C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc vs.

CA
G.R. 155109, September 29, 2010
Facts:
The Company and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that bound
them to hold no strike and no lockout in the course of its life. At some point the parties began
negotiating the economic provisions of their CBA but this ended in a deadlock, prompting
the Union to file a notice of strike. After efforts at conciliation by the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) failed, the Union conducted a strike vote that resulted in an overwhelming
majority of its members favoring it. The Union reported the strike vote to the DOLE and, after
the observance of the mandatory cooling-off period, went on strike. During the strike, the
Company filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) Ex Parte with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) to enjoin the strikers from intimidating, threatening, molesting, and
impeding by barricade the entry of non-striking employees at the Companys premises. On June
29, 1999 the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, declaring the Unions strike illegal for violating
the CBAs no strike, no lockout, provision. As a consequence, the Labor Arbiter held that the
Union officers should be deemed to have forfeited their employment with the Company and that
they should pay actual damages. With respect to the striking Union members, finding no proof
that they actually committed illegal acts during the strike, the Labor Arbiter ordered their
reinstatement without backwages.
Issues:
1. Whether or the strike conducted is illegal?
2. Whether or not the union members should also be terminated?
Held:
1. Yes, a strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor union has complied with the
strict requirements for staging one as provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code when the
same is held contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no strike clause or conclusive
arbitration clause. Here, the CBA between the parties contained a no strike, no lockout
provision that enjoined both the Union and the Company from resorting to the use of
economic weapons available to them under the law and to instead take recourse to
voluntary arbitration in settling their disputes. No law or public policy prohibits the Union
and the Company from mutually waiving the strike and lockout maces available to them
to give way to voluntary arbitration. The Court finds no compelling reason to depart from
the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA regarding the illegality of the
strike. Social justice is not one-sided. It cannot be used as a badge for not complying
with a lawful agreement.
2. Yes, given that their illegal acts of threatening, coercing and intimidating non-strikers,
obstructing the free ingress and egress from the company premises and resisted and
defied the implementation of the writ of preliminary injunction issued against the strikers,
their employment can no longer reinstated. However, the records also fail to disclose
any past infractions committed by the dismissed Union members. Taking these
circumstances in consideration, the Court regards the award of financial assistance to
these Union members in the form of one-half month salary for every year of service to
the company up to the date of their termination as equitable and reasonable.