**Cases

Digested After Midterms**

CASE TITLE FACTS
1. Ilaw at Buklod ng Mangagawa (IBM) v • IBM representing 4500 employees of
NLRC SMC working at various plants, offices
and warehouses in NCR presented to the
company a demand for correction of the
significant distortion in the workers’
wages pursuant to the Wage
Rationalization Act.
• Demand unheeded by company hence
the union members refused to render
overtime services until the distortion has
been corrected by SMC.
• It appears that the employees working
hours/schedule has been freely observed
by the employees for the past 5 years
and due to the abandonment of the
longstanding schedule of work and
reversion to the eight-hour shift
substantial losses were incurred by SMC.
ISSUE
WON the strike is illegal? Yes
HELD
• The strike invoking the issue of wage
distortion is illegal.
• The legality of these activities depends on
the legality of the purposes sought to be
attained.
• These joint or coordinated activities may be
forbidden or restricted by law or contract.
• The legislative intent that solution of
the problem of wage distortions shall be
sought by voluntary negotiation
or arbitration, and not by strikes,
lockouts, or other concerted activities of
the employees or management, is made
clear in the rules implementing RA 6727
issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment pursuant to the authority
granted by Section 13 of the Act. Section
16, Chapter I of these implementing rules,
after reiterating the policy that wage
distortions be first settled voluntarily by the
parties and eventually by compulsory
arbitration, declares that, “Any issue
involving wage distortion shall not be a
ground for a strike/lockout.”

2. Lapanday Workers Union v NLRC
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
• Lapanday Agricultural and Development
Corporation (LADECO) and Cadeco
Argo Development Phils Inc. are sister
companies engaged in the production of
bananas in Davao
• They agreed to (CBA) covering the
period from December 5, 1985 to
November 30, 1988 with Lapanday
Workers’ Union (Union).
• Said union is the duly certified
bargaining agent of the rank and file
employees and is affiliated with the KMU-
ANGLO.
• City Mayor Duterte intervened but the
dialogues proved fruitless as sister
companies refused to withdraw the cases
earlier filed with the Union.
• Thereafter, a strike vote was conducted
among the members of the Union and
those in favor of the strike won
overwhelming support from the workers.
• The result of the strike vote was then
submitted to the NCMB on October 10,
1988. 2 days later, the Union struck.
• The gunman was later identified as
Eledio Samson, an alleged member of
the new security forces of sister
companies. This incident resulted to:
• most of the members of the Union
refused to report for work
• they did not comply with the “quota
system” adopted by the management to
bolster production output
WON the strike is illegal? Yes
• The haste in holding the strike prevented
the DOLE from verifying whether it carried
the approval of the majority of the union
members.
• Hence, there was no grave abuse of
discretion committed.
• The applicable laws are Articles 263 and
264 of the Labor Code
• 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: Provided that mere participation of a
worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute
sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had
been hired by the employer during such
lawful strike.
1

3. Gold City Integrated Port
(INPORT) v NLRC
4. NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF DUSIT
NIKKO CHAPTER v. CA
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
• there were allegations that the Union
instructed the workers to reduce their
production to thirty per cent (30%).
Service • P’s employees stopped working and
gathered in a mass action to express
th
their grievances regarding wages, 13
month and hazard pay.
• Said employees were all members of the
Macajalar Labor Union — Federation of
Free Workers (MLU-FFW) with whom
petitioner had an existing collective
bargaining agreement.
• Petitioner was engaged in stevedoring
and arrastre services at the port of
Cagayan de Oro.
• The strike paralyzed operations at said
port.
• The strikers filed individual notices of
strike (“Kaugalingon nga Declarasyon sa
Pag-Welga”) with the then Ministry of
Labor and Employment.
• With the failure of conciliation
conferences between petitioner and the
strikers, INPORT filed a complaint before
the Labor Arbiter for Illegal Strike with
prayer for a restraining order/preliminary
injunction.
HOTEL • NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko
Union filed a notice of strike due to
bargaining deadlock in its CBA
negotiation with the Hotel.
• A Strike Vote was conducted.
Subsequently, some Union members
decided to sport closely cropped hair or
cleanly shaven hair.
• They were prevented to enter the Hotel
premises due to violation of Hotel
Grooming Standards.
• In view of this, the Union proceeded
with the strike, which led to the Hotel’s
temporary cessation of operation
because of lack of manpower.
• The Hotel terminated 29 Union officers
and 61 members and suspended others.
WON the separation pay and backwages should be
awarded by public respondent NLRC to participants
of an illegal strike?
WON the Union is guilty for illegal strike? YES
• Reinstatement and backwages or, if no
longer feasible, separation pay, can only be
granted if sufficient bases exist under the
law, particularly after a showing of illegal
dismissal.
• However, while the union members may
thus be entitled under the law to be
reinstated or to receive separation pay,
their expulsion from the union in
accordance with the collective bargaining
agreement renders the same impossible.
• A strike, considered as the most effective
weapon of labor, is defined as any
temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result
of an industrial or labor dispute.
• A labor dispute includes any controversy or
matter concerning terms or 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 or not the disputants
stand in the proximate relation of employers
and employees.
• Union members among private
respondents are thus entitled to
reinstatement, there being no just cause for
their dismissal.
• No labor organization or employer shall
declare a strike or lockout without first
having bargained collectively in accordance
with Title VII of this Book or without first
having filed the notice required in the
preceding Article or without the necessary
strike or lockout vote first having been
obtained and reported to the Ministry.
• No strike or lockout shall be declared after
assumption of jurisdiction by the President
or the Minister or after certification or
submission of the dispute to compulsory or
voluntary arbitration or during the pendency
of cases involving the same grounds for the
strike or lockout.
• Any worker whose employment has been
terminated as a consequence of any
2

5. Sta. Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employee
Union vs Coca Cola Bottlers Phil
6. CCBPI Postmix Workers v NLRC
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
• SOLE assumed jurisdiction and certified
the case to NLRC for compulsory
arbitration.
• NLRC held the strike illegal,
• CA affirmed.
• The Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant
Employees Union is the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of
the regular daily paid workers and the
monthly paid non-commission-
earning employees of the Coca-Cola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (Company) in its
Sta. Rosa, Laguna plant.
• The Union decided to participate in a
mass action organized by the Alyansa in
front of the Company’s premises.
• Thus, the Union officers and members
held a picket along the front perimeter of
the plant on September 21, 1999.
• As a result, all of the 14 personnel of
the Engineering Section of the Company
did not report for work, and 71 production
personnel were also absent.
• Only one of the three bottling lines
operated during the day shift. All
the three lines were operated during the
night shift with cumulative downtime of
(5) hours due to lack of manning,
complement and skills requirement. The
volume of production for the day was
short by 60,000 physical cases versus
budget.
• After negotiations failed to produce any
agreement, the exclusive bargaining
agent of Coca-Cola decided to file a
notice of strike.
• Conciliation hearings were conducted but
were unavailing.
• The union conducted a strike vote on
April 14, which shoed that the members
were in favor of conducting a strike.
• On April 20, the union staged the strike.
• The company filed a petition to declare
the strike illegal as it was staged without
observing the mandatory seven-day
strike ban and that it was staged in bad
faith.
• The company then fired alleged union
officers by virtue of the illegal strike.
WON the strike by petitioner as picketing, is illegal?
WON the strike was legal? YES
WON the termination of the employees (union
officers ) valid?
unlawful lockout shall be entitled to
reinstatement with full backwages.
• 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: Provided,
That mere participation of a worker in a
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient
ground for termination of his employment,
even if a replacement had been hired by the
employer during such lawful strike. (Art
279(a))
• The purpose of pickets is said to be a
means of peaceable persuasion.
• The basic elements of a strike are present
in this case. They marched to and in front
of the company’s premises during working
hours.
• Thus, petitioners engaged in a concerted
activity which already affected the
company’s operations. The mass
concerted activity constituted a strike.
• The strike was illegal for failure to observe
the mandatory requirements of Articles 264
and 265 of the Labor Code.
• The failure of the union to observe the 7-
day strike ban made the strike illegal.
• While the strike vote was conducted around
7:30 am to 8:45 am and the strike held on
April 20 was around 8:30 am, the Civil Code
states that in computing a period, the first
day shall be excluded and the last day
included.
• hence the failure to observe 7 days.
• However, the dismissal of the strikers
was not valid.
• The employees were mere union members
and not officers who should not be
dismissed unless they knowingly
participate in illegal acts during a strike.
• Although these employees signed the CBA,
nowhere in these documents can it be
3

7. San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC
8. Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. NLRC
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
• San Miguel Corporation (SMC), which
allegedly needed to streamline its
operations due to financial losses shut
down some of its plants and declared 55
positions as redundant.
• Consequently, the PResp union
(SMCEU) filed several grievance cases
for the said retrenched employees,
praying for the redeployment of the said
employees to the other divisions of the
company.
• During the grievance proceedings, most
of the employees were redeployed, while
others accepted early retirement.
• As a result, only 17 employees remained
when the parties proceeded to the third
level of the grievance procedure.
• The PResp filed with the NCMB of the
DOLE a notice of strike.
• P SMC moved to dismiss the notice of
strike, but the NCMB failed to act on the
motion.
• SMC filed a complaint with the
respondent NLRC praying for the
dismissal of the notice of strike, and an
order compelling the respondent union to
submit to grievance and arbitration the
issue listed in the notice of strike, and the
recovery of the expenses of litigation.
• R NLRC came out with a minute
resolution dismissing the complaint.
Aggrieved by the resolution, petitioner
found its way to this Court via the present
petition.
• Private respondent Ramon Canonicato
was hired as a janitor by the Bacolod
Janitorial Services (BJS).
• He was assigned at the Coca Cola
Bottlers, Inc. considering his familiarity
with its premises, having been a previous
casual employee there.
• On July 23, 1993, respondent filed with
the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal
dismissal and underpayment of wages.
• He included BJS therein as a co-
respondent.
• LArbiter- dismissed the complaint and
ruled that there was employer-employee
relationship between Canonicato and
Coca Cola.
• NLRC- rejected the decision of the
LArbiter on the ground that the janitorial
services of Canonicato were found to be
WON the NLRC is correct?
WON lower court is correct? Petition granted.
found that the cited employees signed it as
union officers.
• Their active participation in the negotiations
did not render them union officers.
• In the case under consideration, the
grounds relied upon by the private
respondent union are non-strikeable.
• Their grounds appear more illusory than
real.
• The Court held that the violation of the CBA
is chargeable against the private
respondent union.
• The Supreme Court granted the instant
petition.
• SMCEU-PTGWO was directed to complete
the third level of the Grievance Procedure
and proceed with the Arbitration
proceedings if necessary.
• Although janitorial services may be
considered directly related to the principal
business of an employer, the Court
deemed them unnecessary in the conduct
of the employer's principal business.
• This judicial notice however rests on the
assumption that the independent
contractor is a legitimate job contractor so
that there can be no doubt as to the
existence of an employer-employee
relationship between the contractor and
the worker.
• It is an altogether different matter when the
very existence of an employment
relationship is in question, as in the case at
bar.
• The Court ruled in Singer Sewing Machine
Company vs. Drilon;
• "Art. 280 is not the yardstick for
determining the existence of an
employment relationship because it merely
4
 necessary in the usual trade of Coca
Cola.
• Its motion for reconsideration having
been denied, Coca Cola filed this
petition.
9. PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION VS • The CBA between petitioner Philcom
PHILIPPINE GLOBAL Employees Union and the respondent
COMMUNICATIONS and PHILCOM Philcom Corporation expired. o the
CORPORATION parties started negotiations for the
renewal of their CBA in July 1997 o While
negotiations were ongoing, PEU filed a
Notice of Strike with the NCMB
• Petitioner perceived unfair labor practice
committed by the company and
bargaining deadlock
• Secretary of Labor: The Union's
Manifestation/Motion to Strike Out
Portions of and Attachments in Philcom's
Position Paper is hereby denied for lack
of merit. The Union's charges of unfair
labor practice against the Company are
dismissed. hereby
• CA- Violations of CBAs, except those
gross in character, are mere grievances
resolvable through the appropriate
grievance machinery or voluntary
arbitration as provided in the CBAs
10. Metrolab Industries v Roldan Confesor • Metrolab Industries represented by PR
Metro Drug Corp. a labor organization
representing the petitioners’ employees.
After the CBA between the parties
expired, negotiations for new CBA ended
into deadlock.
• Both parties failed to settle their dispute
hence the order issued by the Secretary
of Labor and Employment that any strike
or acts that might exacerbate the
situation is ceased and ordered the
parties to execute a new CBA. Later, the
petitioner moved two lay-off acts to its
rank and file employees and was
opposed by the union. Petitioner assailed
that the move was temporary and
exercise of its management prerogative.
Herein public respondent declared that
the petitioner’s act illegal andissued two
resolution of cease and desist stating that
the move exacerbate and caused conflict
to the case at bar.
WON there was an illegal strike? YES
WON the executive secretaries must be included as
part of the bargaining unit of rank and file
employees? NO
distinguishes between two kinds of
employees, i.e., regular employees and
casual employees."
• The Strike was illegal having found that
PEU's officers and members have
committed illegal acts during the strike.
• It must be strictly complied with even during
the pendency of any petition questioning its
validity. PEU staged the strike in utter
disregard of the grievance procedure
established in the CBA.
• A strike declared on the basis of grievances
which have not been submitted to the
grievance committee as stipulated in the
CBA of the parties is premature and illegal.
• By recognizing the expanded scope of the
right to self-organization, the intent of the
court was to delimit the types of employees
excluded from the close shop provisions,
not from the bargaining unit.
• The executive secretaries of General
Manager and the Management Committees
should not only be exempted from the
closed-shop provision but should not be
permitted to join in the bargaining unit of the
rank and file employees as well as on the
grounds that the executive secretaries are
confidential employees, having access to
“vital labor information”.
• Therefore, executive secretaries of
petitioners’ General Manager and its
Management Committee are permanently
excluded from the bargaining unit of
petitioner’s rank and file employees.

11. PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION V. • Petitioner filed a notice of strike on
CONFESOR grounds of unfair labor practice, more
specifically union busting and violation of
CBA. Private respondent Philtread
Corporation filed a petition to declare
illegal the work slowdowns staged by the
petitioner Union.
• NLRC- The slowdowns engaged in by
respondents are declared illegal and by
engaging in such illegal activities,
respondents whose name appear in
Annex "A" of the petition are deemed to
WON Confesor acted with grave abuse of • Articles 263 (g) and 264 of the Labor Code
discretion? have been enacted pursuant to the police
power of the State, which has been defined
as the power inherent in a government to
enact laws, within constitutional limits, to
promote the order, safety, health, morals
and general welfare of society.
• Said article clearly does not interfere with
the workers' right to strike but merely
regulates it, when in the exercise of such
right, national interests will be affected. The
rights granted by the Constitution are not
absolute. They are still subject to control

LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018

EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
5

12. Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Brillantes
13. Capitol Medical Center v Trajano
14. San Miguel Corp v NLRC
15. Complex Employees Association v NRC
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
have lost their employment with
petitioner.
• Secretary of Labor - assume jurisdiction
over the labor dispute. Petitioner then
filed an MR which was denied.
• The case is seeking to set aside the order
of then acting Secretary Jose Brillantes
of the Department of Labor and
Employment on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
• Records show that public respondent
assumed jurisdiction over the labor
dispute between Phimco Industries
Labor Association (PILA) and Phimco
Industries, Inc., (PHIMCO) and issued an
order ordering all the striking workers,
except those who have been handed
down termination papers on June 26,
1995, to return to work within 24 hours
from receipt thereof and for the company
to accept them back under the same
terms and conditions prevailing prior to
the strike.
• Petitioner, however, challenged the
union’s legitimacy and refused to bargain
with
respondent. Subsequently petitioner filed
with the (BLR), Department of Labor and
Employment, a petition for cancellation of
respondent’s certificate of registration.
• For its part, respondent filed with the
(NCMB), National Capital Region, a
notice of strike
• Respondent alleged that petitioner’s
refusal to bargain constitutes unfair labor
practice.
Despite several conferences and efforts
of the designated conciliator-mediator,
the parties
failed to reach an amicable settlement.
• Respondent staged a strike.
• Petitioner sought a permanent injunction
to enjoin the respondent's strike. The
NLRC initially issued a temporary
restraining order. Subsequently, despite
lack of a valid notice of strike and the
union's failure to observe the CBA
provisions on grievance and arbitration,
the NLRC denied the petition for
injunction for lack of factual basis.
• A complaint was filed before the labor
arbiter for unfair labor practice/illegal
WON Honorable Acting Secretary acted with grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order and
in assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
WON Secretary of Labor cannot exercise his powers
under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code without
observing the requirements of due process.
WON the SC is correct?
and limitation to ensure that they are not
exercised arbitrarily.
• The Labor Code vests upon the Secretary
of Labor the discretion to determine what
industries are indispensable to national
interest. Thus, upon the determination of
the Secretary of Labor that such industry is
indispensable to the national interest, it will
assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute
of said industry.
• SC found the petition impressed with merit.
• the Court ruled that the Acting Secretary of
Labor clearly erred in assuming jurisdiction
over the labor dispute because a match
factory, though of value, can scarcely be
considered as an industry indispensable to
the national interest as it cannot be in the
same category as generation and
distribution of energy or those undertaken
by banks, hospitals and export-oriented
industries.
• In view thereof, the Court granted the
instant petition and set aside the order of
the Secretary of Labor.
• The discretion to assume jurisdiction may
be exercised by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment without the
necessity of prior notice or hearing given to
any of the
parties. The rationale for his primary
assumption of jurisdiction can justifiably
rest
on his own consideration of the exigency of
the situation in relation to the national
interests.
• The President of the Philippines shall not be
precluded
from determining the industries that, in his
opinion, are indispensable to the national
interest, and from intervening at any time
and assuming jurisdiction over any such
labor
dispute in order to settle or terminate the
same.
Supreme Court held that the NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion when it denied the petition for
injunction. Contrary to the NLRC'S finding, at the time
the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat
to revive the unlawful strike. Art. 264 (a) of the Labor
Code explicitly states that a declaration of strike without
first having filed the required notice is a prohibited
activity, which may be prevented through an injunction
in accordance with Article 254 of the Labor Code.
• The Court ruled that there was a complete
cessation of the business operations at the
6

16. San Miguel Corp v NLRC
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
lockout, money claims for vacation leave,
sick leave, unpaid wages, 13th month
pay, damages and attorney's fees.
• Complainants alleged that the sudden
pull out of the machinery, equipment and
materials from the company premises
which resulted to the sudden closure of
the company was in violation of the
Labor Code and existing CBA.
• The labor arbiter rendered a decision
ordering respondents Complex
Electronics Corporation, Ionics
Incorporated and Lawrence Qua, to
reinstate the 531 employees to their
former position and to pay the
complainants the aggregate amount of
P26,949, 891.80.
• NLRC- rendered a decision ordering the
respondent Complex Electronics
Corporation to pay the 531 complainants
equivalent to one month pay in lieu of
notice and separation pay equivalent to
one month pay for every year of service
and a fraction of six months as one whole
year. Respondents Ionics and Lawrence
Qua were ordered excluded as parties
solidarily liable with Complex..
• P SMC sponsored an Innovation
Program which grants cash rewards to all
“SMC employees who submit to the
corporation ideas and suggestions found
to beneficial to the corporation.
• Private Respondent Rustico Vega, who
is a mechanic in the Bottling Department
of the SMC submitted an innovation
proposal which supposed to eliminate
certain defects in the quality and taste of
the product “San Miguel Beer Grande.”
• Petitioner Corporation did not accept the
said proposal and refused Mr. Vega’s
subsequent demands for cash award
under the innovation program. Hence,
Vega filed a complaint with the then
Ministry of Labor and Employment in
Cebu. He argued that his proposal had
been accepted by the methods analyst
and was implemented by the SMC and it
finally solved the problem of the
Corporation in the production of Beer
Grande.
• Petitioner denied of having approved
Vega’s proposal. It stated that said
proposal was turned down for “lack of
originality” and the same, even if
implemented, could not achieve the
desire result. Further, petitioner
Corporation alleged that theLabor Arbiter
had no jurisdiction.
• The Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction because
the claim of Vega is “not a necessary
incident of his employment” and does not
fall under Article 217 of the Labor Code.
WON the Labor Arbiter and the Commission has
jurisdiction over the money claim filed by private
respondent? NO
complex not because of the labor dispute.
It was very clear that Complex had already
informed the employees that they would be
closing the Lite-On Line.
• The closure, therefore, was not motivated
by the union activities of the employees, but
rather by necessity, since it can no longer
engage in the production without the much
needed materials, equipment and
machinery.
• Anent the issue of separation pay, the Court
ruled that notwithstanding the financial
losses suffered by Complex, such was,
however, not the main reason for its
closure, hence there was no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the public
respondent in awarding the employees one
month for every year of service as
termination pay.
• Accordingly, the assailed decision of the
NLRC was affirmed.
• The Labor Arbiter and the Commission has
no jurisdiction over the money claim of
Vega. The court ruled that the money claim
of private respondent Vega arose out of or
in connection with his employment with
petitioner.
• However, it is not enough to bring Vega’s
money claim within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters. In
the CAB, the undertaking of petitioner SMC
to grant cash awards to employees could
ripen into an enforceable contractual
obligation on the part of petitioner SMC
under certain circumstances.
• Hence, the issue whether an enforceable
contract had arisen between SMC and
Vega, and whether it has been breached,
are legal questions that labor legislations
cannot resolved because it’s recourse is
the law on contracts.
• Where the claim is to be resolved not by
reference to the Labor Code or other labor
relations statute or a collective bargaining
agreement BUT by the general civil law, the
jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the
regular courts of justice and not to the Labor
Arbiter and NLRC.
7
 However, in a gesture of compassion and
to show the government’s concern for the
working man, the Labor Arbiter ordered
petitioner to pay Vega P2, 000 as
“financial assistance.” Both parties
assailed said decision of the Labor
Arbiter.

LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018

EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
8