LABREL

G.R. No. 168406

CLUB FILIPINO, INC.
vs.
BAUTISTA

July 13, 2009

Strike- legal
(R) union- cannot really attached the counter- proposal as
there was no really C-P given by or
Dismissal of ees union off- not proper (R) no illegal strike
P comp
R union men
(The company) is a non- stock, non profit corporation with
petitioner Atty. De Leon as its president
Respondents were former officers and members of the union.
The union and the company had a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) which expired on May 31, 2000.
Prior to the expiration of the CBA and within the freedom
period, the union made several demands for negotiation but the
company replied that it could not muster a quorum, thus no CBA
negotiations could be held.
2000: the union submitted its formal CBA proposal to the
companys negotiating panel and repeatedly asked for the start
of negotiations.
No negotiations took place for various reasons proffered by the
company.
Respondents, as officers of the union, filed a request for
preventive mediation
Their strategy, however, failed to bring the management to the
negotiating table
April 5, 2001: the meeting concluded with a declaration by both
parties of a deadlock in their negotiations.
(April 6, 2001) the union filed a notice of strike (NCMB) on the
grounds of bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain.
(April 22, 2001):
the company formally responded to the
demands of the union when it submitted the first part of its
economic counter-proposal; the second part was submitted on
(May 11, 2001).
(May 4, 2001): the union conducted a strike vote
The union sent the company its improved proposal, but the
company refused to improve on its offer.
The union to stage a strike on May 26, 2001 on the ground of the
CBA bargaining deadlock.

The company filed a petition to declare the strike legal.

Labor arbiter declared the strike procedurally [infirm] and
therefore illegal.
NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter.
CA set aside the rulings of the NLRC and the labor arbiter.
ISSUE: of whether or not the strike staged by respondents
on May 26,2001 was legal - YES. Legal
VIP
Rule XXII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code states:
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far as
practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the bargaining
negotiations and be accompanied by the:
1. written proposals of the union,
2. counter-proposals of the employer and the
3. proof of a request for conference to settle differences.
In cases of unfair labor practices, the notice shall, as far as
practicable, state the
1. acts complained of, and
2. efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably.1avvphi1
Any notice which does not conform with the requirements of this
and the foregoing section shall be deemed as not having been
filed and the party concerned shall be so informed by the
regional branch of the Board. (emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, the union cannot be faulted for its omission.
The union could not have attached the counter-proposal of the
company in the notice of strike it submitted to the NCMB as there
was no such counter-proposal.
To recall, the union filed a notice of strike on April 6, 2001 after
several requests to start negotiations proved futile. It was only on
April 22, 2001, or after two weeks, when the company formally
responded to the union by submitting the first part of its counterproposal.
Worse, it took the company another three weeks to complete it by
submitting on May 11, 2001 the second part of its counterproposal.
This was almost a year after the expiration of the CBA sought to
be renewed.
The Implementing Rules use the words "as far as practicable."
In this case, attaching the counter-proposal of the company to the
notice of strike of the union was not practicable.

 It was absurd to expect the union to produce the companys

counter-proposal which it did not have.
One cannot give what one does not have.
Indeed, compliance with the requirement was impossible because
no counter-proposal existed at the time the union filed a notice of
strike.
The law does not exact compliance with the impossible. Nemo
tenetur ad impossibile.

On the ET status dismissal- not possible ( no illegal strike)

The law is clear:
Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike
and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have
lost his employment status. (emphasis supplied)
Note that the verb "participates" is preceded by the adverb
"knowingly."
This reflects the intent of the legislature to require "knowledge"
as a condition sine qua non before a union officer can be
dismissed from employment for participating in an illegal strike.
The provision is worded in such a way as to make it very difficult
for employers to circumvent the law by arbitrarily dismissing
employees in the guise of exercising management prerogative.
This is but one aspect of the States constitutional and statutory
mandate to protect the rights of employees to self-organization.
Nowhere in the ruling of the labor arbiter can we find any
discussion of how respondents, as union officers, knowingly
participated in the alleged illegal strike.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the strike was illegal, their
automatic dismissal had no basis.