Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.

, 51
SCRA 189, G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973

Principles:
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property
rights is recognized. Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely
precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently
as the actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive,"
permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity." Property and property rights
can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of civil
liberties, the rights to freedom of expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they
are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority
"gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."

The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for
redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or "when exercised in
relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed.”

Biflex Phils, Labor Union v. Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corp, 511 SCRA 247, G.R. No.
155679, December 19, 2006

Principles:
 Employees who have no labor dispute with their employment but who, on a day they
were scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a welga ng bayan commit an
illegal work stoppage. Stoppage of work due to welga ng bayan is in nature of a general
strike, an extended sympathy strike. It affects numerous employees including those who
do not have a dispute with their employees regarding their terms and conditions of
employment.
 Reinstatement of a striker or retention of his employment, despite his participation in an
illegal strike, is a management prerogative which the Supreme Court may not supplant.

NUWHRAIN v. NLRC, 287 SCRA 192, G.R. No. 125561, March 6, 1998

Principles:
An employer may lawfully discharge employees participating in an unjustifiable wildcat strike
because said wildcat strike was an attempt to undermine the Union’s position as the exclusive
bargaining representative and was, therefore an unprotected activity. The cessation from the
employment of the fifteen Junta officers as a result of their participation in the illegal strike is a
consequence of their defiant and capricious decision to participate therein. The court accordingly
uphold the dismissal from employment of the fifteen officers of the Junta who knowingly
participated in the strike.
 Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpico Lines v. Sulpico Lines, 426 SCRA 319, G.R. No. 140992,
March 25, 2004

Principle:
The cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after the strike-vote report were intended to
be mandatory. Failing to comply with the mandatory requirement, the strike mounted by union
is illegal. The law leaves no room for doubt that the cooling-off period and the seven day strike
ban after the strike-vote report were intended to be mandatory.

Sarmienta v. Tuico, 162 SCRA 676, G.R. No. L-75271-73, June 27, 1988

Principle:
Return-to-work order is to prevent impairment of the national interest. It must be stressed that
while one purpose of the return-to-work order is to protect the workers who might otherwise be
locked by the employer for threatening or waging the strike, the more important reason is to
prevent impairment of the national interest in case the operations of the company are disputed
by the refusal of the strikers to return to return to work as directed.

St. Scholastica’s College v. Torres, 210 SCRA 565, G.R. No. 100158, June 29, 1992

Principle:
Return-to-work order is immediately effective and executor notwithstanding the filing of the
motion for reconsideration. Labor Code provides that if a strike has already taken place at the
time of assumption, all striking employees shall immediately return to work. It must be strictly
complied with even during the pendency of any petition questioning its validity. After all the
assumption and certification order is issued in the exercise of secretary’s compulsive power of
arbitration and until set aside must immediately complied with.

Grand Boulevard Hotel v. GLOWHRAIN, 406 SCRA 688, G.R. No. 153664, July 18, 2003

Principle:
The notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an opportunity for
mediation and conciliation, which requirements are mandatory, failure of union to comply
therewith renders the strike illegal. The requisite of a valid strike are the following; a) notice of
strike filed with the DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in the case
of ULP; b) strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; c) notice given to
the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike. The requisite
seven day period is intended to give DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. A strike simultaneously with or
immediately after a notice of strike will render the requisite periods nugatory.

SMC v. NLRC, 403 SCRA 418, G.R. No. 119293, June 10, 2003

Principle:
Strike is considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of the employees to
improve the terms and conditions of their employment. Strikes held in violation of the terms
contained in a collective bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for
conclusive arbitration clauses.

Dinglasa v. NLU, 106 Phil 671, G.R. No. L-14183

Principle:
Petitioner could not be held guilty of unfair labor practice under the Industrial Peace Act. The
cessation of the operation of the jeepney was not due to any wilful, unfair and discriminatory act
of the petitioner, but the result of the driver’s voluntary and deliberate refusal to return to work.
While drivers may be entitled to reinstatement, there is no justification for their receiving back
wages for the period that they were themselves refused to return to work.

Bacus v. Ople, 132 SCRA 690, G.R. No. L-56856, October 23, 1984

Principle:
 Mere finding of illegality of strike should not be followed by wholesale dismissal of strikers
from employment.
 Concerted stoppage from work may be viewed as one inspired by good faith. Acts of
violence does not make strike illegal.
 Violation on ban on strike against export industries, lack of strike notice, and violation of
CBA no-strike clause do not make a strike per se illegal.
 Even if strike were illegal, it need not result in dismissal of employees.