ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES (AIUP), JOEL DENSING, HENEDINO MIRAFUENTES, CHRISTOPHER PATENTES, AND ANDRES TEJANA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), CENAPRO CHEMICAL CORPORATION and/or GO SING CHAN in his capacity as Managing Director, respondents. Facts: Densing, et al were casual EEs of CENAPRO Chemicals (CENAPRO). In CENAPRO, the CBA representative of all rankand-file EEs was CENAPRO Employees Association (CCEA), with which CENAPRO had a CBA. This CBA excluded casual EEs from membership in the union. The casual EEs who have rendered at least 1-6 years of service sought regularization of their employment with CENAPRO. When this was denied, they formed themselves into an organization and affiliated with AIUP. Afterwards, AIUP filed a petition for certification election, which was opposed by CENAPRO and CCEA, on the basis of the contract bar rule. On May 4 and July 3, 1990, the AIUP-sponsored union (Union) filed a notice of strike and other necessary documentation with the DOLE, citing as grounds the acts of CENAPRO as constituting ULP, specifically the coercion of EEs and systematic union-busting. The Union proceeded to stage a strike on July 23, 1990, in the course of which, the Union perpetrated illegal acts such as padlocking the company gates, as well as preventing/coercing other non-striking EEs from reporting for work. Because of the illegal acts, CENAPRO filed a petition for injunction with the NLRC, which then granted a TRO to enjoin the Union from conducting further illegal acts. On July 24, 1990, the Union filed a complaint for ULP and illegal lockout and in response, CENAPRO filed an illegal strike complaint the day after. The LA consolidated the complaints and decided that the strike conducted by the Union was illegal, and dismissed the
charge for illegal lockout and ULP. 5 Union officers were
declared to have lost their employment status, while 15 union members were not reinstated because of execution of quitclaims in favor of CENAPRO. 6 workers, some of which composed the group of Densing et al, were ordered reinstated, but on a later order, 2 EEs were excluded from reinstatement and backwage payment. Both parties appealed to the LA decision, and pending resolution of the appeals, AIUP moved for execution of the LAs decision regarding reinstatement of some of its members. This was granted by an issued order, with CENAPRO later moving that they pay separation pay on the premise of strained relations between the parties. This opposition was overruled by the LA, which issued a 2 nd writ of execution directing actual, if not payroll, reinstatement. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the Commission affirmed the LA in toto and reiterated the LAs Order for reinstatement of the Densing group. Upon an MR from CENAPRO, the NLRC later modified its decision, ordering payment of separation pay (1 mo/year of service) without backwages. Meanwhile, Densing was declared to have lost his employment status. Therefore, AIUP filed a petition for review on certiorari to reinstate the LA decision ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages. Issues WON the AIUP-sponsored Union committed an illegal strike. YES. However, petition is granted. NLRC decision set aside, LA decision ordering separation pay and full backwages reinstated. Held: The Court first pointed out that the complaints of the Densing group on the grounds of ULP were adjudged as baseless by the LA, and approved by the SC, as the acts of harassment and insults were found to actually be scolding for little mistakes and memoranda for tardiness. Furthermore, it was found that
the allegations of overworking were actually uncorroborated
by testimony as the petitioners were not able to enumerate when and how they were made to overwork. The Court also affirmed the NLRC ruling that the strike staged by the AIUP was in the nature of a union-recognition strike, defined as a calculated move to compel the employer to recognize one's union, and not the other contending group, as the employees' bargaining representative to work out a collective bargaining agreement despite the striking union's doubtful majority status to merit voluntary recognition and lack of formal certification as the exclusive representative in the bargaining unit. It was noted that when the petition for certification election was filed by AUIP, there was an existing CBA between the respondent company and CCEA, the incumbent CBA representative of all rank-and-file EEs. The argument that the petition should have not been entertained because of the contract bar rule. When a CBA has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Labor Code, a petition for certification election or motion for intervention may be entertained only within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of the said agreement. Outside the period, as in the present case, the petition for certification election or motion for intervention cannot be allowed. Therefore, there was no clear act of union busting found. From the evidence at hand, the Court found that the strike was indeed illegal, since: 1. The strikers did commit illegal acts such as barricading to prevent passage of CENAPROs truck, as well as
padlocking the gate and preventing ingress and egress
of workers, 2. The strikers violated the TRO. The Court noted that: A strike is a legitimate weapon in the universal struggle for existence. It is considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. But to be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds. The right to strike as a means for the attainment of social justice is never meant to oppress or destroy the employer. The law provides limits for its exercise. Among such limits are the prohibited activities under Article 264 of the Labor Code, particularly paragraph (e), which states that no person engaged in picketing shall: a) Commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or b) Obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes or c) Obstruct public thoroughfares. Even if the strike is valid because its objective or purpose is lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid where the means employed are illegal.
It follows, therefore, that the dismissal of the union officers
was justified and valid, as their dismissal was a consequence of the illegality of the strike staged by them. The Court also found that there was no lockout, as the workers themselves did stop working because of the strike. Finally, on the matter of the fate of the 4 workers, the Court found that they are indeed entitled to reinstatement, as it was found that the erring strikers were not duly identified by the testimony. For the severest administrative penalty of dismissal to attach, the erring strikers must be duly identified. Simply referring to them as "strikers", "AIU strikers" "complainants in this case" is not enough to justify their dismissal.