TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

LEGAL BASES

II.

STRIKE
A. NATURE AND PURPOSES
B. KINDS OF STRIKE
C. STRIKING PARTY
D. GROUNDS FOR STRIKE
E. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
F. CONSEQUENCES OF STRIKE

III.

OTHER FORMS OF CONCERTED UNION ACTIVITIES

IV.

LIABILITIES AND REMEDIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

APPENDIX A Sample of Notice to Hold Strike Vote

APPENDIX B Sample of Strike Vote Report
APPENDIX B-1 Sample of Strike Votes Result
APPENDIX C Sample of NCMB Data Form on Establishment
and Union Involved in Labor Dispute

I. LEGAL BASES
What are the legal bases of the right of labor organizations to engage in concerted
activities?
Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized, and
promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to
strike in accordance with law. xxx

Article 263 (b), Labor Code This has been amended already as Art. 263 is now Petitions
in Unorganized Establishments
Article 269(b):
Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of
collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate
labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the
national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. However, no labor union
may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and
intra-union disputes.
Tropical Hut Employees Union-CGW vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc. (181 SCRA
173 [1990]), as cited in Barbizon Philippines Inc. vs. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng
Barbizon Philippines-NAFLU, G.R. Nos. 113204-05, September 16, 1996
All employees enjoy the right to self-organization and to form and join labor
organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to
engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. This is a fundamental
right of labor that derives its existence from the Constitution. In interpreting the
protection to labor and social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws or
rules or regulations, we have always adopted the liberal approach which favors the
exercise of labor rights.

II. STRIKE
A. NATURE AND PURPOSE
What is a strike?
A strike is any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of the employees as a
result of an industrial or labor dispute. (Art. 212 (o), Labor Code, as amended by Sec. 4, R. A. 6715)
What is a lockout?
A lockout is temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute. (Article 212 (p) Labor Code, as amended by Section 4, R.A. 6715)
What is an industrial or labor dispute?
An industrial or labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning
terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of

employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of

employer and employee (Article 212 [l], Labor Code).
What is the nature and purpose of a strike?
for the purpose of securing changes or modification in their terms and condition of
employment.( G.R. No. L-24572
December 20, 1967
THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK and FRANCISCO V. LOPEZ,
Superintendent of the Philippine Postal Savings Bank, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS,
ELECTRONICS and ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION,
PCWF, respondents.)

A strike is a coercive measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands.

The idea behind a strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business cannot afford
to have its production or activities interrupted, much less, paralyzed. Any interruption or
stoppage of production spells loss, even disaster. Knowing this, the strikers by going on
strike seek to interrupt and paralyze the business and production of the company. The
employer is on the defensive. It almost invariably wants the strike stopped and the
strikers back to work so as to resume and continue the production. Because of this threat
or danger of loss to the company, it frequently gives in to the demands of the strikers, just
so it can maintain the continuity of its production (G.R. No. L-3021
July 13,
1950
PHILIPPINE CAN COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and LIBERAL LABOR
UNION, respondents.

).
PASVIL/Pascual Liner, Inc., Workers Union-NAFLU vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124823, July
28, 1999:
The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by the
Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against management exploitation.
By virtue of this right the workers are able to press their demands for better terms and
conditions of employment with more energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to
strike as their reaction to their employers intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful
weapon of the working class. But precisely, if not because of this, it must be handled

carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blows up in the workers own hands. Simply
put, a strike is recognized and protected by our labor laws only when waged on account
of a labor dispute. In the absence thereof, the employees who engaged themselves in
work stoppage commit an illegal strike and should face the consequence thereof.
Is the right to strike absolute?
No. The right to strike, however, is not absolute. (G.R. No. 102672 October
4, 1995
PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION AND PANAY
ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS
ASSOCIATION, respondents.)

The exercise of this right is subject to reasonable restrictions pursuant to the police power
of the State. What is clearly within the law is the concerted activity of cessation of
work in order that a union's economic demands may be granted or that an employer
cease and desist from an unfair labor practice. That the law recognizes as a right.
There is though a disapproval of the utilization of force to attain such an objective.
For implicit in the very concept of a legal order is the maintenance of peaceful ways.
A strike otherwise valid, if violent in character, may be placed beyond the pale. (G.R.
No. L-28607 February 12, 1972
SHELL OIL WORKERS' UNION, petitioner,
vs.
SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, LTD., and THE COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)

It has been held that the right to strike, because of its more serious impact upon
the public interest, is more vulnerable to regulation tan the right to organize and select
representatives for purposes of collective bargaining (National Federation of Sugar
Workers [NFSW] v. Ovejera, et. Al., 114 SCRA 354, citing International Union v.
Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 336 U.S. 245, at 259).
Is participation in a lawful strike a ground for termination of employment?

No. Mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike does not constitute sufficient
ground for termination of his employment, even if replacement had been hired by the
employer during such lawful strike. (Art. 264 (a), Labor code).
Although during a strike the worker renders no work or service and receives no
compensation, yet his relationship as an employee with his employer is not severed or
dissolved. When laborers go on strike it cannot be said that they intend to cut off or
terminate their relationship with the employer. On the contrary, a strike may improve the
employer-employee work relationship, by bringing about better working conditions and
more efficient services (Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. v. SSS, 4 SCRA 512).
B. KINDS OF STRIKE
What are the different kinds of strike?
Strikes may be classified as follows:
According to the Nature of Employee Interest
Economic Strike
Economic strike is intended to force wage and other concessions from the
employer, which he is not required by law to grant (MASTER IRON LABOR UNION (MILU),
WILFREDO ABULENCIA, ROGELIO CABANA, LOPITO SARANILLA, JESUS MOISES, BASILIO DELA
CRUZ, EDGAR ARANES, ELY BORROMEO, DANIEL BACOLON, MATIAS PAJIMULA, RESTITUTO
PAYABYAB, MELCHOR BOSE, TEOFILO ANTOLIN, ROBERT ASPURIA, JUSTINO BOTOR, ALFREDO
FABROS, AGAPITO TABIOS, BENARDO ALFON, BENIGNO BARCENA, BERNARDO NAVARRO,
MOISES LABRADOR, ERNESTO DELA CRUZ, EDUARDO ESPIRITU, IGNACIO PAGTAMA, BAYANI
PEREZ, SIMPLICIO PUASO, EDWIN VELARDE, BEATO ABOGADO, DANILO SAN ANTONIO, BERMESI
BORROMEO, and JOSE BORROMEO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and MASTER IRON WORKS AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. G.R. No. 92009 February 17,
1993). This results from the a failure to come to an agreement, either because of a failure to bargain or a
bargaining deadlock.

Unfair Labor Practice Strike

An unfair labor strike is called against the unfair labor practices of the employer,
usually for the purpose of making him desist from further committing such practices
(Mastro plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270).
As a general rule, where the union believed that the employer committed ULP and
the circumstances warranted such belief in good faith, the resulting strike may be
considered legal although, subsequently, such allegations of unfair labor practices were
found to be groundless (National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied
Industries [NUWHRAIN] vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 125561, March 6, 1998).

According to the Degree of Employee Interest

Primary Strike
Primary strike is one declared by the employees who have a direct and immediate
interest, whether economic or otherwise, in the subject of the dispute, which exists
between them and their employer. It also refers to an original or initial strike, that is, a
strike which is waged by the union primarily aggrieved (Rothenberg on Labor Relations,
p. 73).
Secondary Strike
Secondary strike refers to a coercive measure adopted by workers against an
employer connected by product or employment with alleged unfair labor conditions or
practices. It occurs when a group of employees refuse in concert to remain at work for an
employer, not because of complaint over their labor standards under him, but because he
persists in dealing with a third person against whom they have a grievance. It is an
attempt to secure the economic assistance of their employer to compel this third person to
concede to the union over some issue between them, at the risk of losing the unionized
employers business if he does not concede (Teller, Labor Disputes and Collective
Bargaining, Volume I, p. 373).
Sympathetic Strike
Sympathetic strike is one in which the striking employees have no demands or
grievances of their own, but strike for he purpose of, directly or indirectly, aiding others,
without direct relation to the advancement of the interest of the strikers (Teller, p. 306).
According to Extent
General Strike
General strike extends over a whole community, province, state or country. It is
an extended form of sympathetic strike, involving many workers who cease to work in
sympathy with the workers of another employer, or in order to put pressure upon the
government in order to paralyze the present economic and social systems (Casselman,
155-156).
Local Strike
Local strike is one undertaken by workers in a particular enterprise, locality, or
occupation; it usually involves only one union or only one industry (Casselman, 156).

According to the Nature of the Acts

Sit-down Strike
Sit-down strike is strike in the traditional sense, to which is added the element of
trespass by the strikers upon the property of the employer, as when a group of employees
or others interested in obtaining a certain objective in a particular business forcibly take
over possession of the property of such business, establish themselves within the plant,
stop its production and refuse access to the owners or to the others desiring to work
(Teller, p. 311).
Sit-down strikes are a combination of the strike plus a refusal of the strikers to
leave the plant and machines, and a refusal to permit the latter to be operated. Sitdown is a method of prosecuting a strike in which the striking employees of the
offending employer remain on the employers business premises, and, without working
themselves, retain such control over the plants facilities as to prevent access to and the
continued operation of these facilities (Rothenberg, p. 99).
Slowdown Strike
Slowdown strike is a willful reduction in the rate of work by a group of employees
for the purpose of restricting the output of the employer (Casselman, 433). The
slowdown is a method by which ones employees, without seeking a complete
stoppage of work, delay production and distribution in an effort to compel compliance by
the employer with the labor demands made upon him (Rothenberg, p. 101).
It is staged without the workers quitting their work but by merely slackening or by
reducing their normal work output.
Partial Strike
Partial strike, also known as quickie strike, takes the form of intermittent,
unannounced work stoppage, including slowdowns, unauthorized extension of rest
periods, and walkouts for portions of a shift or entire shifts (International Union
UAWAAFL v. WERBA, 336 U.S. 245).
This is closely related to slowdown strike (Labor Laws and Social Legislations: A
Barristers Companion, Duka, 2008 Ed., p. 640-643).
Wildcat Strike
This is a strike declared and staged without the approval of the majority of the
members of the recognized bargaining agent.

A work stoppage that is not authorized by the labor union to which the employees
belong. Ordinarily wildcat strike constitutes a violation of an existing collective
bargaining contract, so the strikes are not protected unless the whole union joins them and
ratifies the protest. The union, may, however, discipline its members for participating in a
wildcat strike and impose fines (Emporium Capwell Co. vs. Western Addition
Community Organization, 420 U.S. 50, 95 S. Ct. 977, 43 L. Ed. 2d 12 [1975]).
May an economic strike be converted into an unfair labor practice strike?
Yes, an economic strike changes in character to one of unfair labor practices from
the time the company refuses to reinstate some of its striking employees because of their
union activities after it had offered to readmit all the strikers and in fact did readmit the
others (Consolidated Labor Association of the Philippines v. Marsman, 11 SCRA 589).
C. STRIKING PARTY
Who are entitled to strike?
Generally, workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for
purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection.
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Rule XXII: Conciliation, Strikes
and Lockouts, D.O. 40-G-03, series of 2010, Sec. 6. Who may declare a Strike or
Lockout: Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a strike
in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practices. The employer may declare a
lockout in the same cases. In the absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining
representative, any legitimate labor organization in the establishment may declare a strike
but only on grounds of unfair labor practice
May government employees strike?
No. While the 1987 Constitution expressly guarantees the right of government
personnel to self-organization to complement the provision according workers the right to
engage in peaceful concerted activities, it also includes the caveat that the right to strike
must be in accordance with law. The right to strike, therefore, is not constitutionallyguaranteed for government employees and may be restricted by statute.
That statute is the Civil Service Law which provides that it is declared to be the policy of the
Government that the employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes in their terms
and conditions of employment. (REPUBLIC ACT No. 2260, sec 28c)

It is against this constitutional and state-regulation backdrop that the Supreme Court
resolved that employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted and
unauthorized stoppage of work; that the right of government employees to organize is limited to the

formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike. MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr. G.R. No.
95445, August 6, 1991
Under Section 3 of Executive Order No. 180,high-level employees whose functions are normally considered
as policy-making or managerial or whose duties are of a highly confidential nature shall not be eligible to join
the organization of rank-and-file government employees.
The Court explained that This is a clear manifestation that the state may, by law, regulate the use of this
right, or even deny certain sectors such right. Executive Order 180 which provides guidelines for the
exercise of the right of government workers to organize, "enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all
government officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walkouts and other
forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service" by stating that
the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in government service shall be
observed. Jacinto v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 124540, November 14, 1997, 281 SCRA 657

It

is relevant to state at this point that the settled rule in this jurisdiction is that employees in the public
service may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts, and other forms of mass action that will lead in
the temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. The right of government employees to organize is
limited to the formation of unions or associations only, without including the right to strike. LEONORA A.
GESITE, FE LAMOSTE, ADELAIDA MACALINDOG, and GUIA C. AGATON, petitioners, vs. THE COURT
OF APPEALS, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondents. [G.R. Nos. 123562-65. November 25, 2004]

The International Labor Organization (ILO), however, seems to have a conflicting

position with Philippine law restrictions on the right of government employees to strike.
The ILO admits that "the question of the right to strike in the public service is based on
the fact that the concept of public servant varies considerably from one country to
another" and, consequently, recognizes that essential public services- hospitals,
electricity, water supply, the telecommunications, and air traffic control- may be
restricted or even prohibited by national law from striking. However, the ILO also
provides a list of what it considers non-essential services, and consequently is of the
belief that workers in these services should not be covered by restrictions or prohibitions
on the right to strike. These services are:
radio and television;
the petroleum sector;
ports loading and unloading;
banking;
computer services for the collection of excise duties and taxes;
department stores;
pleasure parks;
the metal sector;
the mining sector;
transport generally;
refrigeration enterprises;
hotel services;
construction;
automobile manufacturing;

 aircraft repairs;
agricultural activities;
the supply and distribution of foodstuffs;
the Mint;
the government printing service;
the state alcohol, salt and tobacco monopolies;
the education sector;
metropolitan transport; and
postal services. (Bernard GERNIGON, Alberto ODERO, Horacio GUIDO. ILO
PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
OFFICE GENEVA, 1998)

What can government employees do to secure better terms and conditions of

employment?
Government employees may, through their union or associations, either petition
the Congress for the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment which are
within the ambit of the legislation or negotiate with the appropriate government agencies
for the improvement of those which are not fixed by law. If there be any unresolved
grievances, the dispute may be referred to the Public Sector Labor-Management Council
for appropriate action [Social Security System Employees Association [SSSEA] v. CA, et
al., 175 SCRA 686).
May hospital employees strike?
Yes. However, strikes (and lock-outs) in hospitals, clinics and similar medical
institutions must be avoided to every extent possible, and all serious efforts, not only by
labor and management but Government as well, must be exhausted to minimize, if not
prevent, their adverse effects on the life and health of patients (Article 263 [g], Labor
Code).
What is the duty of the union staging a strike in a hospital?
The striking union (or locking-out employer) has the duty to provide and maintain
an effective skeletal work-force of medical and other health personnel whose movement
and services are not unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate
protection of life and health of its patients, most especially emergency cases, for the
duration of the strike (or lockout ) (Article 263 [g], Labor Code).
What is the duty of the Secretary of Labor in case of strikes in medical institutions?
The Secretary may assume, within twenty-four (24) hours from knowledge of the
occurrence of such strike (or lock-out), jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the

commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, the contending parties are
strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the National Labor Commission, under
pain of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status
(or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and other affirmative
relief), even criminal prosecution against either or both of them (Article 263 [g], Labor
Code).
D. GROUNDS FOR STRIKE
What are the grounds for a valid strike?
A.
B.
C.
D.

strike may be declared on the following grounds;

bargaining deadlocks (Article 263 [c], Labor Code);
unfair labor practices by the employer (Article 263 [c]);
managements flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic
provisions of the collective bargaining agreements (Section 1, Rule XIII, Book
V, Implementing Rules);
E. union-busting (article 263 [c], Labor Code).
What are some specific instances of a valid strike.
a) A strike, clearly declared by the union as a measure of self-defense and
protection against the employers unfair labor practices, consisting of
discriminatory acts and union-busting activities, is valid (Davao Free Workers
Front v. CIR, 60 SCRA 408).
b) A strike, not just for the purpose of gaining recognition, but also for
bargaining in bad faith and by reason of the companys unfair labor practices,
is lawful (Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v. CIR, 44
SCRA 350).
c) A strike called to offset what the employees were justified in believing in good
faith to be unfair labor practices on the part of the employer is legal Ferrer, et
al. v. CIR, 17 SCRA 352; Feati University, 58 SCRA 395).
What is an illegal strike?
And illegal strike is one which is contrary to a specific prohibition or law.
What are some specific instances of an illegal strike.
a) If a strike is declared for unimportant, unjust or unreasonable purpose, or is
carried out through unlawful means, the law will not sanction it and the court

will declare it illegal with adverse consequences to the strikers (Luzon Marine
Department Union v. Roldan, 86 Phil. 507).
b) A sympathetic strike is deemed to be an unlawful infliction of damage,
aimless and unjustifiable because of the absence of any direct economic
advantages to the group of workers participating in it (De Chuan & Sons v.
Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Pilipinas, 85 Phil. 431).
c) Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held invalid
where the means employed is illegal, as when, in the course of the strike, the
strikers obtained through coercion possession of the vessels of the shipowner
on several occasions and refused to leave in spite of appeals made by the
owners and officers of said vessel (United Seamens Union of the Phil. V.
Davao Shipowner Association, 20 SCRA 1226).
d) A strike or walkout on the basis of grievances which have not been submitted
to the grievance committee, as stipulated in the agreement of the parties
sanctioned by the CIR, is premature and illegal (Insurefco Paper Pulp &
Project Workers Union v. Insular Sugar Refining Corporation, 95 Phil. 761).
e) A strike declared without exhaustion of peaceful measures or remedies is
unjustified or unreasonable and hence illegal (Cia Maritima v. PHILMAROA,
103 Phil. 306).
f) A strike is illegal if it is declared without observing legal strike requirements,
to wit: 1) the fifteen-day notice; (2) the two-thirds required vote to strike done
by secret ballot; (3) the submission of the strike vote to the Department of
Labor at least seven days prior to the strike (Reliance Surety and Insurance
Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 193 SCRA 365).
g) A strike held during the pendency of a case involving the unions majority
status is held to be invalid (Luzon Marine Department Union v. Roldan, 86
Phil. 507).
h) The strike is illegal where it was staged to make common cause with other
strikers in other firms or companies, without the existence of any labor dispute
between the striking laborers and employers (sympathetic strike) (Lusteveco
Employees Association CCCLU v. Luzon Stevedoring Co., 17 SCRA 65).

i) A strike which is based on inter-union or intra-union disputes is illegal

(Article 263 [i], Labor Code).
j) A slowdown is an inherently illegal activity even in the absence of a no-strike
clause in a collective bargaining contract, or statute or rule (Ilaw at Buklod ng
Manggagawa v. NLRC, 198 SCRA 586).
What are the effects of sporadic violence upon the legality of a strike?
Not every form of violence suffices to make the strike illegal as to cause the loss
of employment of the guilty party. Where acts of violence while the strike lasts are
sporadic and not pervasive by design and policy, responsibility therefor is individual
and not collective (Feati University Fculty Club [PAFLU] v. Feati University, et al., 58
SCRA 395). It must be conceded that some disorder is unfortunately quite usual in any
extensive or long drawn out strike. As strike is essentially a battle waged with economic
weapons. Engaged in it are human beings whose feelings are stirred to the depths.
Rising passions call forth hot words. Hot words lead to blows on the picket line. The
transformation from economic to physical combat by those engaged in the contest is
difficult to prevent even when cool heads direct the fight (The Insular Life Assurance
Co., Ltd. Employees Association-NATU v. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., 37 SCRA
244).
A strike that is valid, if violent in character, may become illegal. Care is to be
taken, however, especially where an unfair labor practice is involved, to avoid stamping
it with illegality just because it is tainted by such acts. To avoid rendering illusory the
recognition of the right to strike, responsibility in such a case should be individual and
not collective. But if the existence of force while the strike lasts is widespread,
consistently and deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy, it could be reasonably
concluded then that even if the ends are justified, it becomes illegal because of the means
employed (Almira et al. v. B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc., et. Al., 58 SCRA 120).
What is the role of police and military personnel during strikes?
Police and military personnel shall maintain themselves outside a fifty (50) meter
radius from the picket line such that their presence may prevent the commission of
criminal acts from either side. They may, however, take any measure necessary to
maintain peace and order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the law and legal
order, as when actual violence or other criminal acts occur. Any arrest or seizure in strike
areas may be done only on the basis of an existing and valid warrant of arrest/search or
seizure or in accordance with the rules on citizens arrest. (Article 264 [d], Labor
Code/Guidelines on the Conduct of INP/AFP Personnel During Strikes, Lockout and
Labor Disputes in General, October 22, 1987).

In case the PNP is deputized to enforce orders from the Department of Labor, the
role of the PNP is merely to assist the sheriff of the appropriate DOLE officers in
enforcing the decision, award or order. It shall maintain peace and order and public
safety in the area where the decision, award or order is to be enforced. It shall also give
security to the officers enforcing the decision, award or order (Ibid.).
May the union claim good faith as a defense in case the ground of the strike turns
out to be inexistent?
Yet. It was held in several cases that a strike may be considered legal when the
union believed that the respondent company committed unfair labor acts and the
circumstances justified such belief in good faith although subsequently such allegations
of unfair labor practices are found out as not true (Peoples Industrial and Commercial
Employees and Workers Organization, et al., v. Peoples Industrial and Commercial
Corporation, et. Al., 112 SCRA 440).
It is not required that there be in fact an unfair labor practice committed b y the
employer. It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as the inducing
factor for staging a strike (Shell Oil Workers Union v. Shell Company of the Philippines,
Ltd., 39 SCRA 276).
Can the State interfere with the exercise of the right to strike?
Yes. However, Article 263, paragraph (g) of the Labor Code, which allows the
Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute involving an industry
indispensable to the national interest, provides an exception:
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to
cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest,
the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the
dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory
arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as
specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken
place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out
employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. x x x
This provision is viewed as an exercise of the police power of the State. A prolonged
strike or lockout can be inimical to the national economy and, therefore, the situation
is imbued with public necessity and involves the right of the State and the public to
self-protection.( G.R. No. 140518
December 16, 2004

MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, and THE MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL, respondents.)

What would be the effect of such assumption of jurisdiction or certification?

It automatically prohibits the intended or impending strike. If one has already
taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking employees must
immediately return to work and the employer must immediately resume operations and
readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout (Article 263 [g], Labor Code).
Who determines what industries are considered as indispensable to the national
interest?
The Code vests the President of the Philippines and the Secretary of Labor and
Employment almost unlimited discretion as to what industries may be considered as
indispensable to the national interest (Article 263 [g], Labor Code).
What is the nature of a return-to-work order?
The return-to-work order imposes a duty that must be discharged more than it
confers a right that may be waived. While the worker may choose not to obey, he does so
at the risk of severing his relationship with his employer. Those workers who refuse to
obey the said order and instead wage a strike are not entitled to be paid for work not done
or to reinstatement to the positions they have abandoned by their refusal to return thereto
as ordered (Asian Transmission Corporation v. NLRC, 179 SCRA 582).
A return to work order is immediately effective and executor notwithstanding the
filing of a motion for reconsideration. It must be strictly complied with even during the
pendency of any petition questioning its validity (St. Scholasticas College v. Torres, 210
SCRA 565).
What is the Anti-Scab Law?
The Anti-Scab Law (R.A. No. 3600) provides that:
a) it is unlawful for any employer to employ strike-breakers;
b) it is unlawful for any person to be knowingly employed as a strike-breaker;

c) it is unlawful for any peace officer or military person to bring in, introduce or
escort any strike-breaker in entering or leaving any strike area.
E. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
What procedural limitations are imposed on the right to strike?
Under Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, no labor organization can declare a
strike without: a) having bargained collectively or b) having filed notice of intention to
strike, or c) obtaining the necessary strike votes. Furthermore, Article 263 (c) & (e)
requires the observance of the cooling-off period before any strike may be declared.
A strike can not be declared: a) after the assumption of jurisdiction by the
President or Secretary; b) after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or
voluntary arbitration; and c) during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for
strike (Ibid).
What is the cooling-off period?
The cooling-off period is the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing
of the notice of strike before the lapse of which the union may not strike. The law intends
to provide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation and effect a voluntary settlement
of the dispute during the cooling-off period. Should the dispute remain unsettled until
the lapse of this period, the union may strike.
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the cooling-off period is thirty (30) days from
the filing of notice of strike with the regional branch of the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board and before the intended date thereof.
In cases of unfair labor practices, the period shall be fifteen (15) days (Ibid.).
May the union strike without observing the cooling-off period?
Yes. In case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in
accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute unfair labor
practices involving union-busting where the existence of the union is threatened, the
fifteen (15) day cooling-off period will not apply and the union may take action
immediately after the strike vote is conducted and the results thereof submitted to the
DOLE (Article 263 [c], Labor Code).
How is a strike vote conducted?
A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union
membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or
referenda called for that purpose. The Department of Labor and Employment may, at its

own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the
balloting. The union is obliged to furnish the DOLE with the results of the voting at least
seven (7) days before the intended strike, subject to the cooling-off period applicable in
the particular case (Article 263 [f], Labor Code: Appendix A, B, B-1.
What are the contents of the notice to strike?
The notice must state, among others:
a) the names and addresses of the employer and the union involved;
b) the nature of the industry to which the employer belongs;
c) the number of union members and of the workers in the bargaining unit; and
d) such other relevant data as may facilitate the settlement of all pending labor
disputes involving the same parties (Appendic C).
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice should, as far as practicable, further
state the unresolved issues in the bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the
written proposals of the union, the counter-proposals of the employer and the proof of a
request for conference to settle the differences.
In cases of unfair labor practice, the notice should, as far as practicable, state the
acts complained of and the efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably (Section 4, Rule
XIII, Book V, Implementing Rules).
What is the role of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NMCB) in case
a notice of strike or lockout is filed?
When a valid notice of strike or lockout is filed with the NMCB, its conciliatormediators shall call the parties to a conference the soonest possible time in order to
actively assist them to explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. The ConciliatorMediator shall seek to settle the disagreement or conflict between the parties by
performing preventive conciliation and mediation functions and may offer or suggest
proposals for the prompt resolution of the same. In case conciliation and mediation fails,
he shall encourage the parties to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration (Executive
Order No. 251, July 25, 1987).
What is the effect of improved offer balloting on strikes?
When a majority of the union members, in a referendum by secret balloting
conducted by the DOLE on the 30th day of the strike, votes to accept the improved offer

of the employer, the striking workers must immediately return to work and the employer
must readmit them upon the signing of the agreement (Article 265, Labor Code).
F. CONSEQUENCES OF STRIKE
Would the mere illegality of a strike prevent reinstatement of striking workers?
No, the mere illegality of the strike would not prevent reinstatement of strikers,
particularly the rank-and-file members who may have been misled by their leaders
(Cesario A. Azucena, The Philippine Labor Code. Vol. II, 1991 ed., p. v. 203).
A union member may not be held responsible for the unions illegal strike on the
sole basis of such membership or on account of his having voted affirmatively for the
holding of the strike later declared illegal. There must be a clear proof of actual
participation in the illegal strike (Esso Philippines, Inc., v. Malayang Manggagawa sa
Esso [MME], 75 SCRA 73).
What are backwages?
Backwages are what an employee has lost in the way of wages due to his
dismissal. It is computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him to the
time of his reinstatement.
Are dismissed employees entitled to backwages in case of an unfair labor practices
strike?
It depends. Discriminatorily dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement
with backwages computed from the date of the act of discrimination, that is, from the
date of their discharge. They did not strike voluntarily, hence, the award of backwages.
However, those who voluntarily went on strike even if in protect against what
they considered the employers unfair labor practices are not entitled to back pay. They
are only entitled to reinstatement. The stoppage of their work was not the direct
consequence of the companys ULP. Hence, their economic loss should not be shifted to
the employer. To entitle them to backpay, the strikers must have made an unconditional
offer to return to work under the same conditions under which they work just before the
strike which the company rejected. The refusal would have placed on the company the
blame for their economic loss (Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers UnionPUTC v. CIR, 12 SCRA 124, citing Dinglasan v. National Labor Union, 106 Phil. 671).
In an economic strike, are the striking workers entitled to backwages?
No, the strikers are not entitled to backwages on the principle that a fair days
wage accrues only for a fair days labor, meaning that, if there is no work performed

by an employee there can be no wage or pay (Consolidated Labor Association of the

Philippines v. Marsman & Co., Inc., 11 SCRA 589).
Is the right to backwages absolute?
No. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. v.
CIR (70 Phil. 340) that the right to back pay is not absolute but subject to the discretion
of the Industrial Court.
May the employer replace the striking workers during the pendency of the strike?
It depends. In case of an economic strike, the employer may hire replacement
employees to continue and protect his business, and is not bound to discharge such
replacements in the event that the strikers decide to resume their employment
(Consolidated Labor Association of the Philippines v. Marsman and Co., Inc., 11 SCRA
589).
On the other hand, while replacements may also be hired by the employer to take
the places left vacant by employees engaged in an unfair labor practice strike (or lockout), if no job sufficiently and satisfactorily comparable to that previously held by the
returning striker (or locked-out worker) can be found, the employer must discharge the
replacement employee, if necessary, to restore the striking (or locked-out) worker to his
old comparable position (The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association v.
The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., 37 SCRA 244).
What is reinstatement?
Reinstatement refers to a restoration to a state from which one has been removed
or separated. It is the return to the position from which he was removed and assuming
again the function of the office already held (Union of Supervisors [RB]-NATU v.
Secretary of Labor, 128 SCRA 442).
Is the reinstatement of striking employees a matter of right?
Generally, yes. It is said that striking employees are entitled to reinstatement
whether or not the strike was the consequence of the employers unfair labor practice,
unless, where the strike was not due to any unfair labor practice, the employer has hired
replacement employees and has promised them continued employment [Cromwell
Commercial Employees and Laborers Union [PTUC] v. CIR, 12 SCRA 124, citing Teller,
pp. 396-397).
Are discriminatorily discharged employees always entitled to reinstatement?
No. Although discriminatorily discharged, employees may be denied
reinstatement because of unlawful conduct or of violence (Cromwell Commercial

Employees and Laborer Union [PTUC] v. CIR, 12 SCRA 124). However, it is only those
who had been found guilty of unlawful acts who should be penalized by the loss of the
right of reinstatement (Consolidated Labor Association of the Philippines v. Marsman
Co., Inc., 11 SCRA 589).
Is the right to reinstatement provided for in the labor Code?
Yes. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to his
backwages computed from the time his compensation was with held from him to the time
of his reinstatement.
May a dismissed employee be reinstated despite having found employment
somewhere else during the pendency of the ULP case?
Yes. The bare fact of his being actually employed elsewhere in any capacity
cannot affect his right to reinstatement, for the option is his to return or not to return to
his former work upon knowing of the order of offer of reinstatement. If he opts to return,
he has to be reinstated, subject to the conditions as to his backwages; if he refuses to
return or imposes uncalled for conditions, then and only then would his right to
reinstatement cease, although he would nonetheless be entitled to the same backwages up
to the time of such refusal East Asiatic Co., Ltd. V. CIR, 40 SCRA 521).
What is the remedy available to an illegally dismissed employee in case his
reinstatement becomes impossible?
The normal consequences of a finding that an employee has been illegally
dismissed are, first, that the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement to his former
position without loss of seniority rights and, secondly, the payment of backwages
corresponding to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement (Salaw v.
NLC, 202 SCRA 7; Carandang v. Dulay, 188 SCRA 792).
Where reinstatement of illegal dismissed employee is no longer feasible because
of strained relations between the parties, separation pay may be awarded in lieu thereof,
to be computed at one months pay per year of service (Carandang v. Dulay, 188 SCRA
792).

Is the pari-delicto rule applicable in strikes and lock-outs?

Yes. When the parties are in pari delicto the employees having staged an illegal
strike and the employer having declared an illegal lock-out such situation warrants the
restoration of the status quo ante and bringing back the parties to their respective
positions before the illegal strike and illegal lockout through reinstatement, without
backwages, of the dismissed employees (Philippine Inter-Fashion, Inc. v. NLRC et al.,
117 SCRA 659).
Would the resignation of striking workers render ineffective the execution and
implementation of the order of the National Labor Relations Commission granting
their demands under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)?
No. The benefits of a CBA extend not only to the members of the certified
bargaining agent but to all the rank and file employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, the
resignation of the striking workers notwithstanding, the execution and implementation of
the order would benefit the other workers who have remained with the employer (citing
Azucena, Commodity Transport Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. 84926, May 8, 1989).
III. OTHER FORMS OF CONCERTED UNION ACTIVITIES
PICKETING
What is picketing?
Picketing refers to the activity of strikers whereby patrols are placed at or near the
place of employment and these patrols employ placards, speech and other means of
communication to make known the existence of a labor dispute, to persuade non-striking
workers to join the strike, and to persuade other persons to cooperate with the strikers by
not dealing with the employer during the pendency of the strike. The means employed
are communication and persuasion (Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, p. 702).
Picketing, as part of the constitutional freedom of expression and as a legitimate
weapon of labor consists of inducing workers or third persons through fair persuasion to
withhold dealing with the employer. It does not include molestation or physical harm and
even material and fraudulent misrepresentation (Ibid, citing Garma v. Villanueva, SP14038-SCA, April 30, 1982).
What are the main functions of picketing?
Picketing serves to:
a) ascertain the identity of the workers and/or patrons who do not wish to
cooperate with the picketers;

b) inform the public of the issue between the picketers and the employer or
employers concerned;
c) dissuade employees from working with such employer or employers and the
public from patronizing the latter; and
d) display strength or unity and boost the morale of the workers.
What are the limitations of the right to picket? Is it subject to regulation?
Yes. The right may be regulated at the request of third parties or innocent
bystanders if it appears that the inevitable result of the picket is to create an impression
that a labor dispute [with which they have no connection or interest] exists between them
and the picketing union, or constitutes an invasion of their rights (Philippine Association
of Free Labor Unions v. Cloribel, et al., 27 SCRA 465).
Picketing as a concerted activity is subject to the same limitations as strike,
particularly as to lawful purpose and lawful means. Like freedom of expression in
general, it has its limits. Thus, to the extent that it is an instrument of coercion rather than
of persuasion, it cannot rightfully be entitled to the protection associated with free speech
(Security Bank Employees Union v. Security Bank and Trust Co., 23 SCRA 503).
What acts are specifically prohibited by law in connection with picketing?
Acts specifically prohibited in connection with picketing are:
a) acts that obstruct, impede or interfere with by force, violence, coercion,
threats or intimidation any peaceful picketing by employees during any labor
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-organization or collective
bargaining or that aid or abet such obstruction or interference (Article 264 (b),
Labor Code).
b) acts of violence, coercion, or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or
egress from the employers premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public
thoroughfares (Article 264 (e), Ibid).
May picketing be resorted to without a strike?
Yes. While picketing may be resorted to in furtherance of a strike, it is an activity
which may be distinct from the latter inasmuch as it may not necessarily arise from an
industrial or labor dispute nor may it result in the temporary stoppage of work. As a
distinct activity, peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of expression; it is a part of
the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution.
Do concerted activities include only strikes and picketing?

No. There are other activities in which union members may involve themselves
for their mutual aid and protection in regard to their interests, among these are the
following:
LETTER WRITING
At least two employees acting in concert with other employees may voice their
grievances against (an officer in the company) through a letter signed and published by
them (Republic Savings Bank v. CIR, 21 SCRA 226).
PUBLICITY
Striking employees have a right to acquaint the public of the existence of a strike
stating claims in a controversy over terms and conditions of employment, by sign,
handbill, or newspaper advertisement as a legitimate means of economic coercion (31
Am. Jur., Sec. 274. p. 968).
PLACARDS AND BANNERS
It is generally conceded that a striker having the right to apprise the public of the
strike and solicit its support may inscribe his grievances upon placards and banners to be
seen at a distance and to be read by many at the same time, and that he may carry such
placards or banners upon a public street, provided the inscription is not libelous or
unlawful (31 Am. Jur., Sec. 278, p. 971).
SPEECHES, MUSIC AND BROADCAST
It is not unlawful for a labor organization in a radio broadcast, without employing
threat or intimidation, to express its honest opinion on the fairness of an employer toward
organized labor and to advise the public and friends of labor not to patronize him. Nor is
it unlawful to drive through streets a vehicle which bears signs that are not unlawful and
is equipped with apparatus for broadcasting music (31 Am. Jur., Sec. 285, p. 975).
BOYCOTT
A boycott may include any activity on the part of a labor organization which seeks
through concerted action, other than by reason of lawful competition, to obtain
withdrawal of public patronage from one in business (Burke v. Adams Dairy, Inc., 352
U.S. 969).
The essential idea of boycotting is a confederation, generally secret, of many
persons whose intent is to injure another by preventing any and all persons from doing
business with him, through fear of incurring the displeasure, persecution, and vengeance
of the conspirators (Crump v. Commonwealth, 84 Va. 927).

Is boycott lawful?
Employees may lawfully exert economic pressure on their employer by means of
a boycott, provided they act peaceably and honesty. They have a right to persuade the
public by any lawful means to refuse to patronize the employer. Union members are
entitled to advise the public of the existence of their controversy with the employer and
may request their friends and public generally to assist them by not patronizing the
employer. In doing so, there is no element of threat or coercion or unlawful interference
with anothers business (51A, C.J.S. Section 286, pp. 64-65).
What are the different kinds of boycott?
A boycott may be primary or secondary.
Primary boycott is a combination to refrain from dealing with an employer, or to
advise or by peaceful means to persuade his customer to refrain. The organization which
initiates the boycott applies it directly and alone to the offending person by withdrawing
from him all business relations (31 Am. Jur., Sec. 252, p. 957).
A secondary boycott is a combination not merely to refrain from dealing with a
person, or to advise or by peaceable means persuade his customers to refrain, but to
exercise coercive pressure upon such customers, actual or prospective, in order to cause
them to withhold or withdraw patronage from him through fear of loss or damage to
themselves should they deal with him (Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Dering, 254 U S
443).
What is the test of a lawful boycott?
Boycott may be lawful or unlawful depending on the means and methods, and the
ends intended to be accomplished.
Except in industrial disputes, boycotting may be a conspiracy. In such disputes
the primary boycott is now generally legal. The secondary boycott has often been
prohibited by statute or judicial decision, but in many jurisdiction, its legality has been
established (Sibal, Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, p. 94).
IV. LIABILITIES AND REMEDIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
What civil action may a labor organization take against a party who interferes with
the right of the workers to engage in concerted activities?
If the workers are engaged in lawful strike or picketing, they may file an action
under Articles 19, 20, 21 and 32 of the New Civil Code for damages against the employer
or any party who may be obstructing the workers exercise of their civil liberties.

Are the labor organization and its members liable for any injury to any party
during or as a result of the strike?
The efforts of labor organizations by any lawful means to attain their legitimate
objects will not make them or their members liable for damages to those who may be
directly or indirectly injured by such efforts. If any injury results to anyone, it will be
considered merely as incidental and damnum absque injuria (Asuzena, citing 31 Am. Jur.,
Sec. 135, p. 492).
May a labor organization be held liable for the unlawful acts of its officers and
members?
Generally, no. where illegal acts are committed in the course of a strike which
resulted in damages to the company, responsibility for such acts is individual and not
collective. The standing rule is that for a labor union and/or its officials and members to
be liable, there must be clear proof of actual participation in, or authorization or
ratification of the illegal acts (Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v. BCI Employees and Workers
Union-PAFLU, 23 SCRA 465, citing Rothenberg, p. 202).
Is boycott lawful?
Employees may lawfully exert economic pressure on their employer by means of
a boycott, provided they act peaceably and honestly. They have a right to persuade the
public by any lawful means to refuse to patronize the employer. Union members are
entitled to advise the public of the existence of their controversy with the employer and
may request their friends and public generally to assist them by not patronizing the
employer. In doing so, there is no element of threat or coercion or unlawful interference
with anothers business (51A, C.J.S. Section 286, pp. 64-65).
What are the different kinds of boycott?
A boycott may be primary or secondary.
Primary boycott is a combination to refrain from dealing with an employer, or to
advise or by peaceful means to persuade his customer to refrain. The organization which
initiates the boycott applies it directly and alone to the offending person by withdrawing
from him all business relations (31 Am. Jur., Sec. 252, p. 957).
A secondary boycott is a combination not merely to refrain from dealing with a
person, or to advise or by peaceable means persuade his customers to refrain, but to
exercise coercive pressure upon such customers, actual or prospective, in order to cause
them to withhold or withdraw patronage from him through fear of loss or damage to
themselves should they deal with him (Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Dering, 254 U S
443).

What is the test of a lawful boycott?

Boycott may be lawful or unlawful depending on the means and methods, and the
ends intended to be accomplished.
Except in industrial disputes, boycotting may be a conspiracy. In such disputes
the primary boycott is now generally legal. The secondary boycott has often been
prohibited by statute or judicial decision, but in many jurisdiction, its legality has been
established (Sibal, Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, p. 94).
IV. LIABILITIES AND REMEDIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
What civil action may a labor organization take against a party who interferes with
the right of the workers to engage in concerted activities?
If the workers are engaged in lawful strike or picketing, they may file an action
under Articles 19, 20, 21 and 32 of the New Civil Code for damages against the employer
or any party who may be obstructing the workers exercise of their civil liberties.
Are the labor organization and its members liable for any injury to any party
during or as a result of the strike?
The efforts of labor organizations by any lawful means to attain their legitimate
objects will not make them or their members liable for damages to those who may be
directly or indirectly injured by such efforts. If any injury results to anyone, it will be
considered merely as incidental and damnum absque injuria (Azucena, citing 31 Am. Jur.,
Sec. 135, p. 492).
May a labor organization be held liable for the unlawful acts of its officers and
members?
Generally, no. Where illegal acts are committed in the course of a strike which
resulted in damages to the company, responsibility for such acts is individual and not
collective. The standing rule is that for a labor union and/or its officials and members to
be liable, there must be clear proof of actual participation in, or authorization or
ratification of the illegal acts (Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v. BCI Employees and Workers
Union-PAFLU, 23 SCRA 465, citing Rothenberg, p. 202).
Are union officers liable for the unlawful acts of the union and its members?
When the acts of labor unions and their members are wrongful (tortious) acts, the
officers participating in such wrongful acts are liable for the resulting damages
irrespective of the fact that they were acting in behalf of the union. Officers of labor
unions are also liable for unlawful and tortious acts done pursuant to a conspiracy to
which unions are a party (Azucena, citing 31 Am. Jur., Sec. 135, p. 498).

May a worker be held liable for the unlawful acts of the union and its officers?
As a rule, members of labor unions are not subject to civil liability for the acts of
the union or its officers as such, unless it is shown that they personally authorized or
participated in the particular acts, and the liability of a member of a labor union for the
wrongful acts of his associates done without his knowledge or approval is not to be
inferred from mere membership in the union.
However, members of a labor union are liable for damages resulting from
particular acts which they participate in or which are performed at their direction or
pursuant to a delegation of authority by them (Consolidated Labor Association of the
Philippines v. Marsman & Co., Inc., 11 SCRA 589).
What is the liability of labor unions which engage in unlawful boycott?
A person against whom an unlawful boycott has been instituted may have an
action for damages suffered against any and all of the persons who have combined
against him, provided there is a casual connection between the acts complained of and the
damage suffered (31 Am. Jur., pp. 499).
May a striking union be held liable for interfering with the right of non-striking
workers to work?
Yes. An action for damages will lie against anyone, including a labor union, its
officers or members, or a former employer, who unlawfully prevents one from procuring
employment, or who intentionally and without legal justification or excuse procures the
discharge of an employee, to the damage of such employee (31 Am. Jur., p. 500).
What is a writ of injunction?
The term injunction may have reference to the suit itself or the writ or process
issued pursuant to the order or decree therein. Taken as a suit, it is a form of equitable
proceeding which is designed to protect from irreparable injury, property or other rights
of which a court of equity will take cognizance, by commanding acts to be done or
prohibiting their commission. It directs the persons named therein to refrain from doing
certain specified acts which appear to be against equity or conscience (Moreno,
Philippine Law Dictionary, p. 475-476).
The office of an injunction is either to require one to refrain from a particular act
or compel him to restore a disturbed substantive right to its status quo, as the case may be
(Ibid., p. 475, citing Candelaria v. Reyes, 18020-R, September 12, 1956).
Are labor disputes subject to injunction?

No. Article 254 of the Labor Code states the rule that labor disputes are generally
not subject to injunction in consonance with the declared policy under Article 211 (a) to
promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations,
including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or
individual disputes.
However, the protective force of law will be applied when prohibited or unlawful
acts are being or about to be committed that will cause grave or irreparable damage to the
complaining partys property. Where Article 264, regarding prohibited acts, is being
violated, the anti-injunction policy will be brushed aside and a writ of injunction or
restraining order will issue.
What are the requirements of a valid issuance of injunction?
Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code enumerates the requirements of a valid issuance
of injunction, namely:
a) unlawful acts are being committed or threatened to be committed;
b) the acts, if not enjoined or if not performed, may cause grave or irreparable
damage;
c) as to each item of relief, the injury to complainant will be greater if the
injunction is denied than to defendant if it is granted;
d) complainant has no adequate remedy at law;
e) public officers are unwilling or unable to do their duty to adequately protect
complainants property.
f) witnesses must be herd and opportunity for cross-examination provided;
g) the complaint is made under oath;
What is the extent of the power of the NLRC to issue injunctions or restraining
orders?
Article 218 (e), as amended, of the Labor Code gives the NLRC the power to
enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or
unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which,
if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause irreparable damage to any party or
render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party.
What are some specific instances of a valid injunction?

(a) An injunction is valid when it was issued not against the strike or picketing
itself, but against acts of violence and intimidation committed against officials
of the employer and non-striking employees which on their face were
unjustified, not to say unlawful (Meralco Workers Union v. Yatco, et al., 19
SCRA 177).
(b) An injunction commanding the members of the striking union to stop from
preventing the employer of a company from entering the premises which it
had leased from the strike-bound company, a distinct entity, is lawful. It did
not prevent the strikes from picketing their employer (Republic Flour Mills
Workers Association v. Reyes, 18 SCRA 796).
What are some specific instances of an invalid injunction?
(a) Regular courts are without authority to issue injunction orders in cases
involving or originating from labor disputes even if the complaint was filed by
non-striking employees and the employer was also made a defendant to the
action (Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. De Los Angeles, 64 SCRA
262).
(b) The CFI (RTC) has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions in a labor dispute even
if the complainant is a customer of the strike-bound employer involved in the
labor dispute arising from an unfair labor practice (Associated Labor union v.
Gomez, 96 SCRA 262).
What criminal actions may be filed as a consequence of a strike?
If any of the strikes suffer physical injuries because of such act of the employer or
his hired goons, he may file an action for physical injuries under Article 263 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
An action for threats (Articles 282, 283 and 285, RPC) and coercion (Articles
286, 287 and 288) may likewise be filed against the party employing the threat or
coercion, who may be the employer, the hired goon, or the police officer or policeman
concerned.
Article 289 provides sanctions on the use of threats and violence in preventing the
strike of laborers.
What procedural limitation is imposed in the prosecution of criminal actions
resulting from a labor dispute?
Circular No. 15, Series of 1982 and Circular No. 9, Series of 1986, issued by the
Ministry of Justice on the implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 227 require fiscals
and other government prosecutors to first secure the clearance of the Ministry

(Department) of Labor and/or the Office of the President before investigating complaint
and filing information of cases arising out of or related to a labor dispute, including
allegations of violence, coercion, physical injuries, assault upon a person in authority and
other similar acts of intimidation obstructing the free ingress to and egress from a factory
or place of operation of the machines of such factory, or the employers premises
(Sarmiento v. Tuico, 162 SCRA 676).
What would be the effect of failure to secure such clearance?
The criminal cases will be suspended until the completion of the compulsory
arbitration proceedings in the NLRC (Ibid.).
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE OF NOTICE TO HOLD STRIKE VOTE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
MANILA
IN RE:

Notice to Hold Strike

Vote at (Name of Corporation)
CASE NO. ____________

(Name of Union)
Petitioner.
x--------------------------------x
NOTICE TO HOLD STRIKE VOTE
(Name of Union) respectfully requests this Honorable Office for a representative
to observe the strike vote that will be conducted by the union on March 16, 1988 at 12:00
noon at the (Name of Corporation) compound at (Address).
Manila, Philippines, March 11, 1988.
(Print Name)
President
(Name of Corporation)

ACK NOWLEDG EMENTS:

The research and writing of this Primer was primarily undertaken by Mr. Anthony
William K. Velicaria, U.P. law student, under the control and supervision of FLAG
lawyers.
To Mr. Velicaria and the FLAG lawyers, FLAG extends its special thanks.
PRIMER: Legal Rights of Workers
Right to Self-Organization
RIGHT TO CONCERTED UNION ACTIVITIES
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE OF STRIKE VOTES REPORT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
REGION NO. IV, QUEZON CITY
IN RE:
AT:

NOTICE OF STRIKE
(Name of Corporation)
CASE NO. ________

(Name of Union)
Petitioner.
x---------------------------x
STRIKE VOTE REPORT
The union respectfully reports that on
(Date)
a strike vote was
conducted among union members at the said company. Majority of the union members
voted in favor of the strike.
Strike vote results is attached as Annex A. (Appendix B-1 of this primer).
Quezon City, November 2, 1987.
(Print Name)
Union President
(Name of Union)

APPENDIX B-1
SAMPLE OF STRIKE VOTES RESULTS
Annex A
STRIKE VOTES RESULT
On
(Date)
, 19_____, the union called for a general membership
meeting for purposes of holding a strike vote. The issues were exhaustively discussed.
The question asked by secret ballot was:
Gusto ba niyong magwelga dahil sa Unfair Labor Practice ng
management:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Pagtanggal sa ating president na si

(Name)
Pagtanggal sa ating PRO na si
(Name)
Pagsuspende sa ating tatlong Union board members noon
(Iba pang mga dahilan)

The results were as follows:

Total of Union members . 184
Members present .
145
In favor (YES) 103
Against (NO) .
51
Invalid Votes .
0
The YES votes constitute majority of the union membership.
(Place)

(Date)

, 19______.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:
(Print Name)
Union Secretary
(Print Name)
Asst. Secretary
Attested by:
(Print Name)
Union President

SOURCES
Everybodys Labor Code
Primer on Strike, Picketing. And Lockout, 2nd Edition. NCMB, 1995