted activities such as strikes. On one hand, Section 14 of E.O No. 180 provides that the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed, subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress referring to Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the Civil Service Commission which states that prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by government employees enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all government officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. Therefore in the absence of any legislation allowing govt. employees to strike they are prohibited from doing so.

Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union [G.R. No. L-25246, September 12, 1974 Facts: Plaintiff is a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers Union who later resigned from his affiliation to the said union by reason of the prohibition of his religion for its members to become affiliated with any labor organization. The union has subsisting closed shop agreement in their collective bargaining agreement with their employer that all permanent employees of the company must be a member of the union and later was amended by Republic Act No. 3350 with the provision stating "but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization".. By his resignation, the union wrote a letter to the company to separate the plaintiff from the service after which he was informed by the company that unless he makes a satisfactory arrangement with the union he will be dismissed from the service. The union contends that RA 3350 impairs obligation of contract stipulated in their CBA and discriminatorily favors religious sects in providing exemption to be affiliated with any labor unions. Issue: WON RA 3350 impairs the right to form association. Held: The court held that what the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognize and guarantee is the "right" to form or join associations which involves two broad notions, namely: first, liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may act for himself without being prevented by law; and second, power, whereby an employee may join or refrain from joining an association. Therefore the right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union. The exceptions provided by the assailed Republic Act is that members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union. Thus this exception does not infringe upon the constitutional provision on freedom of association but instead reinforces it.

In re: IBP membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial Edillon [A.C. No. 1928, August 3, 1978] Facts: This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same. He contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP in order to practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and thereby null and void. Issue: Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property of the respondent. Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar associations that are organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership of which is voluntary. The IBP however is an official national body of which all lawyers must be a member and are subjected to the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which includes payment of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation of regulations in the practice of law. The provisions assailed does not infringe the constitutional rights of the respondent as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its existence with regulatory measures to implement. The name of Edillon was stricken out from the rolls of attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar.