Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !

LABOR RELATIONS
Finals Reviewer
Based on Prof. Daway’s 2016 Outline

VII. Collective Bargaining: General Concepts, Procedure, and Issues................................ 2

VIII. Unfair Labor Practice ........................................................................................................17
IX. Union Concerted Activities ................................................................................................37
X. Employer Lockout.................................................................................................................60
XI. Labor Injunction ...................................................................................................................63

Coverage:
Everything from CBA

Sources:
The Labor Code, Azucena
C2015 Reviewer
C2017 Reviewer

Makers:
Edward Francis Arabe
Jenny Mary Dagun
Daniel Al Delfin
Marlene-Ruth Tongson


D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson


VII. Collective Bargaining: General
Concepts, Procedure, and Issues
A. General Concept
1. Policy Declaration
Labor Code, Art. 218 (A) (a)
Declaration of Policy.
A. It is the policy of the State:
(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 industrial disputes;
Labor Code, Art. 218 (B)
B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating
the relations between the employers and employees by
means of agreements freely entered into through
collective bargaining, no court or administrative agency
or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of
pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of
employment, except as otherwise provided under this
Code.
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 1
Policy— It is the policy of the State to promote and
emphasize the primacy of free and responsible exercise of
the right to self-organization and collective bargaining,
either through single enterprise level negotiations or
through the creation of a mechanism by which different
employers and recognized or certified labor unions in their
establishments bargain collectively.
1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, 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. They shall be entitled to security
of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in
the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !2
reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and
growth.
2. Definition/Nature and Purposes
Kiok Loy vs. NLRC
GR No L-54334; Cuevas, J.
Summary:
Union repeatedly tried to engage Sweden Ice Cream
company to collectively bargain. Their request was
repeatedly left unanswered. Further, during the
compulsory arbitration before the NLRC, the company
repeatedly sought to postpone and delay the
proceedings. The NLRC found in favor of the union and
held the company guilty for unfair labor practices. The SC
affirmed the NLRC in this case, finding that the union
validly set in motion the process of collective bargaining
and that the company is guilty of committing ULP for
failure to collectively bargain.
Doctrine:
Collective bargaining, which is defined as negotiations
towards a collective agreement, is one of the democratic
frameworks under the New Labor Code, designed to
stabilize the relation between labor and management
and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial
peace. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the
Union and is characterized as a legal obligation. So much
so that the Labor Code makes it ULP for an employer to
violate the duty to bargain collectively.
3. Mechanics of Collective Bargaining
Kiok Loy vs. NLRC, supra.
1. The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in
motion only when the jurisdictional preconditions are
present:
a. P o s s e s s i o n o f t h e s t a t u s o f m a j o r i t y
representation of the employees in
accordance with any of the means of
selection or designation provided for by the
Labor Code
b. Proof of majority representation
c. Demand to bargain (under Article 251(a))
2. A company’s refusal to make a counter proposal in
relation to the bargaining process is indicative of bad
faith – even more so when the union’s request is left
totally unanswered.
3. The aforementioned refusal to collectively bargain is
constitutive of unfair labor practice (under Article
249(g))
B. Bargainable issues
Labor Code, Art. 263 (252)
Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. The duty to
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual
obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and
all other terms and conditions of employment including
proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising
under such agreement and executing a contract
incorporating such agreements if requested by either
party but such duty does not compel any party to agree
to a proposal or to make any concession.
Manila Fashions vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 117878; 13 November 1996; Bellosillo, J.
FACTS:
Union filed a complaint charging the company of non-
compliance with a wage increase order. Union and the
company agreed to condone the increase, and this was
placed in their CBA. Union admitted the existence of the
condoning provision but claimed it was invalid as there
was no due consultation with union members.
HELD:
The condonation was void for being contrary to the
mandate of the aforesaid Wage Orders. Such provision
does not exempt petitioner from compliance therewith.
A CBA refers to the negotiated contract between a
legitimate labor organization and the employer
concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and
conditions of employment in a bargaining unit, including
mandatory provisions for grievances and arbitration
machineries. As in all other contracts, the parties in a CBA
may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may deem convenient provided they
are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy.
Union of Filipro Employees Drug vs. Nestle
22 August 2006 | J. Chico-Nazario
FACTS:
Union initiated collective bargaining negotiations. Nestle
responded, but insisted that the Retirement Plan was a
unilateral grant by the company and not subject to
negotiation.
HELD:
Retirement plan is valid. There is nothing in either of the
documents that prove that it agreed to treat the
Retirement Plan as a unilateral grant of the company
which is outside the scope of the CBA. Since the
retirement plan has been an integral part of the CBA since
1972, the Union's demand to increase the benefits due the
EEs under said plan is a valid CBA issue.
(C2017 Reviewer): Inclusion in the CBA as part of
economic benefits extended by the company to its
employees to provide them a measure of financial security
after they shall have ceased to be employed in the
company, reward their loyalty, boost their morale and
efficiency and promote industrial peace, gives “a
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !3
consensual character” to a benefit so that it may not be
terminated or modified at will by either party.
1. Mandatory subjects of CB
• Employer’s duty to bargain is limited to the mandatory
subjects. As to other matters, he is free to bargain/ not
to bargain.
• There is no duty to agree; either party may bargain to an
impasse as long as he bargains in good faith.
• In order for a matter to be subject to mandatory
collective bargaining, it must materially/significantly
affect the terms and conditions of employment.
2. Permissive subjects of CB
• Anything as long as not contrary to law, morals, etc.
• A strike/ lockout cannot be used to compel negotiation
or agreement.
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing vs.
NLRC
September 7, 1998 | G.R. No. 113856
FACTS:
In the negotiations for a new CBA, the union was
persuaded to withdraw its proposal that wage increases
mandated by the government be automatically
implemented across-the-board. According to the union, it
withdrew this because management promised it would
implement increases across-the-board, as it had done
before. However, the company did not do so. Union
alleged that the company was guilty of bargaining in bad
faith.
HELD:
The Minutes only reflects the proceedings and discussions
undertaken in the process of bargaining. The union may
not validly claim that the proposal embodied in the
Minutes of the negotiation forms part of the CBA that it
finally entered into with private respondent. Only
provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted
and complied with. Where a proposal raised by a
contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it is not a
part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever
to its implementation.
C. Bargaining Procedure
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 2
Disclosure of Information—In collective bargaining, the
parties shall, at the request of either of them, make
available such up-to-date financial information on the
economic situation of the undertaking, which is normally
submitted to relevant government agencies, as is material
and necessary for meaningful negotiations. Where the
disclosure of some of this information could be prejudicial
to the undertaking, its communication may be made
condition upon a commitment that it would be regarded
as confidential to the extent required. The information to
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

be made available may be agreed upon between the
parties to collective bargaining.
1. Private Procedure
Labor Code, Sec. 262 (251)
Duty to Bargain Collectively in the Absence of CBAs.—In
the absence of an agreement or other voluntary
arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of
collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and
the representatives of the employees to bargain
collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
2. Labor Code Procedure
Labor Code, Art. 261 (250)
Procedure in Collective Bargaining.— The following
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:
a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it
shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a
statement of its proposals. The other party shall make
a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days
from receipt of such notice;
b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice
and reply, either party may request for a conference
which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar
days from the date of request;
c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene
upon the request of either or both parties or at its own
initiative and immediately call the parties to
conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power
to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the
parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the
parties to participate fully and promptly in the
conciliation meetings the Board may call;
d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the
parties are prohibited from doing any act which may
disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes;
and
e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes
amicably and encourage the parties to submit their
case to a voluntary arbitrator.
Labor Code, Art. 262 (251), supra pg. 3
Labor Code, Art. 239 (233)
Privileged Communication.— Information and statements
made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as
privileged communication and shall not be used as
evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and similar
officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any
matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted
by them.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !4
Labor Code, Art. 273 (260)
Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration.— The
parties to a CBA shall include therein provisions that will
ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions.
They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment and
resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or
implementation of their CBA and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies.
All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery
which are not settled within seven (7) calendar days from
the date of its submission shall automatically be referred to
voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA.
For this purpose, parties to a CBA shall name and
designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators, or include in the agreement a
procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator or
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, preferably from the listing of
qualified Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by the
Board. In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, the Board shall
designate the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators, as may be necessary, pursuant to the selection
procedure agreed upon in the CBA, which shall act with
the same force and effect as if the Arbitrator or panel of
Arbitrators has been selected by the parties as described
above.
Caltex Refinery Employees Assoc. vs. Brillantes
G.R. No. 123782; Sept. 16, 1997; Panganiban, J.
FACTS:
Anticipating the expiration of their CBA, CREA and Caltex
renegotiated. Some issued were left unresolved so several
meetings were conducted between them, until they
reached a deadlock causing CREA to file a notice of
strike. During the strike vote, CREA staged a walk out,
forcing Caltex to petition SOLE to assume JD. This was
granted. CREA, after SOLE’s assumption of JD, went on a
strike and picket, in violation of the assumption order.
Because of the strike Caltex dismissed some officers of
CREA. They tried to resolve their differences through
conciliation again, but they still didn’t come to an
agreement so they stopped negotiation and referred it to
the SOLE who ordered the parties to execute CBA, and
then later decided to shorten the periods to process/
resolve machinery from 45 to 30 days at the first step and
from 10 to 7 days at the second step, as well as removing
the step of establishing a joint council. This later decision
was assailed by CREA imputing GAD on Brillantes.
HELD:
There was no GAD. No particular setup for grievance
machinery is mandated by law. Art. 260 of the LC (now Art.
273), as incorporated by RA 6715, provides for a single
grievance machinery to settle problems arising from
interpretation of implementation of the CBA.
The procedure ordered by Brillantes sufficiently complied
with the minimum requirement of the law. In fact, he went
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

beyond the minimum by providing for two steps. While it
was contended that he did not act on the dispute by
leaving the number of voluntary arbitrators to the choice
of the parties, this was seen as affording the parties
latitude to decide for themselves.
a. Single enterprise bargaining
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 3-4
Sec. 3. When Single Enterprise Bargaining Available—Any
voluntarily recognized or certified labor union may
demand negotiations with its employer for terms and
conditions of work covering employees in the bargaining
unit concerned.
Sec. 4. Procedure in Single Enterprise Bargaining—A
recognized or certified labor union that desires to
negotiate with its employer shall submit such intentions in
writing to the employer, together with its proposals for
collective bargaining.
b. Multi-employer bargaining
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 5
Sec. 5. When Multi-Employer Bargaining Available—A
legitimate labor union(s) and employers may agree in
writing to come together for the purpose of collective
bargaining, provided:
a) only legitimate labor unions who are incumbent
exclusive bargaining agents may participate and
negotiate in multi-employer bargaining;
b) only employers with counterpart legitimate labor
unions who are incumbent bargaining agents may
participate and negotiate in multi-employer
bargaining; and
c) only those legitimate labor unions who pertain to
employer units who consent to multi-employer
bargaining may participate in multi-employer
bargaining.
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 6
Procedure in Multi-Employer Bargaining— Multi-employer
bargaining may be initiated by the labor unions or by the
employers.
a) Legitimate labor unions who desire to negotiate with
their employers collectively shall execute a written
document among themselves, which shall contain the
following:
(1) the names of the labor unions who desire to avail
of multi-employer bargaining
(2) each labor union in the employer unit;
(3) the fact that each of the labor unions are the
incumbent exclusive bargaining agents for their
respective employer units;
(4) the duration of the CBAs, if any, entered into by
each labor union with their respective employers.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !5
Legitimate labor unions who are members of the same
registered federation, national, or industry union are
exempt from execution of this written agreement.
b) The legitimate labor unions who desire to bargain with
multi-employers shall send a written notice to this
effect to each employer concerned. The written
agreement stated in the preceding paragraph, or the
certificates of registration of the federation, national,
or industry union, shall accompany said notice.
Employers who agree to group themselves or use their
existing associations to engage in multi-employer
bargaining shall send a written notice to each of their
counterpart legitimate labor unions indicating their
desire to engage in multi-employer bargaining. Said
notice shall indicate the following:
(1) the names of the employers who desire to avail of
multi-employer bargaining;
(2) their corresponding legitimate labor organizations;
(3) the fact that each corresponding legitimate union
is any incumbent exclusive bargaining agent;
(4) the duration of the current CBA, if any, entered
into by each employer with the counterpart
legitimate labor union.
c) Each employer or concerned labor union shall express
its willingness or refusal to participate in multi-employer
bargaining in writing, addressed to its corresponding
exclusive bargaining agent or employer. Negotiations
may commence only with regard to respective
employers and labor unions who consent to
participate in multi-employer bargaining;
d) During the course of negotiations, consenting
employers and the corresponding legitimate labor
unions shall discuss and agree on the following:
(1) the manner by which negotiations shall proceed;
(2) the scope and coverage of the negotiations and
the agreement; and
(3) where appropriate, the effect of the negotiations
on current agreements or conditions of
employment among the parties.
3. Conciliation/preventive mediation
Labor Code, Art. 239 (233), supra pg. 4
Art. 261 (250) (c)(d)(e), supra pg. 3
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 1-2, 9, infra pg. 38
4. Duty to bargain
Labor Code, Art. 261, supra pg. 3
Labor Code, Art. 262, supra pg. 3
Labor Code, Art. 263, supra pg. 2
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Labor Code, Art. 264
Duty to Bargain Collectively When There Exists a CBA.—
When there is a CBA, the duty to bargain collectively shall
also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify
such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party
can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the
agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration
date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status
quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
parties.
Labor Code, Art. 251 (c)
Rights of Legitimate Labor Organizations.— LLO shall have
the right:
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request,
with its annual audited financial statements, including the
balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within
thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the
request, after the union has been duly recognized by the
employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or
within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the
existing CBA, or during the CB negotiation.
Labor Code, Art. 247 (f) [before amendment by RA 9481]
Grounds for cancellation of union registration.—(Note:
before amendment by RA 9481; at present, there is no
counterpart to this provision in the grounds for
cancellation of union registration)
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of
union registration:
(f) Entering into CBAs which provide terms and conditions
of employment below minimum standards established by
law;
Labor Code, Art. 259 (g), infra pg. 19
ULP of employers.—It shall be unlawful for an employer to
commit any of the following ULP:
(g.) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as
prescribed by this Code;
Labor Code, Art. 260 (c), infra pg. 20
ULP of labor organizations.— It shall be ULP for a labor
organization, its officers, agents or representatives:
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively
with the employer, provided it is the representative of the
employees.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !6
Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Assoc. vs. Pilipinas
Shell, infra pg. 30
GR 170007; Apr. 7, 2014; Leonardo-De Castro
Doctrine: The duty to bargain does not compel any party
to accept a proposal or to make any concession. While
the purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an
agreement between the employer and the employee’s
union resulting in a binding contract between the parties,
the failure to reach an agreement after negotiations
continued for a reasonable period does not mean lack of
good faith. The laws invite and contemplate a collective
bargaining contract but do not compel one. For after all,
a CBA, like any contract is a product of mutual consent
and not of compulsion. As such, the duty to bargain does
not include the obligation to reach an agreement.
See: PI Mfg. vs. PI Mfg. Supervisors and Foremen Assoc. |
2008 / Sandoval-Gutierrez
Summary: RA 6640 increased the statutory minimum wage
and salary rates of private employees. Meanwhile, the
union and the company entered into a new CBA where
supervisors and foremen were given increases. The CBA
included a provision/quitclaim where the Union absolved
and released the Company for any monetary claim that
might have existed prior to the signing of the CBA. The
company contended that the union had already waived
the wage distortion brought by RA 6640. SC held that The
wage distortion was already cured by the new CBA
wherein salary increases re-established and broadened
the gaps. The CBA is more than substantial compliance
with the RA. The union cannot invoke the beneficial
provisions of the CBA but disregard the concessions it
voluntarily extended to the company.
Doctrine: The duty to bargain requires that the parties deal
with each other with open and fair minds. A sincere
endeavor to overcome obstacles and difficulties that may
arise, so that employer-employee relations may be
stabilized and industrial strife eliminated, must be
apparent. Respondents cannot invoke the beneficial
provisions of the 1987 CBA but disregard the concessions it
voluntary extended to the COMPANY. The goal of
collective bargaining is the making of agreements that will
stabilize business conditions and fix fair standards of
working conditions.
See: FAMIT vs. CA and MAPUA
G.R. No. 164060 | June 15, 2007
FACTS: FAMIT and MAPUA agreed to the adoption and
implementation of the new faculty ranking instrument, with
the reservation that there should be no diminution in rank
and pay of the faculty members so they entered into a
new CBA. Subsequently, Mapua sought to amend the
CBA after perceiving flaws due to omissions of FAMIT. FAMIT
rejected. Meanwhile, Mapua instituted some changes in
the curriculum and adopted a new formula for
determining the pay rates of the high school faculty. FAMIT
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

contested this saying that MIT has not been implementing
the relevant provisions of their CBA.
HELD: The proposed amendments were unauthorized
modifications of the CBA. As a general rule, neither party
to a CBA shall terminate or modify the agreement during
its lifetime.
DOCTRINE: The duty to bargain collectively shall also mean
that neither party shall terminate nor modify such
agreement during its lifetime. Until a new CBA is executed
by and between the parties, they are duty-bound to keep
the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the
terms and conditions of the existing agreement.
E. The Collective Bargaining Agreement
1. Definition/Contents
IRR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. (j)
Definition of Terms.
“CBA” refers to the contract between a legitimate labor
union and the employer concerning wages, hours of work,
and all other terms and conditions of employment in a
bargaining unit.
Labor Code, Art. 273 (260), supra pg. 4
Effect of Sub-standard contract
Labor Code, Art. 247 (f) (239), supra pg. 6
Lepanto Ceramics Inc. vs. Lepanto Ceramic Employees
Assoc. | 2 March 2010 | Carpio, J.
FACTS:
Lepanto gave its employees a P3k Christmas bonus.
Subsequently, on 1999, the union (a CEBA) entered into a
CBA where it included a provision that grants the EEs a
Christmas gift/bonus. Company gave each of the
members of respondent Association Tile Redemption
Certificates equivalent to P3k. In 2002 however, the
company only gave P600 as bonus + a cash advance
equivalent to 1 month of salary. This was objected to by
the respondents, arguing that it was in violation of the
CBA.
HELD:
Company is still required to pay union’s Christmas bonus.
Generally, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable
obligation. For a bonus to be enforceable, it must have
been promised by the employer and expressly agreed
upon by the parties.  Given that the bonus in this case is
integrated in the CBA, it is now a demandable
obligation.    By its incorporation in the CBA, the Christmas
bonus due is more than just an act of generosity but a
contractual obligation.
DOCTRINE:
CBA refers to a negotiated contract between a legitimate
labor organization and the employer, concerning wages,
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !7
hours of work and all other terms and conditions of
employment in a bargaining unit.  As in all other contracts,
the parties to a CBA may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient, provided these are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy. In
labor law the CBA is the law between the parties and they
are obliged to comply with its provisions
PAL vs. PALEA
G. R. No. 142399l; Mar. 12, 2008; Chico-Nazario
FACTS:
PAL and PALEA entered into a CBA. Part of the agreement
required PAL to pay its rank and file employees 13th month
pay and Christmas bonuses. Prior to payment, PAL issued
guidelines. PALEA assailed the implementation of the
guideline on the ground that all employees of PAL, regular
or non-regular, must be paid their 13th month pay.
HELD: For PALEA. It is a well-settled doctrine that the
benefits of a CBA extend to the laborers and employees in
the collective bargaining unit, including those who do not
belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization.
Otherwise, it would be a clear case of discrimination.
Hence, to be entitled to the benefits under the CBA, the
employees must be members of the bargaining unit, but
not necessarily of the labor organization designated as the
bargaining agent. A bargaining unit has been defined as
a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of
all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which
the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indicates to be the best suited to
serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under
the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
2. Registration
Labor Code, Art. 237 (231)
Registry of unions and file of CBAs.— The Bureau shall keep
a registry of legitimate labor organizations. The Bureau
shall also maintain a file of all CBAs and other related
agreements and records of settlement of labor disputes
and copies of orders and decisions of voluntary arbitrators.
The file shall be open and accessible to interested parties
under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, provided that no specific information
submitted in confidence shall be disclosed unless
authorized by the Secretary, or when it is at issue in any
judicial litigation, or when public interest or national
security so requires.
Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a CBA, the
parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the
Bureau or the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor
and Employment for registration, accompanied with
verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places in
the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the
workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or Regional
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Offices shall act upon the application for registration of
such CBA within five (5) calendar days from receipt
thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a
copy of the CBA within five (5) days from its submission.
The Bureau or Regional Office shall assess the employer for
every CBA a registration fee of not less than one thousand
pesos (P1,000.00) or in any other amount as may be
deemed appropriate and necessary by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment for the effective and efficient
administration of the Voluntary Arbitration Program. Any
amount collected under this provision shall accrue to the
Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund.
The Bureau shall also maintain a file and shall undertake or
assist in the publication of all final decisions, orders and
awards of the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
Regional Directors and the Commission.
IRR, Book V, Rule XVII, Sec. 1-3
Sec. 1. Where to File.— Within thirty (30) days from
execution of a CBA, the parties thereto shall submit two (2)
duly signed copies of the agreement to the Regional
Office which issued the certificate of registration/
certificate of chartered local of the labor union-party to
the agreement. Where the certificate of creation of the
concerned chartered local was issued by the Bureau, the
agreement shall be filed with the Regional Office which
has jurisdiction over the place where it principally
operates. Multi-employer CBA shall be filed with the
Bureau.
Sec. 2. Requirements For Registration.— The
application for CBA registration shall be accompanied by
the original and two (2) duplicate copies of the following
documents which must be certified under oath by the
representatives(s) of the employer(s) and labor union(s)
concerned:
(a) the CBA;
(b) a statement that the CBA was posted in at least two
(2) conspicuous places in the establishment or
establishments concerned for at least five (5) days
before its ratification; and
(c) a statement that the CBA was ratified by the majority
of the employees in the bargaining unit of the
employer or employers concerned. No other
document shall be required in the registration of CBAs.
Sec. 3. Payment of Registration Fee.— The Certificate of
registration of CBA shall be issued by the Regional Office
upon payment of the prescribed registration fee.
3. Beneficiaries
Labor Code, Art. 267 (255)
Exclusive Bargaining Representation and Workers’
Participation in Policy and Decision-Making.— The labor
organization designated or selected by the majority of the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit
shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !8
such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
However, an individual employee or group of employees
shall have the right at any time to present grievances to
their employer.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and
regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment
may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-
making processes of the establishment where they are
employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their
rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and
employers may form labor-management councils:
Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such
labor-management councils shall be elected by at least
the majority of all employees in said establishment. (As
amended by Section 22, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
1989)
See again: Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz
G.R. No. L-30241; June 30, 1972; Fernando
Facts: The Company employed members of both unions
ALU and MWU. The Company entered into a CBA with ALU
on profit-sharing bonuses. They agreed that it shall be the
duty of the ALU to furnish and deliver to the Company the
corresponding receipts duly signed by the laborers and
employees entitled to receive the profit-sharing bonus.
MWU did not receive its share and did not claim it, so the
money was returned to Cebu Shipyard.
Held: A CBA constitutes the law between the bargaining
parties, so those who are entitled to the benefits under it
can invoke its provisions. However, the benefits of a CBA
also extend to the laborers and employees not part of the
chosen bargaining labor organization. Otherwise, the
purpose of the CBA, which enables labor to secure better
terms in employment condition and better rates of pay,
would be frustrated when non-members are deprived of
advantages they could gain.
4. Minutes of negotiations
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form v NLRC, supra p. 2
Held: The Union cannot claim that the proposal, as found
in the minutes of the negotiations, forms part of the CBA.
The minutes reflect the proceedings and discussions
undertaken in the process of bargaining for worker
benefits. At the negotiations, it is natural for both
management and labor to adopt positions or make
demands and offer proposals and counter-proposals.
However, nothing is considered final until the parties have
reached an agreement.
5. Interpretation, Administration, Enforcement
Civil Code, Art. 1700
The relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that
labor contracts must yield to the common good.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws
on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts,
closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor
and similar subjects.
Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union v Norkis
Trading Co.
G.R. No. 157098; June 30, 2005; Panganiban
Facts: The RTWPB issued a wage order fixing a new
minimum wage rate for private sector employees. Based
on this, Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union
wanted an across-the-board increase in wages in
accordance with the CBA. Company, however, refused to
implement the Wage Order, insisting that since it has been
paying its workers the new minimum wage even before
the issuance of the Wage Order, it cannot be made to
comply with said Wage Order.
Held: For the company. CBA states that in the event that a
law is enacted increasing minimum wage, an across-the-
board increase shall be granted by the Company
according to the provisions of the law. Given the entire
sentence of the CBA provision, it is clear that the CBA does
not support the unyielding view of petitioner that the
issuance of Wage Order entitles its members to an across-
the-board increase, absolutely and without any condition.
Stipulations in a contract must be read together, not in
isolation from one another. When the terms of its clauses
are clear and leave no room for doubt as to the intention
of the contracting parties, it would not be necessary to
interpret those terms, whose literal meanings should
prevail.
Here, Norkis was already paying its employees above the
existing minimum wage, and the wage order was a “floor
wage” increase. The CBA was no ordinary contract, but
one impressed with public interest. Therefore, it was
subject to special orders on wages such as those issued
by the RTWPB.
a. Nature
Civil Code, Art. 1315
Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that
moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of
what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the
consequences which, according to their nature, may be
in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
Zuellig Pharma Corp vs. Sibal et al.
G.R. No.173587; July 15, 2013; Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
Zuellig distributes pharmaceutical products manufactured
by Syntex. Syntex was later bought by Roche which took
over from Zuellig the distribution of Syntex products.
Consequently, Zuellig closed its Syntex Division and
ter minated the services of respondents due to
redundancy. The employees in the department were
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !9
terminated and were paid separation pay. They are now
claiming their retirement benefits despite their receipt of
the separation pay pursuant to their CBA.
HELD:
It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that
the CBA is the law between the parties and they are
obliged to comply with its provisions. A collective
bargaining agreement [or CBA] refers to the negotiated
contract between a legitimate labor organization and the
employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other
terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit.
As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may
deem convenient provided these are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Thus,
where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the
law between the parties and compliance therewith is
mandated by the express policy of the law.
Here, their CBA contains specific provisions which
effectively bar the availment of retirement benefits once
the employees have chosen separation pay or vice versa.
See: Dole Phils. v Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero
GR No. 146650; Jan. 13, 2003; Corona, J.
Facts: Dole and the Union were in a dispute over the free
meals provision in their CBA. Pursuant to this provision,
some of Dole’s departments reverted to the previous
practice of granting free meals after exactly three hours of
actual overtime work. The others, however, continued the
practice of granting free meals only after more than three
hours of overtime work.
Held: After having interpreted similar provisions in the
1985-88, 1990-95 and the 1993-1995 amendments to the
1990-1995 CBAs, the court ruled that employees are
entitled to free meals once they have rendered at least
three hours of overtime work, and not after they have
worked more than three hours. The CBA is the norm of
conduct between Dole and PAMAO-NFL and compliance
therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.
See: Pantranco North Express v NLRC
24 July 1996 | J. Panganiban
Facts: 3 employees were retired 25 years’ service before
age 60, pursuant to the compulsory retirement provision in
the CBA. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal.
Held: The CBA provision, allowing compulsory retirement
before age 60, but after 25 years of service, is legal and
enforceable. The law leaves to the employer and
employees the fixing of the age of retirement. Early
retirement does not constitute diminution of benefits.
Rather, it constitutes a reward of employment. Retirements
agreed upon by the employer and the employees in their
CBA are not dismissals. The terms and conditions of a CBA
constitute the law between the parties, and bind not only
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

the union, but also its members. The parties to a contract
are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been
expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences
which according to their nature, may be in keeping with
good faith, usage and law (Art. 1315, CC).
b. Liberal Construction/in case of doubt
Labor Code, Art. 4
Construction in favor of labor.— All doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this
Code, including its implementing rules and regulations,
shall be resolved in favor of labor.
Civil Code, Art. 1700, supra pg. 8
Civil Code, Art. 1702
In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and
decent living for the laborer.
BPI vs. BPI Employees Union-Metro Manila
G.R. No. 175678 | Aug 22, 2012 | J. Peralta
BPIEU-MM is the SEBA of all the regular R&F employees of
BPI in Metro Manila. They have an existing CBA. The CBA
provides for loan benefits and relatively low interest rates.
BPI later issued a "no negative data bank policy" for the
implementation/availment of the manpower loans which
the respondent objected to, thus, resulting into labor-
management dialogues. Unsatisfied with the result of
those dialogues, respondent brought the matter to the
grievance machinery and afterwards, the issue, not
having been resolved, the parties raised it to the Voluntary
Arbitrator (VA) which ruled for the union and was affirmed
by the CA. W/N No NDB policy is valid and conforms to the
CBA?
HELD:
Although it can be said that petitioner is authorized to
issue rules and regulations pertinent to the availment and
administration of the loans under the CBA, the additional
rules and regulations, however, must not impose new
conditions which are not contemplated in the CBA and
should be within the realm of reasonableness. The "no
negative data bank policy" is a new condition which is
never contemplated in the CBA and at some points,
unreasonable to the employees.
NCC 1702 provides that, in case of doubt, all labor
legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in
favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer. Thus,
SC has ruled that any doubt or ambiguity in the contract
between management and the union members should be
resolved in favor of the latter.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 0
c. Grievance procedure
Labor Code, Art. 267 (255), supra p. 8
Labor Code, Art. 273 (260), supra p. 4
Baron vs. EPE Transport
GR 202645; August 2012; Perlas-Bernabe, J.
SUMMARY:
Baron et al. questioned the company’s policy regarding
the boundary system bc it was allegedly not in
accordance with the CBA. EPE told them to leave if they
did not agree with it and so Baron et al. filed a complaint
for violation of the CBA. The employees then questioned
the overcharging of the boundary to which they failed a
complaint for ULP. Subsequently they were no longer
allowed to drive their taxis and prohibited from entering
EPE, so they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The LA
held for EPE and argued that the employees act of
invoking the grievance machinery actually proves the
argument that EPE did not dismiss them. SC disagrees and
says that the invoking of the grievance machinery did not
in any way disprove the dismissal. What was referred to the
machinery was the ULP case which was filed before the
illegal dismissal case, and that the two were not related
bc they involved two separate issues. Also the LC
specifically provides that any CBA disputes have to be
referred by the LA to the grievance machinery and as
such, Baron et al could not be faulted in invoking it.
DOCTRINE:
It bears to note that Article 223 (c) is explicit that the LA
shall refer to the grievance machinery and voluntary
arbitration, as provided in the CBA, those cases that
involve the interpretation of said agreements. Further,
Article 272 provides that all unresolved grievances arising
from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA,
including violations of said agreement, are under the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator
or panel of voluntary arbitrators.
As such, petitioners cannot be faulted in invoking the
grievance machinery even after they had been dismissed
in compliance with the provisions of the CBA, to which
they were bound.
See: USAEU-FFW v CA
G.R. No. 169632; March 28, 2006; GARCIA, J.
Facts: There was a dispute between the Union and the
Company about the computation of salary increases.
Before preventive mediation proceedings with the NCMB
were completed, the Union filed notice and went on strike
despite the Company’s insistence that the CBA’s
grievance mechanism and voluntary arbitration clauses
should be followed.
Held: The CBA’s grievance mechanism and voluntary
arbitration clauses were founded on Arts. 261 and 262 of
the LC and should have been honored by the Union. The
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

parties were directed to voluntary arbitration. The strike
was illegal.
See also: Atlas Farm v NLRC
GR No. 142244; Nov. 18, 2002; Quisumbing, J.
Facts: Peña and Abion were fired by Atlas. They filed
complaints for illegal dismissal, but the complaints were
dismissed because the grievance machinery in the CBA
had not yet been exhausted. Peña and Abion availed of
the grievance process but were unsuccessful, so they re-
filed with the NLRC. Atlas contended that NLRC did not
have jurisdiction, because the CBA provided that
jurisdiction belongs to the grievance machinery and then
the voluntary arbitrator.
Held: The NLRC had jurisdiction. A voluntary arbitrator shall
only have jurisdiction over termination cases if they arise
from interpretation or implementation of the CBA, and
interpretation and enforcement of company personnel
policies, which was not the case with Peña and Abion.
d. Voluntary arbitration
Labor Code, Art. 274 (261)
Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators.— The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from
the interpretation or implementation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies referred to in the immediately preceding article.
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, except those which are gross in character,
shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and
shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article,
gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall
mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the
economic provisions of such agreement.
The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment
shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall
immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance
Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Labor Code, Art. 275 (262)
Jurisdiction over other labor disputes.— The Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon
agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all
other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and
bargaining deadlocks.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 1
Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (h).
Strikes, picketing and lockouts.— x x x
(h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration
process, the parties may opt to submit their dispute to
voluntary arbitration.
e. Contract infirmity
Associated Labor Unions v Calleja
GR No. L-77282 | May 5, 1989 | J. Regalado
Facts: The Company recognized ALU as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent for its employees, and a CBA
was executed. SPFL and NAMGAW went on strike because
of this recognition. BLR Director Calleja ordered
certification elections.
Held: Calleja’s decision correct. The contract-bar rule
does not apply in this case because the CBA was full of
infirmities. (Infirmities: haste on the part of the Company in
recognizing union despite being aware that there were
other unions existing in the unit, failure to post the same in
at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least
5 days before its ratification; 181 out of 281 workers who
ratified the same now strongly and vehemently deny and/
or repudiate the alleged negotiations and ratification of
the CBA.)
f. Contract ambiguity
Civil Code, Art. 1702, supra pg. 10
Holy Cross of Davao College v Holy Cross Faculty Union
G.R. No. 156098; June 27, 2005; Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Facts: Legaspi, a teacher in the College, was selected as
a recipient of a scholarship granted by the Japanese
government. Pursuant to the provisions of the CBA
between the College and the Union, she requested to be
on study leave with grant-in aid. However, the school
refused.
Held: The CBA as well as the school’s Policy Statement and
Guidelines for Trips Abroad for Professional growth are
clear in stating that teaching personnel who are selected
as scholarship recipients are entitled to a leave of
absence with a grant-in-aid, provided such grant is to
promote their professional growth or to enhance their
studies in institutions of higher learning. The provisions in the
CBA as well as in the Policy Statement are clear and need
no interpretation. Contracts which are not ambiguous are
to be interpreted according to their literal meaning and
not beyond their obvious intendment. Further, in case
there be any doubt or ambiguity in the CBA, the same
should be resolved in favor of the union members pursuant
to Article 1702, CC.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

g. Contract interpretation when the general and specific
provisions are inconsistent
Visayan Electric Co. EU & Mahilum vs. Visyan Electric Co.
GR 205575; July 22, 2015; Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Prior to the conclusion of the renegotiation of VECO’s and
the union’s CBA, the company president filed a complaint
against Mahilum and other union members for libel
proceeding from a prior strike the union conducted,
allegedly, for VECO's refusal to comply with the political
and economic provisions of the CBA. Mahilum protested
this insisting that the investigation should follow the
grievance machinery procedure under the CBA.
Nevertheless, the company still terminated Mahilum.
HELD:
The union failed to satisfactorily show that the refusal of
VECO to follow the grievance machinery procedure under
their CBA in the suspension and termination from
employment of the other union officers and members
constituted unfair labor practice.
True, it is a fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA
is the law between the parties and they are obliged to
comply with its provisions. If the provisions of the CBA
seem clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning of their
stipulations shall control. However, as in this case, when
general and specific provisions of the CBA are
inconsistent, the specific provision shall be paramount to
and govern the general provision.
h. Contract duration and renewal
Labor Code, Art. 264 (253), supra p. 5
Labor Code, Art. 265 (253-A)
Terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.— Any
Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may
enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification
election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor
and Employment outside of the sixty-day period
immediately before the date of expiry of such five-year
term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be
renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its
execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6)
months from the date of expiry of the term of such other
provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining
Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately
following such date. If any such agreement is entered into
beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration
of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the
renegotiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the
parties may exercise their rights under this Code. (As
amended by Section 21, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
1989)
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 2
Labor Code, Art. 268 (256) par. 2
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent where no petition for certification
election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
IRR, Book V, Rule XVII, Secs. 7-8
REGISTRATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
Sec. 7. Term of Representation Status; Contract Bar Rule. –
The representation status of the incumbent exclusive
bargaining agent which is a party to a duly registered
collective bargaining agreement shall be for a term of five
(5) years from the date of the effectivity of the collective
bargaining agreement. No petition questioning the
majority status of the incumbent exclusive bargaining
agent or petition for certification election filed outside of
the sixty-day period immediately preceding the expiry
date of such five- year term shall be entertained by the
Department.
The five-year representation status acquired by the
incumbent bargaining agent either through single
enterprise collective bargaining or multi-employer
bargaining shall not be affected by a subsequent
collective bargaining agreement executed between the
same bargaining agent and the employer during the
same five-year period.
Sec. 8. Renegotiation of Collective Bargaining
Agreements.— All provisions of a collective bargaining
agreement, except the representation status of the
incumbent bargaining agent, shall, as a matter of right, be
renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its
execution.
The renegotiated collective bargaining agreement shall
be ratified and registered with the same Regional Office
where the preceding agreement was registered. The
same requirements and procedure in the registration of
collective bargaining agreements prescribed in the
preceding rules shall be applied.
Meralco v Quisumbing
G.R. No. 127598; January 27, 1999
Facts: Meralco filed a Motion for Partial Modification of an
SC resolution holding that the arbitral award shall retroact
to the first day after the 6-month period following the
expiration of the last day of the CBA. Meralco contended
that there is nothing in Article 253-A which states that
arbitral awards or renewals of a CBA shall always have
retroactive effect. It noted that the Resolution was
internally inconsistent, as the reckoning date based on the
body of the decision should be June 1, 1996, but in the
dispositive, it was December 1, 1995. Also, the Court’s
ruling does not take into account the large cost the award
imposed on Meralco (P800M).
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Held: Balancing the contrasting interests of Meralco, being
in the industry imbued with public interest and the policy
of social justice, the arbitral award in this case be made to
retroact to the first day after the 6-month period following
the expiration of the last day of the CBA: from June 1, 1996
to May 31, 1998. It maintains the rule in the assailed
resolution pro hac vice.
Rivera v Espiritu & Laguesma
GR No. 135547 | Jan. 23, 2002 | J. Quisumbing
Facts: PAL underwent serious losses. An agreement was
created between PAL and the PAL Employees Association
(PALEA), with one condition stating that the CBA would be
suspended for 10 years. Petitioners filed a petition to annul
the agreement, stating that it violated the CBA limits in
Article 265 (253-A).
Held: The SC held that it did not. It was a valid exercise of
the freedom to contract, which PAL and PALEA entered
into voluntarily. Under the principle of inviolability of
contracts guaranteed by the Constitution, the contract
must be upheld. Article 265 (253-A) has a two-fold
purpose. One is to promote industrial stability and
predictability. The other is to assign specific timetables
wherein negotiations become a matter of right and
requirement. Nothing in Article 265 (253-A), prohibits the
parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory
timetables and agreeing on the remedies to enforce the
same.
Union of Filipino Employees v NLRC
Facts: The herein assailed NLRC resolution ordered that the
new CBA would only be effective upon the promulgation
of the same resolution. Petitioner Union said the new CBA
should have a retroactive effect, beginning from the
expiration of the old CBA.
Held: As per Arts. 253 and 253-A, in the absence of
stipulation for retroactive effect of a new CBA, the parties
are to keep the status quo (i.e. old CBA) during the 60-
day period prior to the expiration of the old CBA and/or
until a new agreement is reached.
FVC Labor Union – Phil. Transport & Gen. Workers Org. v
Sama-samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FBC
GR NO. 176249 | 27 Nov 2009 | Brion, J.
Facts: FVCLU-PTGWO signed a 5-year CBA with the
Company. Before the end of the 5- years, the parties
renegotiated the CBA and extended the same for another
4 years. Before the expiration of the original 5 year-term,
SANAMA-SIGLO filed for certification to represent the
employees, as the Labor Code provides a maximum of 5-
year term for representation status, and such can be
challenged within 60 days prior to expiration. FVCLU-
PTGWO wanted SANAMA-SIGLO’s petition for certification
dismissed, arguing that when the term of the CBA was
extended, their exclusive bargaining status was similarly
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 3
extended, and thus the latter’s petition was filed outside
the 60-days-before- expiration requirement.
Held: The extension of the CBA term has no legal effect on
the exclusive bargaining status of FVCLU-PTGWO, which
remained effective only for 5 years ending on the original
expiry date. While the parties may agree to extend the
CBA’s original 5-year term together with all other CBA
provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five
years will not carry with it a change in the union’s exclusive
collective bargaining status. Under Art. 253-A, the
exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond 5 years and
the representation status is a legal matter not for the
parties to agree upon.
1) Automatic renewal
Labor Code, Art. 264 (253), supra p. 5
…It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo
and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
parties.
Labor Code, Art. 268 (256) par. 2, supra p. 11
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent where no petition for certification
election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
1.a. Employers right to conduct disciplinary proceedings
vis-a-vis VA
PICOP Resources, Inc. vs. Tañeca et al.
G.R. No. 160828 | August 9, 2010
Facts: Union members, upon demand by the Union
president, were ter minated for allegedly having
campaigned for, supported, and signing the petition for
certification election which was filed by another union
(FFW) on the ground that it was as an act of disloyalty and
a valid basis for termination for a cause in accordance
with its constitution and by-laws and the Union Security
Clause of the existing CBA. In terminating the employees,
the Company cited Art. 253, which provides that "it shall
be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions
of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/
or until a new agreement is reached by the parties” to
argue that they were bound by the Union Security Clause
even after the CBA’s expiration.
Held: It is incumbent upon the employer to continue to
recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent even after the expiration of the freedom only if no
petition for certification election was filed. In this case, 4
petitions were already filed. Thus, the Company obligation
to recognize the incumbent union does not hold true
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

when petitions for certification election were filed. Also,
the last sentence of Art. 253 provides for automatic
renewal of economic provisions only and does not include
the representational aspect of the CBA. An existing CBA
cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for
certification election. When there is a representational
issue, the status quo provision in so far as the need to
await the creation of a new agreement does not apply.
See: GMC-Independent Labor Union vs. GMC
2011 | Perez, J.
Before the expiration of the CBA, the Union sent a draft
CBA proposal and requested counterproposals from GMC.
GMC failed to heed the request. NLRC ordered the
imposition of the draft proposal for the remaining 2 years
duration of the original CBA.
Held: Considering that no new CBA had been, in the
meantime, agreed upon by GMC and the Union, pursuant
to Article 253 of the Labor Code, the provisions of the
imposed CBA continues to have full force and effect until
a new CBA has been entered into by the parties. The law
does not distinguish between a CBA duly agreed upon by
the parties and an imposed CBA. The draft proposal of the
CBA that was imposed by the NLRC should be in effect for
the remaining years.
i. CBA and third party liability
Associated Labor Unions v NLRC
G.R. No. 74841 | December 20, 1991 | DAVIDE, JR., J:
Facts: MOPI was reorganized as MPI and was acquired by
Caltex. MOPI’s former employees who were
terminated due to MOPI’s closure sued for illegal dismissal
and ULP.
Held: When Caltex acquired MOPI it did not automatically
become an assignee of the CBA agreed upon by MOPI
and its employees. Labor contracts are not enforceable
against a transferee of an enterprise; labor contracts being
in personam, thus binding only between the parties.
j. CBA and Disaffiliation/Substitutionary Doctrine
Elisco-Elirol Labor Union v Noriel
G.R. No. L-41955; December 29, 1977
Facts: EELU-NAFLU executed a CBA with the Company.
Later, they decided to disaffiliate from NAFLU. After such
disaffiliation, the Company refused to recognize EELU as a
party to the CBA, it not being the “same union” stated in
the CBA (EELU-NAFLU).
Held: Unions have the right to disaffiliate themselves from
their “mother union” in the common interest of their
members and still be the same party as stipulated in the
CBA. The employees and members of the local union did
not form a new union, but merely registered the local
union pursuant to their right. Upon joining a national union,
the locals remained the basic units of the association.
Hence, it is free to renounce affiliation for mutual welfare
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 4
upon the terms in the agreement which brought it into
existence.
k. Jurisdiction
Pol. Inst. No. 56; April 6, 1993
CLARIFYING THE JURISDICTION BETWEEN VOLUNTARY
ARBITRATORS AND LABOR ARBITERS OVER TERMINATION
CASES AND PROVIDING GUIDELINES FOR THE REFERRAL OF
SAID CASES ORIGINALLY FILED WITH THE NLRC TO THE NCMB
In line with the policy of the Labor Code of the Philippines
to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective
bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary
arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of
settling labor of industrial disputes, the following guidelines
are hereby promulgated:
1. Termination cases arising in or resulting from the
interpretation and implementation of collective
bar gaining agreements and interpretation and
enforcement of company personnel policies which were
initially processed at the various steps of the plant-level
Grievance Procedures under the parties’ collective
bargaining agreements fall within the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrator pursuant to Article 217 (c) and Article 261 of the
Labor Code.
2. Said cases, if filed before a Labor Arbiter, shall be
dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction and
referred to the concerned NCMB Regional Branch for
appropriate action towards an expeditious selection by
the parties of voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators
based on the procedures agreed upon in the CBA.
This issuance shall take effect immediately.
(SGD.) MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, Secretary
1) Plenary jurisdiction of VA vis-a-vis Labor Arbiters
(Note: Ratio-speedy labor justice)
Metro Drug Distribution, Inc v Metro Drug Corp Employees
Association | 2005
Facts: The Union filed a complaint for ULP before the
arbitration branch of the NLRC against the Company for
the latter’s alleged violations of CBA economic and
grievance machinery provisions. Metro Drug filed a motion
to dismiss on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, contending that the issues raised are
exclusively cognizable by the voluntary arbitrator (and not
the Labor Arbiter).
Held: Certiorari was not the proper remedy. Metro Drug
should have submitted its position paper as ordered by the
LA and raise therein the question of supposed lack of
jurisdiction. In the event of unfavorable judgment, it could
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

thereafter raise the case, including the issue of jurisdiction,
via appeal to the NLRC as provided for in the Labor Code
on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
2) Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
Labor Code, Article 224 (217).
Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and Commission.
(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the
Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of the case by the
parties for decision without extension, even in the
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-
agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement,
those cases that workers may file involving wages,
rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages arising from the employer-
employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264
(prohibited activities) of this Code, including
questions involving the legality of strikes and
lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation,
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits,
all other claims arising from employer-employee
relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving amount exceeding
P5, 000.00 regardless of whether accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
(c) C a s e s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r
implementation of collective bargaining agreements
and those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same
to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration
as may be provided in said agreements.
Labor Code, Article. 274 (261).
Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators. – The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from
the interpretation or implementation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies referred to in the immediately preceding article.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 5
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, except those which are gross in character,
shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and
shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross
violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean
flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the
economic provisions of such agreement. The Commission,
its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the
Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain
disputes, grievances or matters under the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and
refer the same to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary
Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
Labor Code, Article 275 (262).
Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. – The Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon
agreement of parties, shall also hear and decide all other
labor disputes including unfair labor practices &
bargaining deadlocks.
T&H Shopfitters Corp v T&H Queen Workers Union | 2014
Facts: Respondents had a formal meeting with their
employer T&H Shopfitters to discuss the formation of a
union however, the following day, 17 employees were
barred from entering the employer’s factory premises.
DOLE issued a certification in favor of the union. The
officers and members of the union were discriminated
against with regards to the conditions of employment.
They were not given regular work assignments instead,
subcontractors were hired to perform their functions. They
were assigned as grass cutters on rotation basis. When the
Company sponsored a trip a day before the certification
election but union officers and members were excluded
from going. During the said trip, the company
campaigned against the union in the certification
election. On the day of the certification election, votes for
“no union” prevailed.
Jurisdictional issue: Factual findings of quasi–judicial
agencies that had acquired expertise in matters entrusted
to their jurisdiction were accorded not only respect but
finality if they were supported by substantial evidence.
NLRC considered the evidence and applied the law in this
case, thus, no grave abuse of discretion could be imputed
on its part.
See: Negros Metal Corp v Armelo J. Lamayo | 2010
Facts: Lamayo was terminated after 2 suspensions. He filed
a complaint with LA for illegal dismissal. The company
argued that LA had no jurisdiction since their CBA provides
that such matter should be first brought to the company’s
grievance machinery.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Held: LA had jurisdiction. Under Art. 217 of Labor Code, LA
has original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination
disputes. On the other hand, under Article 261, a voluntary
arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement
of company policies. As a general rule then, termination
disputes should be brought before a labor arbiter, except
when the parties, under Art. 262, unmistakably express that
they agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
3) Jurisdiction of the Labor Secretary
Labor Code, Article 278 (263).
Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. – x x x
(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
SOLE 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 resume operations and
readmit all workers under the same terms and
conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The
SOLE or the Commission may seek the assistance of
law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with
this provision as well as with such orders as he may
issue to enforce the same.
In line with the national concern for and the highest
respect accorded to the right of patients to life and
health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and
similar medical institutions shall, to every extent
possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only
by labor and management but government as well,
be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent,
their adverse effects on such life and health, through
the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to
strike and by management to lockout. In labor
disputes adversely affecting the continued operation
of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall
be the duty of the striking union or locking-out
employer to provide and maintain an effective
skeletal workforce of medical and other health
personnel, whose movement and services shall be
unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to
insure the proper and adequate protection of the life
and health of its patients, most especially emergency
cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such
cases, therefore, the SOLE may immediately assume,
within 24 hours from knowledge of the occurrence of
such a strike or lockout, 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 SOLE or the
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 6
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.
The foregoing notwithstanding, 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.
Asia Brewery, Inc v Tunay na Pagkakaisa | 2013
F: TPMA and Asia Brewery had been negotiating for a new
CBA but after 18 sessions, they were still unable to reach
an agreement. TPMA declared a deadlock and filed a
notice of strike still, they did not reach an agreement. Asia
Brewery petitioned the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over
their labor dispute. When SOLE assumed jurisdiction, TPMA
filed a petition for certiorari with the CA imputing bad faith
and grave abuse of discretion to the SOLE and praying for
the nullification of the order of assumption of jurisdiction
and assailing the arbitral award.
H: A collective bargaining dispute such as this one requires
due consideration and proper balancing of the interests of
the parties to the dispute and of those who might be
affected by the dispute. To our mind, the best way in
approaching this task holistically is to consider the
available objective facts, including, where applicable,
factors such as the bargaining history of the company, the
trends and amounts of arbitrated and agreed wage
awards and the company’s previous CBAs and industry
trends in general.
4) RTC Jurisdiction
GR: RTC has no jurisdiction in disputes involving an
employer-employee relationship (Halaguena v PAL)
Exceptions: RTC may have jurisdiction when
(1) the principal relief cannot be resolved with only the
application of labor law as it is outside the competence
and expertise of the LAs and the NLRC OR
(2) the dispute is not between the Union and the
Company, but between specific employees and the
Company.
Halaguena v PAL | 2009
Facts: Several female flight attendants of PAL questioned
the validity of a provision of the PAL- FASAP CBA providing
for the compulsory retirement of cabin attendants
(females had a younger retirement age). Eventually, they
filed a case with the RTC, which issued an order upholding
its jurisdiction over the case.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Held: The RTC has jurisdiction over the case because.
Although the general rule is that the RTC has no jurisdiction
in disputes involving an employer- employee relationship,
the resolution of the issue here entails not only the
application of labor law. Rather, the primary relief sought
involves the question of constitutionality and legality under
international law (Convention Eliminating All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women or CEDAW). The labor
relationship here is only incidental or secondary.
5) Proper Balancing of Interests in CB Disputes
Asia Brewery Inc v TPMA | 2013, supra pg. 15
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 7
VIII. Unfair Labor Practice
A. IN GENERAL
Why are ULPs punished? (Labor Code, Art. 247)
• Violation of constitutional right to self-
organization
• Inimical to the legitimate interests of both
labor and management
• Disrupt industrial peace
• Hinder promotion of healthy and stable labor-
management –relations
• Both violations of labor and management’s
civil rights AND criminal offenses against the
State
1. Definition and Primary Concept
Labor Code, Art. 219
Definitions. – x x x
(k) “Unfair labor practice” means any ULP as expressly
defined by the Code.
Labor Code, Art. 257 (246).
Non-abridgement of Right to Self-Organization. – It shall be
unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate
against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in
their exercise of the right to self-organization. Such right
shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor
organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining
through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in lawful concerted activities for the same
purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the
provisions of Article 264 of this Labor Code. (As amended
by BP Blg 70, May 1, 1980)
Labor Code, Art. 258 (247)
Concept of Unfair Labor Practice and Procedure for
Prosecution Thereof. – Unfair labor practices violate the
constitutional right of workers and employees to self-
organization, aare inimical to the legitimate interests of
both labor and management, including their right to
bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in
an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt
industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and
stable labor-management relations.
Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations
of the civil rights of both labor and management but are
also criminal offenses against the State which shall be
subject to prosecution and punishment as herein
provided.
Subject to the exercise by the President or by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers vested
in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, the civil
aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which
may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the hearing
and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor practices.
They shall resolve such cases within 30 days from the time
they are submitted for decision.
Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings
shall bar recovery under the Civil Code.
No criminal prosecution under this Title may be instituted
without a final judgment finding that an unfair labor
practice was committed, having been first obtained in the
preceding paragraph. During the pendency of such
administrative proceeding, the running of the period of
prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall
be considered interrupted: Provided, however, That the
final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not
be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as
evidence of guilty but merely as proof of compliance of
the requirements therein set forth. (As amended by BP Blg
70, May 1, 1980 and later further amended by Sec 19, RA
6715, March 21, 1989).
See again: Minette Baptista et al v Rosario Villanueva |
2013
Facts: Three complaints were filed against petitioners for
alleged violation of the Union’s Constitution and By-laws.
Petitioners were then expelled from the union.
Respondents requested the management to serve the
petitioners notices of termination from employment in
compliance with the CBA’s union security clause.
Petitioners now filed complaints for ULP against
respondents questioning the legality of their expulsion from
the union and their subsequent termination.
H: No ULP committed. Workers’ and employers’
organizations shall have the right to draw up their
constitutions and rules to elect their representatives, to
organize their administration and activities and to
formulate their programs. The Union’s constitution
mandate that before seeking the intervention of the court,
they should avail of all the internal remedies within the
organization first. Petitioners had violated this when they
filed petitions for impeachment before the DOLE without
first exhausting all internal remedies available within their
organization. Such violation, being a ground for expulsion,
justifies the expulsion of the petitioners. Their dismissal was
not a deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict their right to
organize.
2. ULP vis-à-vis Management Prerogative; Exception
An act may not be considered a ULP if it’s a valid exercise
of management prerogative.
• Management may regulate, according to its
discretion or judgment, all aspects of
employment, as long as it’s exercised in good
faith for the advancement of the employer’s
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 8
interest, and not exercised in a malicious,
harsh, oppressive, vindictive, or wanton
manner. (Azucena)
• The law on ULP is not intended to deprive
employers of their fundamental right to
prescribe rules they honestly believe to be
necessary to the proper operation of their
business
Labor Code, Article 278 (263) (g). supra pg. 15
T&H Shopfitters Corp v T&H Queen Workers Union | 2014,
supra pg. 14
I: W/N Company is liable for unfair labor practice – YES
Test whether an employer has interfered with and coerced
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization:
whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it
may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free
exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is not necessary
that there be direct evidence that any employee was in
fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of
the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-
union conduct of the employer does have an adverse
effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
The various acts of petitioners, taken together, reasonably
support an inference that, indeed, such were all
orchestrated to restrict respondents’ free exercise of their
right to self-organization.
See: Nelson Culili v Eastern Telecomm Phil Inc | 2011
Facts: Nelson Culili was employed by respondent Eastern
Telecomm Phil. Due to business troubles and losses, ETPI
was compelled to implement a Right-Sizing Program which
consisted of two phases: (1) reduction of ETPI’s workforce
to only those employees that were necessary and which
ETPI could sustain; and (2) company-wide reorganization
which would result in the transfer, merger, absorption or
abolition of certain departments of ETPI. One of the
positions that were abolished was Culili’s position. Now,
Culili is asserting that ETPI is guilty of ULP.
H: There is no showing that ETPI, in implementing its Right-
Sizing Program, was motivated by ill will, bad faith or
malice, or that it was aimed at interfering with its
employees’ right to to self-organization. In fact, ETPI
negotiated and consulted with the SEBA before
implementing the program. Culili’s termination being for
an authorized cause and absent bad faith on ETPI’s part in
implementing the Right-Sizing Program, ETPI is not guilty of
ULP.
See: San Miguel Corp Employees Union v Hon. Bersamira &
SMC | 1990
F: San Miguel entered into contracts with Lipercon and
D’Rite which are independent contractors. It was expressly
agreed that the workers employed by the contractors
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

were to be deemed employees or agents of San Miguel.
No employer-employee relation was to established
between San Miguel and the contractors/workers.
Petitioner Union advised San Miguel that some Lipercon
and D’Rite workers had signed up for union membership
and sought the regularization of their employment with
SMC. Union filed a notice of strike for ULP, CBA violations
and union busting, because of their failure to receive
favorable response from San Miguel, demanding that the
contractual workers be regularized. San Miguel filed a
complaint for damages before the RTC Court to enjoin the
Union from representing and/or acting for and in behalf of
the employees of LIPERCON and/or D'RITE. Union then filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
HELD:
SC recognizes the proprietary right of San Mig to
determine whether it should contract out the
performance of some of its work to independent
contractors. However, 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 (Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Const.)
equally call for recognition and protection. Those interests
must be placed in proper perspective and equilibrium.
3. Requisites
a. Employer-employee Relationship
o Why? ULP is a violation of the right to self-
organize, a right exercisable by employees in
relation to their employer (Azucena)
o Art. 246 (non-abridgment of right to self-
organization) says “any person,” so ULPs may also
be committed by the employer’s representative or
agent.
Sterling Products Int Inc v Loreta Sol & CIR | 1963
F: Respondent Loreta Sol charged petitioners with having
committed acts constituting ULP. She was subsequently
dismissed without just cause. Petitioner alleged that
complainant is an independent contractor and that she
was dismissed because her services were no longer
required.
H: Although respondent Sol was found to be a regular
employee, she was not connected with any labor union,
the company cannot be considered as having committed
acts constituting unfair labor practice as defined in the
Industrial Peace Act, Rep. Act 875.
See: American President Lines Inc v Hon Clave | 1982
F: Maritime Security Union and petitioner entered into a
contract whereby the former would guard and protect
the latter’s vessels. The contract was for a term of 1 year,
which was terminated after it had run such term. A new
contract was executed by petitioner with Philippine Scout
Veterans Security and Investigation Agency. A complaint
against petitioner for ULP was filed by Maritime Security
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 9
Union. They alleged that the petitioner had refused to
negotiate an agreement with them and had
discriminated against them with regards to their tenure of
employment by dismissing them because of their union
and union activities, LA found petitioner to be the
employer and is guilty of ULP.
H: In applying the four-fold test, it becomes clear that the
petitioner is NOT the employer of the private respondents.
The contract between the parties had expired. To hold the
complaining members of the agency as the employees of
the petitioner would violate the petitioner’s exclusive
prerogative to determine whether it should enter into a
security service contract or not. In view of the finding that
there is no EER between the petitioner and the members
of the agency, it necessarily follows that petitioner cannot
be guilty of ULP.
b. Act must be specifically denied in the law
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248)
Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. – It shall be unlawful
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practice:
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization;
(b) To require as a condition of employment that a person
or an employee shall not join a labor organization or
shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;
(c) To contract out services or functions being performed
by union members when such will interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization;
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with
the formation or administration of any labor
organization, including the giving of financial or other
support to it or its organizers or supporters;
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and
other terms and conditions of employment in order to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law
shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a
recognized collective bargaining agent as a
condition for employment, except those employees
who are already members of another union at the
time of the signing of the collective bargaining
agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining
unit who are not members of the recognized
collective bargaining agent may be assessed a
reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees
paid by members of the recognized collective
bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept
the benefits under the collective bargaining
agreement: Provided, that the individual authorization
required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

shall not apply to the nonmembers of the recognized
collective bargaining agent;
(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
discriminate against an employee for having given or
being about to give testimony under this Code;
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as
prescribed by this Code;
(h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its
officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue
in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or
(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of
corporations, associations or partnerships who have
actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor
practices shall be held criminally liable. (As amended by
BP Blg 130, Aug. 21, 1981).
Labor Code, Art. 260 (249)
Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations. – It shall be
unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers,
agents or representatives:
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
r i g h t t o s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n . H o w e v e r, a l a b o r
organization shall have the right to prescribe its own
rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of
membership;
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against an employee, including
discrimination against an employee with respect to
whom membership in such organization has been
denied or to terminate an employee on any ground
other than the usual terms and conditions under which
membership or continuation of membership is made
available to other members;
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively
with the employer, provided it is the representative of
the employees;
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or
deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other
things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for
services which are not performed or not to be
performed, including the demand for a fee for union
negotiations;
(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees
from employers as part of the settlement of any issue
in collective bargaining or any other dispute;
(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 0
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing
boards, representatives or agents or members of labor
associations or organizations who have actually
participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices
shall be held criminally liable. (As amended by BP Blg 130,
Aug. 21, 1981).
4. Burden of Proof
Basically, the burden of proof is on the party which alleges
ULP.
• The union has the burden of proof to present
substantial evidence to support its ULP
allegations against management. (Schering
Employees v. Schering Plough)
Schering Employees Labor Union & Lucia Sereneo v
Schering Plough Corp | 2005
F: Petitioner was employed by respondent company.
When she was elected president of petitioner union and
started the renegotiation with respondent company on
the CBA, respondents suddenly became dissatisfied with
her sales performance. Petitioner SELU filed a notice of
strike on the grounds of ULP and union busting before the
NCMB which was denied. Subsequently, respondents
terminated petitioner’s services for loss of trust and
confidence.
H: After a review of the records, it was found that she
actually falsified company call cards by altering the dates
of her visits to physicians. She was found guilty of
misappropriation of company funds by falsifying food
receipts. She had breached the trust reposed in her by
respondents. It is the union who had the burden of proof to
present substantial evidence to support its allegations of
ULP committed by management. It is not enough that the
union believed that the employer committed acts of ULP
when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima
facie showing to warrant such a belief.
5. Construction/Interpretation
In case of doubt, labor laws should be interpreted in favor
of labor and in favor of the safety and decent living for the
laborer.
Labor Code, Art. 4
Construction in Favor of Labor. – All doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this
Code, including its implementing rules and regulations,
shall be resolved in favor of labor.
NCC, Art. 1700
The relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

labor contracts must yield to the common good.
Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws
on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts,
closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor
and similar subjects.
NCC, Art. 1702
In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and
decent living for the laborer.
Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Assn v CIR | 1972
F: Petitioner was a labor organization of supervisors in the
Company. When petitioner informed the Company of the
petitioner’s registration, the Company inquired on the
position titles of the employees which the Association
sought to represent. Company initiated certification
proceeding so as to remove any question with regard to
position titles that should be included in the bargaining
unit. P then filed a notice to strike due to union busting
which was evidenced by discrimination, intimidation and
providing benefits against the presence of a SEBA. Judge
Tabigne cautioned the parties to maintain the status quo;
he specifically advised the employees not to go on strike,
making it clear, however, that in the presence of unfair
labor practices they could go on strike even without any
notice.
Petitioner continued with the strike and even filed another
case for ULP against the Company.
H: Judge “advice” not to strike to the Association during
the hearing does not amount to valid order. To say that it
was an order would be to concede that the respondent
court could validly enjoin strike. The return-to-work
agreement was in the nature of a partial compromise
between the parties and a labor contract. When the
Company unqualifiedly bound itself in the return-to-work
agreement that all employees will be taken back “with
the same employee status,” the Company made manifest
its intention and conformity not to proceed with the case
relating to the illegality of the strike incident.
6. Inter-relations of UPL Acts
Labor Code, Art. 259-260. supra pg. 18-19
Republic Savings Bank v CIR | 1967
F: Respondents were employees of Petitioner Republic
Savings Bank. The Company discharged the petitioners for
having written and published a “patently libelous letter”
which the respondents had written to the bank president,
demanding his designation on the grounds of
discrimination. A complaint was filed in CIR, which
subsequently found the company guilty of ULP.
H: Assuming that Rs acted in their individual capacities
when they wrote the letter-charge they were nonetheless
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 1
protected for they were engaged in concerted activity, in
the exercise of their right of self-organization that includes
concerted activity for mutual aid and protection,
interference with which constitutes ULP under section 4(a)
(1). The joining in protests or demands, even by a small
group of EEss, if in furtherance of their interests as such, is a
concerted activity protected by the Industrial Peace Act.
It is not necessary that union activity be involved or that
collective bargaining be contemplated.
Concurring Opinion | Fernando, J.
A more diplomatic approach could have been
attempted or at the very least, the procedure indicated
for the adjustment of a grievance could have been
followed. No party adopts in its initial stages, a hard-line
position from which there can be no retreat. Rs as labor
leaders appeared adamantine in their attitude to
terminate the services of the then president of the
Republic Savings Bank. Nor did they mince words in
describing his alleged misdeeds. They were quite certain
that he had offended most grievously. They wanted him
out. There was no room for discussion. This was not
bargaining as traditionally and commonly understood. The
employees did not even follow the procedure set forth for
adjusting grievances.
BUT, under the circumstances, the supervisors union, the
Republic Savings Bank EEs union, the Republic Savings
Bank security guards union, and the Republic Savings Bank
supervisors union were left leaderless. The dismissal
amounted to "interference, restraint or coercion" as
prohibited in the Industrial Peace Act.
7. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
Labor Code, Art. 257 (246), supra pg. 16
Labor Code, Art. 224 (217), supra pg. 14
Allan Mendoza v Officers of Manila Water Employees
Union | 2016
Petitioner was a member of MWEU while respondents were
MWEU officers. MWEU informed petitioner that the union
was unable to deduct the increased union dues from his
salary because of lack of check-off authorization. When
he still failed to pay, he was charged for violation of the
union’s constitution and by-laws. After the hearing of the
charge against him, the grievance committee
recommended his suspension which was “unanimously
approved” by the union’s Executive Board. He was
suspended for the second time and was subsequently
expelled from the union for his failure to pay union dues.
He then tried to join another union where he was elected
Union President BUT MWEU proposed a CBA containing
provisions disadvantageous to non-MWEU members.
Complaint then filed against respondents for ULP.
H: Inter-union dispute refers to any conflict between and
among legitimate labor unions involving representation
questions for purposes of collective bargaining or to any
other conflict or dispute between legitimate labor unions.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and
among union members, including grievances arising from
any violation of the rights and conditions of membership,
violation of or disagreement over any provision of the
union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
chartering or affiliation of union.
Although some of petitioner’s causes of action constitute
intra-union cases cognizable by the BLR, petitioner’s
charge of ULP falls within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the LA, pursuant to Art 217 (now 224) of the
LC.
B. ACTS VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
1. Interference, Restraint and Coercion
Aside from the fact that Art. 259 refers to ULPs committed
by employers while Art. 260 refers to ULPs committed by
labor organizations, one notable difference between the 2
provisions is the word “interfere.”
• “Interfere” is not included in Art. 260 because
any act of a labor organization amounts to
interference with the right to self-organization.
(Bar Ops 2007 reviewer)
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248) (a), supra pg. 18
Labor Code, Art. 267 (255)
Exclusive Bargaining Representation and Workers’
Participation in Policy and Decision-Making. – The labor
organization designated or selected by the majority of the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit
shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in
such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
However, an individual employee or group of employees
shall have the right at any time to present grievances to
their employer.
Labor Code, Art. 292 (277)
Miscellaneous Provisions. –
(g) The Ministry shall help promote and gradually develop,
with the agreement of labor organizations and employers,
labor-management cooperation programs at appropriate
levels of the enterprise based on the shared responsibility
and mutual respect in order to ensure industrial peace
and improvement in productivity working conditions and
the quality of working life. (Incorporated by BP Blg 130,
Aug 21, 1981)
(h) In establishments where no legitimate labor
organization exists, labor-management committees may
be formed voluntarily by workers and employers for the
purpose of promoting industrial peace. The DOLE shall
endeavor to enlighten and educate the workers and
employers on their rights and responsibilities through labor
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 2
education with emphasis on the policy thrusts of this Code.
(As amended by Sec 33, RA 6715, March 21, 1989)
Labor Code, Art. 260 (249) (a), supra pg. 19
Allan Mendoza v Officers of MWEU | 2016
Re: Interference, Restrain and Coercion
Petitioner was illegally suspended for the second time and
thereafter unlawfully expelled due to respondents’ failure
to act on his written appeals. Board must first act on his
two appeals before the matter could properly be referred
to the general membership. Because respondents did not
act on his two appeals, petitioner was unceremoniously
suspended, disqualified and deprived of his right to run for
the position of MWEU Vice-President, expelled from MWEU,
and forced to joint another union. For these, respondents
are guilty of ULP under Article 249 (a) and (b) – violation of
petitioner’s right to self-organization, unlawful
discrimination, and illegal termination of his union
membership. Such being the case, it falls within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the LA.
See again: T&H Shopfitters Corp v T&H Queen Workers
Union | 2014, supra pg. 14
See: Prince Transport, Inc & R. Claros v Diosdado Garcia et
al | 2011
F : R e s p o n d e n t s w e r e e m p l o y e e s o f p e t i t i o n e r.
Respondents used to receive commissions but when they
were reduced from 8-10% to 7-9&, the respondents held a
series of meetings to protect their interests. This led
petitioner to suspect that the respondents are about to
form a union. He made known his objection to the
formation of such. In order to block the continued
formation of the union, PTI caused the transfer of all union
members and sympathizers to one of its sub-companies,
Lubas Transport (Lubas).
Later, the business of Lubas deteriorated because of the
refusal of PTI to maintain and repair the units being used
therein, which resulted in the virtual stoppage of its
operations and respondents' loss of employment.
Respondents now charged petitioners with illegal dismissal,
ULP and illegal deductions.
H: Lubas is a mere agent, conduit or adjunct of PTI. A
settled formulation of the doctrine of piercing the
corporate veil is that when two business enterprises are
owned, conducted and controlled by the same parties,
both law and equity will, when necessary to protect the
rights of third parties, disregard the legal fiction that these
two entities are distinct and treat them as identical or as
one and the same. Although Lubas is a single
proprietorship and not a corporation, petitioners’ attempt
to hide behind the supposed separate and distinct
personality of Lubas so as to evade their liabilities is
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

precisely what the doctrine of piercing the veil of
corporate entity seeks to prevent and remedy.
Respondents’ transfer of work assignments to Lubas was
designed by petitioners as a subterfuge to foil the former’s
right to organize themselves into a union. An employer is
guilty of unfair labor practice if it interferes with, restrains or
coerces its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization or if it discriminates in regard to wages, hours
of work and other terms and conditions of employment in
order to encourage or discourage membership in any
labor organization.
See also: Park Hotel v Manolo Soriano et al. | 2012
F: Respondents were hired by Petitioner Park Hotel and
were later transferred to Burgos Corporation, a sister
company of Park Hotel. They were dismissed from work for
allegedly stealing company properties. Respondents then
filed complaints for illegal dismissal, alleging that the
reason for their dismissal was that they were organizing a
union.
H: Article 248 (a) of the Labor Code considers it an unfair
labor practice when an employer interferes, restrains or
coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization or the right to form an association. In order to
show that the employer committed unfair labor practice
under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to
support the claim. From the evidence presented,
respondents were already transferred to Burgos. Park Hotel
cannot be made liable for illegal dismissal as it no longer
had Soriano in its employ at the time he was dismissed
from work.
a. Interrogation/series of questionings re: Union
Memberships
BLUE FLASH DOCTRINE
An employee is not denied the privilege of
interrogating its employees as to their union affiliation,
provided the same is for a legitimate purpose and
assurance is given by the employer that no reprisals would
be taken against unionists.
• Questioning of employees concerning union
membership and activities, made in such a
way as tohamper the exercise of free choice
on the part of the employees, constitutes ULP
(Scoty’s v. Miller; Philippine Steam Navigation
Co. v. Philippine Marine Officers Guild)
Scoty’s Department Store v Micaller | 1956
F: Micaller was employed in Scoty’s Department Store. She
filed ULP charges against her employers after she was
dismissed allegedly because of her membership in the
National Labor Union. Prior to her separation, they had
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 3
been questioning their employees regarding their
membership in the union.
H: Petitioners are guilty of ULP. CIR had found that
petitioners subjected Nena Micaller and her co-
employees to a series of questioning regarding their
membership in the union or their union activities which, in
contemplation of law, are deemed acts constituting ULP.
In the American case of NLRB v Harris-Woodson Co., it was
held that questioning of employees concerning union
membership and activities and disparaging remarks by
supervisory employees made in such a way as to hamper
the exercise of free choice on the part of the employees,
have been uniformly condemned as a violation of the
Act.
See: Philippine Steam Navigation Co v Phil Marine Officers
Guild
F: Respondent PHILMOG is a labor union affiliated with the
Federation of Free Workers representing some of
PHILSTEAM’s officers. Cebu Seamen’s Association (CSA) is
another labor union representing some of PHILSTEAM’s
officers. PHILSTEAM demanded proof that PMOG
represented the majority of its employees and started its
own investigation even before PMOG could reply to the
demand. PMOG eventually filed a notice of strike alleging
ULP on the part of PHILSTEAM.
H: PHILSTEAM did indeed commit unfair labor practices by
interfering with its employees’s exercise of the right to self-
organization. A company subjecting its employees to a
series of questions regarding their membership in the union
or their union activities in such a way as to hamper the
exercise of free choice on their part constituted unfair
labor practice.
b. Speech, Espionage, Economic Coercion
(Note: Test in ULP – Totality of conduct doctrine)
Speech
o A company commits ULP when it writes letters to
employees containing “bribes” and threats of
dismissal to induce strikers to return to work. Such
letters, when taken together with the other
circumstances, aren’t protected by the free
speech provisions of the Constitution(Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association v.
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.).
Espionage
o A company commits ULP when there is good
ground to believe that a former union member
was made to spy on union activities and testify
against union members on behalf of the
company.(Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance
Co., Ltd.)
Economic coercion
o A company commits ULP when it offers “bribes,”
e.g. bonuses to “loyal” employees and wage
increases to strikers in exchange for returning to
work.
The Insular Life Assurance Co Ltd., Employees Association
v Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd
Facts: Unions jointly submitted proposals to modify the
renewal of their respective CBAs. Negotiations were
conducted but there was a deadlock. The Unions
eventually went on strike. To try and get the employees
back to work, the Companies sent two letters. In the first,
they “bribed” the workers with promises of free meals,
comfortable cots, overtime pay, free coffee and
occasional movies, as well as more benefits for their
families while in the second, they subtly threatened the
strikers by saying that they could no longer hold the
strikers’ positions open and by giving an ultimatum. The
Companies also attempted to break the picket lines, filed
criminal charges against some strikers, and used two of
their employees who were the former legal counsels of the
Unions.
Held: Companies were guilty of violating the employees’
right to organize, form and join labor organizations. They
committed unwarranted acts of interference in trying to
“bribe” the strikers to go back to work, threatening them
with eventual dismissal, and in utilizing the former legal
counsels of the Unions in negotiations. The letters
containing such bribes and threats, when taken together
with other circumstances, are not covered by the free
speech provisions of the Constitution. Court also said that
the ff. were likewise violative of the right to self-
organization: the offer of a Christmas bonus to all "loyal"
employees of a company shortly after the making of a
request by the union to bargain; wage increases given for
the purpose of mollifying employees after the employer
has refused to bargain with the union, or for the purpose of
inducing striking employees to return to work; the
employer's promises of benefits in return for the strikers'
abandonment of their strike in support of their union; and
the employer's statement, made about 6 weeks after the
strike started, to a group of strikers in a restaurant to the
effect that if the strikers returned to work, they would
receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization,
accident insurance, profit-sharing, and a new building to
work in. There was also good ground to believe that a
former union member was made to spy on union activities
and testify against union members on behalf of the
company.
c. Concerted Activities
A company commits ULP when it does not permit all of its
employees to join a mass demonstration against alleged
police abuses (Philippine Blooming Mills v. Philippine
Blooming Mills Employees Organization)
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 4
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v
Philippine Blooming Mills Co
Facts: PBMEO carried out a mass demonstration at
Malacañang in protest against alleged abuses of the
Pasig police department. PBMEO gave the company two
days' prior notice. Company insisted that the first shift
workers should not be required to participate in the
demonstration and that the workers in the second and
third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6
A.M. to 2 P.M. CIR ruled that PBMEO guilty of bargaining in
bad faith and its officers were ordered to be dismissed.
Held: The Company is guilty of unfair labor practice as
defined in the Industrial Peace Act (RA 875). Section 3
guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in
concert activities for ... mutual aid or protection". Section
4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for an employer
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
their rights guaranteed in Section Three. It is not necessary
that union activity be involved or that collective
bargaining be contemplated as long as the concerted
activity is for the furtherance of their interests. The mass
demonstration was for their mutual aid and protection
against alleged police abuses. Hence, the company’s
action constituted as interference to their right to engage
in concerted activity.
2. Non-Union Membership or Withdrawal from Membership
as a condition of Employment (yellow-dog contract)
“Yellow-dog contract”
• Promise exacted from workers or prospective
employees that they will not belong to nor form a union
during their employment (Azucena)
A company commits ULP when it refuses to admit seasonal
workers (whose services it had engaged in previous
seasons) belonging to a particular union, and tells such
workers that they must leave that union if they want to
continue working for the company (Visayan Stevedore
Trans. Co. v. CIR)
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248)
Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practice:
xxx
b. To require as a condition of employment that a person
or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall
withdraw from one to which he belongs;
xxx
Visayan Stevedore Trans. Co. v CIR & UFWA | 1967
Facts: VISTRANCO’s workers were supplied by UFWA, a
labor organization. The laborers have regularly worked for
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

the company during every milling seasons. One day the
company refused to engage the services of respondents.
According to the respondents, it was because of their
union activities, but the Company was arguing that they
were not its employees but workers whose services were
merely supplied to them by UFWA.
Held: Regarding the charge of the ULP against the
company, such charge is substantially borne out by the
evidence of record, it appearing that the workers which
were not admitted to work were precisely those belonging
to the UFWA and the Branch Manager had told them
point-blank that severance of their connection with the
UFWA was the remedy if they wanted to continue working
with the company. This act done by the company is
considered ULP.
3. Contracting out to Discourage Unionism
Subcontracting is NOT always tantamount to ULP.
• When is it ULP? When it’s motivated by a
desire to prevent employees from
organizing(Azucena)
• When is it NOT ULP? If it’s done for business
reasons (e.g. decline in business,inadequacy
of equipment, need to reduce cost)
(Azucena)
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248). -
Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practice:
xxx
c. To contract out services or functions being performed
by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization;
xxx
Digital Telecommunications, Phil., Inc. v Digitel Employees
Union | 2012
F: The parties commenced collective bargaining
negotiations which resulted in a bargaining deadlock.
Despite the SOLE order to execute a CBA, still, the parties
failed to come to an agreement. The Union later became
dormant. Ten years thereafter, Digitel received a letter
from the Union President detailing the list of officers, CBA
proposals and ground rules. The company first demanded
that the Union show compliance with the provisions of the
Union’s CBL on union membership and election of officers.
Complaint filed against Digitel for violation of the duty to
bargain. During the pendency of the controversy, Digitel
(Digiserv) filed with DOLE an Establishment Termination
Report, stating that it will cease its business operations,
affecting at least 100 employees, 42 of whom are Union
members.
H: Bad faith was manifested by the timing of the closure of
Digiserv and the rehiring of some employees to Interactive
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 5
Technology Solutions, Inc. (I-tech), a corporate arm of
Digitel. The timing of the creation of I-tech is dubious. It
was incorporated while the labor dispute within Digitel was
pending. I-tech’s primary purpose was to provide call
center/customer contact service, the same service
provided by Digiserv. It conducts its business inside the
Digitel office. The former head of Digiserv is also an officer
of I-tech. Thus, when Digiserv was closed down, some of
the employees presumably non-union members were
rehired by I-tech.
The closure of Digiserv pending the existence of an
assumption order coupled with the creation of a new
corporation performing similar functions as Digiserv leaves
no iota of doubt that the target of the closure are the
union member-employees. These factual circumstances
prove that Digitel terminated the services of the affected
employees to defeat their security of tenure. The
termination of service was not a valid retrenchment; it was
an illegal dismissal of employees.
4. Company Domination of Union
What’s a “company union”? (Art. 219)
Any labor organization whose formation, function or
administration has been assisted by any act defined as
ULP by the Labor Code
Common manifestations (Azucena, citing Philippine
American Cigar):
• Initiation by the employer of the company union
idea
o Outright formation of the union by the employer
o Employee formation of the union upon
employer’s demand/influence
o Employee formation motivated by management
• Financial support to union
o Union expenses
o Attorney’s fees
• Employer encouragement and assistance
o Immediately recognizing a union as SEBA without
first determining if it represents the majority
• Supervisory assistance
o Soliciting membership
o Permitting union activities during working hours
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248).
Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practice:
xxx
d. To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with
the formation or administration of any labor organization,
including the giving of financial or other support to it or its
organizers or supporters;
xxx
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Labor Code, Art. 219.
Definitions. – x x x
(i) “Company union” means any labor organization whose
formation, function or administration has been assisted by
any act defined as unfair labor practice by this Code.
Progressive Development Corporation v CIR & ACGA |
1977
Facts: 48 ACEA employees were dismissed. ACEA filed a
complaint in behalf of the employees, asserting that they
were dismissed because of their failure to resign from
ACEA and refusal to associate with PEU. They also claim
that PEU was created by the company merely to stave off
ACEA’s recognition.
Held: SC ruled that based on the evidence presented and
the actions of PDC, it can be concluded that the
employees were indeed dismissed because of their refusal
to resign from ACEA and to affiliate with PEU. It was shown
that the company had a hand in the formation of PEU. It
can also be seen that PEU was organized to camouflage
the company’s dislike for ACEA and to stave off their
recognition.
5. Discrimination to Encourage/Discourage Unionism
Discrimination in regard to terms and conditions of
employment
Why discriminate?
• To discourage/encourage membership in a labor
organization
Who commits ULP?
• The employer who discriminates
• The labor organization which causes or attempts to
cause the employer to discriminate
Discrimination vs. differentiation/classification
• There are valid differentiations based on differences in
job requirements. It’s not ULP when management
classifies jobs with varying pay/benefits. (Azucena)
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248).
Unfair labor practices of employers. –
It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
following unfair labor practice:
xxx
e. To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and
other terms and conditions of employment in order to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall
stop the parties from requiring membership in a
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for
employment, except those employees who are already
members of another union at the time of the signing of the
collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an
appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 6
recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed
a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees
paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining
agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits
under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided,
that the individual authorization required under Article 242,
paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the
nonmembers of the recognized collective bargaining
agent;
Labor Code, Article 260 (249).
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. –
It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its
officers, agents or representatives: xxx
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against an employee, including discrimination
against an employee with respect to whom membership
in such organization has been denied or to terminate an
employee on any ground other than the usual terms and
conditions under which membership or continuation of
membership is made available to other members;
xxx
a. Discriminatory discharge
i. The finding of ULP and… do not follow solely by reason of
dismissal
If the main reason for discharging the employee is his
union activities, then it doesn’t matter if a lawful cause of
discharge is also available (not a defense)(Azucena)
Echo 2000 Commercial Corporation v Obrero Filipino-Echo
2000 Chapter-CLO | 2016
F: Respondents were employees of petitioner company.
Echo, in the exercise of its management prerogative,
decided to reassign the staff after they received
information about shortages in peso value arising from the
movement of products to and from its warehouse.
Respondents were transferred which entails no change in
ranks, status and salaries. Respondents Cortes and Somido
declined this offer of promotion as “Delivery Supervisor,”
saying that they were already happy and content with
their current positions. Echo informed respondents of their
new designations and alleged that they did not perform
the new duties assigned to them. Because of the
respondents’ continued refusal to perform their new
duties, they were terminated.
H: The offer of transfer is, in legal contemplation, a
promotion which the respondents validly refused. Such
refusal cannot be the basis for the respondents’ dismissal
from service. An employee is not bound to accept a
promotion, which is in the nature of a gift or reward.
Refusal to be promoted is a valid exercise of a right, which
cannot be considered insubordination, or willful
disobedience of a lawful order hence, it cannot be the
basis of an employee’s dismissal from service.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

BUT Echo is not guilty of ULP. The respondents allege that
their transfer/promotion was intended to deprive the Union
of leadership and membership. They claim that other
officers were already dismissed. The foregoing, however,
lacks substantiation. Unfair labor practice is a serious
charge, and the respondents failed to show that the
petitioners conclusively interfered with, restrained, or
coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization.
b. Exception: Valid “discrimination”: union security clause
– requisites
Union security clause
• In terminating the employment of an employee by
enforcing the union security clause, the employer
needs only to determine and prove that:
o The union security clause is applicable.
o The union is requesting for the enforcement
of the union security provision in the CBA
o There is sufficient evidence to support the
decision of the union to expel the
employee from the union (General Milling
Corp. v. Casio)
i. closed shop
No person may be employed in any or certain agreed
departments of the enterprise unless he or she is,
becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains
a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised
of or of which the employees in interest are a part(General
Milling Corp. v. Casio)
ii. union shop
All new regular employees are required to join the union
within a certain period as a condition for their continued
employment (Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. NLRC)
iii. maintenance of membership
Employees who are union members as of the effective
date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
members, must maintain union membership as a condition
for continued employment until they are promoted or
transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is
terminated(Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. NLRC)
Summary of Union Security Clauses
[Taken from BarOps 2007 Reviewer]
Hiring Continued Ground for
Employment Termination
Closed shop Must Must be a If not a
become union union
union member all member at
member at thoughout anytime
time of
hiring
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 7
Union shop May be Must Does not
hired even if become become
not union union member
member member after
after a reasonable
reasonable time
time
Maintenance Already a Must Disaffiliates
of union maintain from union
membership member at membership
time of
hiring
General Milling Corp v Ernesto Casio | 2010
Facts: Casio et al. were dismissed by GMC pursuant to
their union’s resolution that they no longer enjoyed good
standing within the collective.
Held: The SC upheld the validity of the expulsion from the
union and subsequently, from work, pursuant to union
security provisions in the CBA. However, GMC did not
accord Casio et al. with due process when it effected the
termination.
A closed shop may be defined as an enterprise in which,
by agreement between the employer and his employees
or their representatives, no person may be employed in
any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise
unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the
agreement, remains a member in good standing of a
union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in
interest are a part.
In terminating the employment of an employee by
enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs
only to determine and prove that:
(1) the union security clause is applicable;
(2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the
union security provision in the CBA; and
(3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of
the union to expel the employee from the union.
See: Alabang Country Club, Inc v NLRC | 2008
Facts: Union officers were found to have malversed the
Union funds. The Union invoked the security clause in its
CBA and asked the Club to terminate the officers
charged. The Club made its own investigation upon
receipt of the Union’s request that the 3 officers be
terminated. The officers were dismissed.
Held: The dismissals were valid. The dismissal of the
employees on the basis of a union security clause
embodied in the CBA is recognized and accepted in this
jurisdiction. The terminated employees were also
accorded due process.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

There is union shop when all new regular employees are
required to join the union within a certain period as a
condition for their continued employment.
There is maintenance of membership shop when
employees who are union members as of the effective
date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
members, must maintain union membership as a condition
for continued employment until they are promoted or
transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is
terminated.
See again: PICOP Resources, Inc v Taneca] | 2010
Facts: Employees were dismissed for alleged acts of
disloyalty which violates the union security clause in the
CBA. The alleged acts were the signing of the employees
of the authorization of petition for certification election.
The employees sued the employer for unfair labor
practice.
Held: They were illegally dismissed. The requisites for
terminating the employment of an employee were not
met. There was not enough evidence to justify the
expulsion of the employees from the union. They merely
signed authorizations and not actual petitions. Also, an
existing CBA does not constitute a bar to a petition for
certification election.
c. Collection of agency fees
Labor Code, Article 259 (248).
Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practice:
xxx
e. To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and
other terms and conditions of employment in order to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall
stop the parties from requiring membership in a
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for
employment, except those employees who are already
members of another union at the time of the signing of the
collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an
appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the
recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed
a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees
paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining
agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits
under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided,
that the individual authorization required under Article 242,
paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the
nonmembers of the recognized collective bargaining
agent;
xxx
Note: legal basis: quasi-contractual/principle of
unjust enrichment
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 8
• Quasi-contractual, to prevent non-union
members’ unjust enrichment. (Del Pilar Academy,
et al. v. Del Pilar Academy Employees’ Union)
Del Pilar Academy, et al v Del Pilar Academy Employees
Union | 2008
Facts: The union successfully negotiated for additional
benefits under the CBA. The union asked Del Pilar that
agency fees be deducted from the salaries of employees
(who were not members of the union but benefited under
the new CBA). Del Pilar refused. According to it, it was not
authorized by the employees to deduct agency fees from
their salaries and that said benefits were not due to the
CBA alone but were mandated by law.
Held: The agency fees should be deducted from the
salaries of non-members of the union who benefited
under the CBA. No requirement of written authorization
from the non-union employees is necessary if the non-
union employees accepted the benefits resulting from the
CBA. The employee's acceptance of benefits resulting
justifies the deduction of agency fees from his pay and the
union's entitlement thereto. The legal basis of the union's
right to agency fees is neither contractual nor statutory,
but quasi-contractual, deriving from the established
principle that non-union employees may not unjustly
enrich themselves by benefiting from employment
conditions negotiated by the bargaining union.
6. Retaliatory discharge of Retaliation for Testimony
Against Employer/ Indirect Discrimination
What constitutes retaliation?
• To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
discriminate against an employee for having given or
being about to give testimony under the Labor Code
• Employer’s motive is immaterial – may or may not
have been motivated by anti-union attitude
(Azucena)
• Nature of employee’s testimony is immaterial –
may or may not pertain to union matter(Azucena)
A company commits ULP when it drops an employee’s
grievance case after the employee testifies against the
company in a certification election hearing. (Itogon-
Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. Baldo)
Labor Code, Article 259 (248).
Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practice:
xxx
(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
discriminate against an employee for having given or
being about to give testimony under this Code;
xxx
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Itogon-Suyoc Mines Inc v Jose Baldo | 1964
Facts: Baldo was dismissed for no justifiable reason. There
was ongoing certification election hearing. In exchange
for not testifying in the case, the labor relations officer of
ISM offered to reinstate him. When he went on and
testified against ISM, his own case before the grievance
committee was dropped.
Held: ISM is guilty of unfair labor practice. He didn’t do
anything grave to warrant dismissal.
7. Illegal Exaction – Featherbedding
• To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay
or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or
other things of value, in the nature of an exaction,
for services which are not performed or not to be
performed, including the demand for fee for
union negotiations
• Creating or spreading employment by
unnecessarily maintaining or increasing the
number of employees or amount of time used for
a job (Azucena)
Why is it ULP?
• Economically wasteful and without any legitimate
employee justification (Azucena, citing Cox, Bok,
German, Cases and Materials on Labor Law)
• In the case of union negotiation fees, the resulting
CBA would probably be a “sweetheart contract”
i.e. one that doesn’t substantially improve
employees’
Labor Code, Article 260 (249).
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. – It shall be
unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers,
agents or representatives: xxx
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or
deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other
things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services
which are not performed or not to be performed,
including the demand for a fee for union negotiations
xxx
c. Acts Violative of Right to Collective Bargaining
1. Violation of Duty to Bargain
Duty to bargain collectively
• Performance of a mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith
for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with
respect to terms and conditions of employment,
including proposals for adjusting any grievances
or questions arising under such agreement, and
executing a contract incorporating such
agreements, if requested by either party
• Does NOT compel any party to agree to a
proposal or to make any concession
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 2
! 9
• If there’s a CBA…
o Neither party shall modify or terminate the
agreement during its lifetime, but can
serve a written notice to do so at least 60
days prior to its expiration date
o Both parties must keep status quo during
60-day period prior to its expiration date
and/or until a new agreement is reached
• If there’s no CBA…
o Employer and representative of
employees still have duty to bargain
collectively
Who commits ULP?
• Employer who violates duty to bargain
collectively
• Labor organization which violates duty to
bargain collectively or refuses to bargain with
employer, provided it’s the representative
Labor Code, Article 259 (248).
Unfair labor practices of employers. –
It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
following unfair labor practice:
xxx
g. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed
by this Code;
xxx
Labor Code. Article 260 (249).
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. –
It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its
officers, agents or representatives: xxx
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively
with the employer, provided it is the representative of the
employees
xxx
Labor Code, Article 261 (250).
Procedure in collective bargaining. –
The following procedures shall be observed in collective
bargaining:
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it
shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a
statement of its proposals. The other party shall make
a reply thereto not later than 10 calendar days from
receipt of such notice;
(b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice
and reply, either party may request for a conference
which shall begin not later than 10 calendar days from
the date of request.
(c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene
upon request of either or both parties or at its own
initiative and immediately call the parties to
conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the
parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the
parties to participate fully and promptly in the
conciliation meetings the Board may call;
(d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the
parties are prohibited from doing any act which may
disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes;
and (e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle
disputes amicably and encourage the parties to
submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator; and
(e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes
amicably and encourage the parties to submit their
case to a voluntary arbitrator. (As amended by Sec
20, RA 6715, March 21, 1989).
Labor Code, Article 262 (251).
Duty to Bargain Collectively in the Absence of Collective
Bargaining Agreements.
In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary
arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of
collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and
the representatives of the employees to bargain
collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Labor Code, Article 263 (252).
Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. –
The duty to bargain collectively means the performance
of a mutual obligation to meet and convent promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating
an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and
all other terms and conditions of employment including
proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising
under such agreement and executing a contract
incorporating such agreements in requested by either
party but such duty does not compel any party to agree
to a proposal or to make any concession.
Labor Code, Article 264 (253).
Duty to Bargain Collectively When There Exists a Collective
Bargaining Agreement. –
When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty
to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party
shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its
lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice
to terminate or modify the agreement at least 60 days
prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both
parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force
and effect the terms and conditions of the existing
agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new
agreement is reached by the parties.
Summary of procedure in collective bargaining (Art. 261)
1) Party #1 serves written notice (with proposals;
Party #2 must reply within 10 days from receipt
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 0
2) In case of differences, either party may request for
conference to be held within 10 days from request
3) If dispute not settled, NCMB may intervene and
call for conciliation meetings
4) During conciliation, parties are prohibited from
doing any act which may disrupt/impede early
settlement
5) NCMB shall exert all efforts to settle all disputes
amicably and encourage parties to submit case
to voluntary arbitrator
A company cannot dissolve something provided for in the
existing CBA. The duty to bargain is a continuous process
which imposes on the parties the obligation to live up to
the terms of the agreement.(Shell Oil Workers Union v. Shell
Co. of the Philippines, Ltd.)
During negotiations, management has a right to insist on its
position to the point of stalemate. Reaching an impasse
does not evidence bad faith. (Union of Filpro Employees –
DFAI Unions KMU v. Nestle Phils., Inc.)
Duty to resume negotiations
• While the law makes it an obligation for the
employer and the employees to bargain
collectively with each other, such compulsion
does not include the commitment to
precipitately accept or agree to the
proposals of the other. All it contemplates is
that both parties should approach the
negotiation with an open mind and make
reasonable effort to reach a common ground
of agreement(CABEU-NFL v. Central
Azucarera de Bais)
Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum Corp | 2014
F: On the parties’ 41st meeting, the company proposed the
declaration of a deadlock and recommended that the
help of a third party be sought. Union filed a Notice of
Strike alleging ad faith bargaining on the part of the
company. When the parties failed to reach an amicable
settlement, SOLE assumed jurisdiction, ruling that the
company is not guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Union
questioned the SOLE’s assumption of jurisdiction over the
labor dispute on the ground that the case was about CBA,
not the subject matter of the notice of strike because the
case was all about ULP in the form of bad faith bargaining.
H: The labor dispute between the union and the company
concerned the unresolved matters between the parties in
relation to their negotiations for a new CBA. The power of
the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over this dispute includes
and extends to all questions and controversies arising from
the said dispute, such as, but not limited to the union’s
allegation of bad faith bargaining. It also includes and
extends to the various unresolved provisions of the new
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

CBA such as compensation, particularly the matter of
annual wage increase or yearly lump sum payment in lieu
of such wage increase, whether or not there was
deadlock in the negotiations. SOLE need not wait for a
deadlock in the negotiations to take cognizance of the
matter.
Shell Oil Workers Union v Shell Co of the Phils Ltd. | 1971
Facts: Shell wanted to dissolve its security guard section
and replace it with an outside agency, despite its being
embraced in and assured by an existing collective
bargaining contract. As a response, the Union held a
strike. The Company argued that the move to dissolve the
security guard section is within its management
prerogative. CIR decided in favor of the Company,
holding that the strike was illegal.
Held: Shell is precluded from dissolving the security guard
section because, even though the same is normally within
its management prerogative, such section is covered and
provided for in the existing collective bargaining contract.
The company thus violated the collective bargaining
contract when it dissolved the security guard section. The
duty to bargain is a continuous process which imposes on
the parties the obligation to live up to the terms of the
agreement. As such, it is undeniable that non-
compliance to the agreement constitutes an unfair labor
practice. Consequently, the strike held by the Union was
not illegal because it was only made as a response to the
company’s commission of an unfair labor practice.
See also: De La Salle Univ v De La Salle Univ Employees
Association | 2012
F: BLR Director ordered the conduct of an election of
union officers because the present officers were not
elected by the general membership but were appointed
by the Executive Board in a hold-over capacity. DLSU said
that there is a conclusion of fact that there is an absolute
void in the leadership of respondent. Furthermore, that
normal relations with the union cannot occur until the said
void in the leadership is appropriately filled. Affected by
the temporary suspension of normal relations is the
renegotiation of the economic provisions of the 2002-2005
CBA. No renegotiation can occur given the void in the
leadership.
H: The University is guilty of refusal to bargain amounting to
ULP. There was a requirement on both parties of the
performance of the mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement. The issue of union
leadership is distinct and separate from the duty to
bargain.
The alleged void union leadership does not constitute a
valid ground to refuse to negotiate because petitioner’s
duty to bargain under the law is due and demandable
under the law.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 1
a. Setting a pre-condition to bargaining
Union of Filipro Employees – DFAI Unions KMU v Nestle Phil
Inc. | 2008
Facts: The union initiated the CBA negotiations with Nestle
since their existing CBA was about to expire. Nestle was of
the firm stance that unilateral grants including, but not
limited to retirement plans, are not proper subjects of the
negotiations. The union filed two notices of strike - the first
one predicated on an alleged bargaining deadlock while
the second one on alleged unfair labor practices on the
part of Nestle. In an earlier decision, the SC held that
Nestle was not guilty of committing any unfair labor
practice.
Held: Nestle is not guilty of committing any unfair labor
practice. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper,
it must be shown that Nestle was motivated by “ill will … or
was oppressive to labor …” in disclaiming unilateral grants
(e.g. retirement plan) as proper subjects in the
negotiations. The management had a right to insist on its
position to exclude the retirement plan issue to the point of
stalemate. Reaching an impasse does not evidence bad
faith.
See again: Insular Life Employees Association v Insular Life
| 1971, supra pg. 23
b. Duty to Resume Negotiations
CABEU-NFL v Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc | 2010
Facts: After CBA negotiations between the union (CABEU-
NFL) and company CAB resulted in a deadlock, the union
filed a Notice of Strike with NCMB, which assumed
jurisdiction and summoned the parties to conciliation
conferences. After receiving the union’s request for further
conciliation conferences, CAB replied that such would
serve no lawful or practical purpose because the majority
of the R&F employees in the bargaining unit had
withdrawn their support for the union and organized
themselves into a new union, known as CABELA, which
had already concluded its own CBA with CAB.
Held: CAB is NOT guilty of ULP by refusing to bargain
collectively. There was no showing of ill will/bad faith/
fraud, oppression to labor, or acting in a manner contrary
to morals/good customs/public policy on CAB’s part, nor
of social humiliation/wounded feelings/grave anxiety on
the union’s part. CAB’s actions were NOT tantamount to
anti-unionism, the evil sought to be punished in ULP cases.
While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and
the employees to bargain collectively with each other,
such compulsion does not include the commitment to
precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the
other. All it contemplates is that both parties should
approach the negotiation with an open mind and make
reasonable effort to reach a common ground of
agreement
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

2. Negotiation or Attorney’s Fees
Labor Code, Article 259 (248).
Unfair labor practices of employers.
It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
following unfair labor practice:
xxx
h. To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its
officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in
collective bargaining or any other dispute; or
xxx
Article 260 (249).
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. –
It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its
officers, agents or representatives: xxx
(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees from
employers as part of the settlement of any issue in
collective bargaining or any other dispute;
xxx
3. Gross Violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement
Only GROSS violation of the CBA constitutes ULP.
• Under Art. 259 (i) and Art. 260 (f), violation of
the CBA by either the employer or labor
organization would constitute ULP. But Art. 274
provides that “violations of a CBA, except
those which are gross in character, shall no
longer be treated as ULP.”
• To be heard and decided by a Labor Arbiter
What is a gross violation of the CBA? (Art. 274)
• Flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply
with the economic provisions of the CBA
What happens if it’s just a violation of the CBA? (Art. 274)
• Resolved as grievance under the CBA
• If can’t be resolved through the grievance
machinery, then to be heard and decided by
a Voluntary Arbitrator
If employer acts in good faith, merely acting on the
request of some workers, then it’s not a gross violation of
the CBA. (Arellano University Employees and Workers Union
v. CA)
Violation of seniority rule in promotions is a ULP over which
the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. But violation of grievance
procedure in CBA is not ULP because it’s not an economic
provision.(San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. SMC Employees Union)
Labor Code, Article 259 (248).
Unfair labor practices of employers. –
It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
following unfair labor practice:
xxx
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 2
i. To violate a collective bargaining agreement
xxx
Labor Code, Article 260 (249).
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. –
It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its
officers, agents or representatives: xxx
(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
xxx
Labor Code, Article 274(261).
Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators. –
The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide all unresolved grievances arising from the
interpretation or implementation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies referred to in the immediately preceding article.
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, except those which are gross in character,
shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and
shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross
violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean
flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the
economic provisions of such agreement.
The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment
shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall
immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance
Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
BPI Employees Union-Davao City-FUBU v BPI | 2013
F: BPI Operations Management Corporation (BOMC) was
created pursuant to a Central Bank Circular. A service
agreement between BPI and BOMC was implemented
where BOMC undertook to provide different services and
support for banks and other financial institutions. A merger
between BPI and Far East Bank and Trust Company took
effect, with BPI as the surviving corporation. Thereafter,
other services and bookkeeping functions were handled
by BOMC. Twelve former FEBTC employees were
transferred to BOMC, which was objected to by the Union
contending that the functions belonged to BPI employees,
and that the Union was deprived of membership of former
FEBTC personnel who, by virtue of the merger, would have
formed part of the bargaining unit represented by the
Union pursuant to its union shop provision in the CBA.
H: It is to be emphasized that contracting out of services is
not illegal per se. It is an exercise of business judgment or
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

management prerogative. Absent proof that the
management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner,
the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment
by an employer. BPI’s actions were authorized by Central
Bank. Although Court agrees with the Union’s contention
that while Central Bank regulates banking, the Labor
Code and its implementing rules regulate the employment
relationship, the competence in determining which
banking functions may or may not be outsourced lies with
the BSP.
San Miguel Foods, Inc v SMC Employees Union | 2007
Facts: The union filed a complaint for ULP against SMFI.
SMFI contends that the complaint was not a ULP, that the
Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction, and that it should be
resolved through the grievance machinery provided for in
the CBA.
Held: The SC ruled that the Union’s charge that SMFI
violated the seniority rule in promotions was a ULP over
which the LA has jurisdiction.
SMFI committed large scale and wanton unjust
discrimination in matters of promotion and committed
gross and blatant violations of the CBA, regarding job
security and the grievance machinery. The alleged ULP
committed under 248(i), for violation of a CBA, is not a ULP
either because for such ULP there must be 1) gross
violation of the CBA and 2) the violation pertains to the
economic provisions of the CBA. The grievance machinery
provision in the CBA is not an economic provision.
Arellano University Employees and Workers Union | 2006
Facts: Union accused the University of ULP. Among other
accusations, the University allegedly committed “Union
Busting” by withholding union dues (those penalties that
are supposed to be remitted to the Union from members’
salaries because of unexcused absences from meetings).
However, due to an intra- union conflict arising from
suspicion in relation to auditing, some members requested
the University to withhold the dues from the Union.
Held: For ULP to exist, there must be a gross violation of the
CBA. There is no such gross violation here. University acted
in good faith, merely acting on the request of some
workers. Gross violation of the CBA means flagrant and/or
malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions
thereof.
D. Motive, Conduct and Proof
1. Employer Motive and Proof
In determining whether a discharge is discriminatory, the
true reason for the discharge must be established. While
union activity is no bar to a discharge, the existence of a
lawful cause for discharge is no defense if the employee
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 3
was actually discharged for union activity. (Phil. Metal
Foundries, Inc. v. CIR)
Phil Metal Foundries, Inc v CIR | 1979
Facts: The Union filed a complaint for ULP against
Philippine Metal Foundries Inc. for terminating the union
President due to union activities. The company denied the
charge, stating it terminated the Union President due to
repeated absences.
Held: In determining whether a discharge is discriminatory,
the true reason for the discharge must be established.
While union activity is no bar to a discharge, the existence
of a lawful cause for discharge is no defense if the
employee was actually discharged for union activity. The
union President did incur numerous absences. If the
company wanted to terminate his services on the ground
of absences, it could have done so as early as March
1963. He was only terminated after he asked the company
for a grievance conference regarding union problems.
The question of whether an employee was discharged
because of his union activities is essentially a question of
fact as to which the findings of the Court of Industrial
Relations are conclusive and binding if supported by
substantial evidence considering the record as a whole.
This is so because the Industrial Court is governed by the
rule of substantial evidence, rather than by the rule of
preponderance of evidence as in any ordinary civil cases.
Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. It means such
evidence which affords a substantial basis from which the
fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.
2. Totality of Evidence
An employer may treat freely with an employee and is not
obliged to support his actions with a reason or purpose.
However, where the attendant circumstances taken as a
whole raise a suspicion as to the motivation for the
employer’s action, the failure of the employer to ascribe a
valid reason therefor may justify an inference that his
conduct towards the employee was inspired by the
latter’s union membership or activities (Royal
Undergarments Corp. of the Phil. v. CIR)
A.k.a. “Totality of conduct” doctrine – the culpability of an
employer’s remarks is to be evaluated not only on the
basis of their implications, but against the background of
collateral circumstances (Azucena)
Royal Undergarment Corporation of the Phil v CIR | 1990
Facts: Cruz was the president of the Union. He sent CBA
proposals to the company, after which he and his wife
were fired. After the Union called a strike, they were only
reinstated on the condition that the Union win the consent
election for collective bargaining agent, which the union
did. Less than a year later, Cruz was fired a second time
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

after he was accused of being drunk and threatening the
lives of his co-workers. Cruz claimed he was only trying to
convince them to join a nationwide strike that their
federation was calling for.
Held: Royal was guilty of unfair labor practice because
Cruz’s two terminations from employment had nothing to
do with his performance as an employee but his
aggressive promotion and participation in union activities.
An employer may treat freely with an employee and is not
obliged to support his actions with a reason or purpose.
However, where the attendant circumstances, e.g. the
history of the employer’s past conduct and like
considerations, coupled with an intimate connection
between the employer’s action and the union affiliations
or activities of the particular employee taken as a whole
raise a suspicion as to the motivation for the employer’s
action, the failure of the employer to ascribe a valid
reason therefor may justify an inference that his
unexplained conduct with respect to the particular
employee was inspired by the latter’s union membership
or activities.
E. Enforcement, Remedies and Sanctions
1. Parties against whom ULP is committed
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248), supra pg. 18
Labor Code, Art. 260 (249), supra pg. 19
Labor Code, Art. 219 e, f, g (212)
Definitions.
(e) "Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of
an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not
include any labor organization or any of its officers or
agents except when acting as employer.
(f) "Employee" includes any person in the employ of an
employer. The term shall not be limited to the employees
of a particular employer, unless the Code so explicitly
states. It shall include any individual whose work has
ceased as a result of or in connection with any current
labor dispute or because of any ULP if he has not obtained
a n y o t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y e q u i v a l e n t a n d re g u l a r
employment.
(g) "Labor organization" means any union or association of
employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose
of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers
concerning terms and conditions of employment.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 4
2. Parties liable for acts
a. Employer
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248) (Last Paragraph)
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of
corporations, associations or partnerships who have
actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor
practices shall be held criminally liable.
b. Labor Organization
Labor Code, Art. 260 (249) (Last Paragraph)
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing
boards, representatives or agents or members of labor
associations or organizations who have actually
participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices
shall be held criminally liable.
National Labor Union vs. CIR
FACTS: 21 workers from Everlasting entered into a CBA
days after the company was purchased by a new owner,
Ang Wo Long from Estanislao. The new owner dismissed
these workers for no reason so they filed complaint for ULP.
CA originally ruled that Ang, the new owner, was liable,
but overturned this, thereafter, stating that he was not
even aware of the union and the CBA.
ISSUE: W/N CA was correct in overturning its previous
decision thus now absolving Ang Wo Long
HELD: NO. Under the facts, it is irrational if not specious to
assume that Mr. Ang bought a business stock without
inquiring into its labor-management situation and that his
dismissal of all the union members without retaining a few
experienced workers and their replacement with a
completely new set of employees who were strangers to
the company was anything other than an attempt to rid
the firm of unwanted union activity.
There was substantial evidence to conclude that Mr. Ang
knew of the bargaining negotiations, the CBA and,
consequently, of unfair labor practice on his part. The
former owner, Estanislao sold Everlasting Manufacturing to
Ang while CBA negotiations were going on and about to
be concluded. The firm had a recent history of labor
problems and the bargaining negotiations came about
only after a strike. The conclusion becomes inescapable
that Ang dismissed the complainants to break the union
and do away with the existing CBA which it obtained only
after a strike and bargaining negotiations.
The concatenation of circumstances clearly indicates the
participation of the former owner and the new owner in
the ULP. Hence, they should be solidarily liable for the
payment of backwages to the complaining employees.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

3. Prosecution and Prescriptive Period
a. Civil Aspect
Labor Code, Art. 258 (247) (Pars. 2-4)
(Par. 2) Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only
violations of the civil rights of both labor and management
but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall
be subject to prosecution and punishment as herein
provided. Subject to the exercise by the President or by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers
vested in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, the
civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices,
which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary
and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other
affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiters.
(Par. 3) The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the
hearing and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor
practices. They shall resolve such cases within thirty (30)
calendar days from the time they are submitted for
decision.
(Par. 4) Recovery of civil liability in the administrative
proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code.
b. Criminal Aspect
Labor Code, Art. 258 (247) (Last Paragraph)
(Par. 5) No criminal prosecution under this Title may be
instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair
labor practice was committed, having been first obtained
in the preceding paragraph. During the pendency of such
administrative proceeding, the running of the period of
prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall
be considered interrupted: Provided, however, that the
final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not
be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as
evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the
requirements therein set forth.
4. Compromise
CCLC E. G. Gochanco Workers Union vs. NLRC
FACTS: Union requested permission for certain members
and officers to attend the hearing for a Petition for
Certification Election. Respondent preventively suspended
the employees who attended and ultimately terminated
their contracts due to “abandonment of work”. There was
an alleged order by LA Aquino, which dismissed cases due
to Waiver of Claims, Rights or Interests in a separate case
involving the same parties.
ISSUE: WON petitioners waived their economic demands,
as alleged by private respondent, by way of compromise
HELD: NO. Respondent company is guilty of ULP. It is no
coincidence that at the time the respondent issued its
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 5
suspension and termination orders, the petitioners were in
the middle of a certification election preliminary to a labor
management conference. The respondent deserves our
strongest condemnation for ignoring the petitioners'
request for permission for some time out to attend the
hearing. It is not only an act of arrogance, but a brazen
interference as well with the employees’ right to self-
organization, contrary to the prohibition of the Labor Code
against unfair labor practices.
The Court rejects the claims of an alleged waiver by the
petitioners of their economic demands, in the light of an
alleged order issued by Labor Arbiter Aquino in
connection with another case(s) involving the same
parties.
DOCTRINE: Unfair Labor Practices cases are not, in view of
the public interest involved, subject to compromises.
5. Remedies and Sanctions
a. Civil Remedies
Labor Code, Art. 258 (247) (2nd to 3rd Paragraph)
Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations
of the civil rights of both labor and management but are
also criminal offenses against the State which shall be
subject to prosecution and punishment as herein
provided.
Subject to the exercise by the President or by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers vested
in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, the civil
aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which
may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative
relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the hearing
and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor practices.
They shall resolve such cases within thirty (30) calendar
days from the time they are submitted for decision.
Labor Code, Art. 229 (223)
Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter
are final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or
orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of
the following grounds:
(a)If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion
on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
(b)If the decision, order or award was secured through
fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
(c)If made purely on questions of law; and
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

(d)If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which
would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to
the appellant.
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an
appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in
the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment appealed from.
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the
reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be
executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall
either be admitted back to work under the same terms
and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation
or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the
payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not
stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein.
To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, the
Commission or the Labor Arbiter shall impose reasonable
penalty, including fines or censures, upon the erring
parties.
In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of the
memorandum of appeal to the other party who shall file
an answer not later than ten (10) calendar days from
receipt thereof.
The Commission shall decide all cases within twenty (20)
calendar days from receipt of the answer of the appellee.
The decision of the Commission shall be final and
executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt
thereof by the parties.
Any law enforcement agency may be deputized by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission in
the enforcement of decisions, awards or orders.
Labor Code, Art. 294 (279)
Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the
employer shall not terminate the services of an employee
except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An
employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement.
b. Penal Remedies
Art. 258 (247) (Last Paragraph)
(Par. 5) No criminal prosecution under this Title may be
instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 6
labor practice was committed, having been first obtained
in the preceding paragraph. During the pendency of such
administrative proceeding, the running of the period of
prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall
be considered interrupted: Provided, however, that the
final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not
be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as
evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the
requirements therein set forth.
Labor Code, Art. 303 (288).
Penalties. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or
unless the acts complained of hinge on a question of
interpretation or implementation of ambiguous provisions
of an existing collective bargaining agreement, any
violation of the provisions of this Code declared to be
unlawful or penal in nature shall be punished with a fine of
not less than One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) nor more
than Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) or imprisonment of
not less than three months nor more than three years, or
both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
court.
In addition to such penalty, any alien found guilty shall be
summarily deported upon completion of service of
sentence.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any
criminal offense punished in this Code, shall be under the
concurrent jurisdiction of the Municipal or City Courts and
the Courts of First Instance. (As amended by Section 3,
Batas Pambansa Bilang 70)
Labor Code, Art. 304 (289).
Who are liable when committed by other than natural
person. If the offense is committed by a corporation, trust,
firm, partnership, association or any other entity, the
penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers
of such corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or
entity.
Labor Code, Art. 290.
Offenses. Offenses penalized under this Code and the
rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall
prescribe in three (3) years.
All unfair labor practice arising from Book V shall be filed
with the appropriate agency within one (1) year from
accrual of such unfair labor practice; otherwise, they shall
be forever barred.
Quadra vs. CA
FACTS: PCSO filed an administrative charge against
Quadra for neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the
service. CSC recommended his dismissal. PCSO dismissed
Quadra the day after. Quadra filed a petition for
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

damages before the CIR. CIR awarded moral and
exemplary damages. The Supreme Court found that
Quadra was illegally dismissed for being active in union
activities.
HELD: Quadra’s dismissal constituted ULP. It was done to
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization. Moreover, the petition for
damages filed before the CIR was proper because at the
time of filing, the Court in a previous case already upheld
the jurisdiction of CIR over claims for damages incidental
to employee’s illegal dismissal.
DOCTRINE: It is proper to award moral and exemplary
damages to illegally dismissed employees as their dismissal
was tainted with ULP. The filing of a petition for damages
before CIR did not constitute splitting of cause of action.
6. Effect of Closure vis-a-vis ULP
SEE: Polymer Rubber Coporation vs. Bayolo Salamuding
FACTS: Petitioners are contesting the computation of
monetary awards given to respondents as it included the
period after the cessation of company operations.
HELD: Court held that computation must be based on the
number of days when Polymer was in actual operations. It
cannot be held liable to pay separation pay beyond such
closure of business because even if the illegally dismissed
employees would be reinstated, they could not possibly
work beyond the time of the cessation of its operations.
DOCTRINE: Even an employer who is found guilty of ULP in
dismissing his employee may not be ordered so to pay
backwages beyond the date of closure of business where
such closure was due to legitimate business reasons and
not merely an attempt to defeat the order or
reinstatement.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 7
IX. Union Concerted Activities
A. Basis of Right to Engage in Concerted Activities
1. Constitution
1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment & 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. They shall be entitled to security
of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law
The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in
the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to
reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and
growth.
Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates Inc. vs.
NLRC & Concrete Aggregates Corp.
FACTS: Union held a strike. The company filed a petition for
injunction to enjoin the union from striking, which
NLRC granted.
HELD: Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code provides both the
procedural and substantive requirements which must
strictly be complied with before a temporary or
permanent injunction can issue in a labor dispute. NLRC
failed to fulfill the requirements, especially of pars. (4) and
(5) of the law.
DOCTRINE: The restoration of the right to strike is the most
valuable gain of labor after the EDSA revolution. It is the
employees’ sole weapon which can effectively protect
their basic rights especially in a society where the levers of
powers are nearly monopolized by the propertied few or
their franchisees. In recognition of its importance, our
Constitution has accorded the right to strike a distinct
status while our laws have assured that its rightful exercise
will not be negated by the issuance of unnecessary
injunctions.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

2. Statutory
Labor Code, Art. 218-A (a), (b), (c) (211 a, b, c).
It is the policy of the State:
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 industrial disputes;
b. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for
the enhancement of democracy and the promotion
of social justice and development;
c. To foster the free and voluntary organization of a
strong and united labor movement;
Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (a), (b).
Strikes, picketing and lockouts.
a. It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade
unionism and free collective bargaining.
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.
(NOTE: This is supposed to be discussed in another section
(page 28) but Ma’am discussed the concept of strikes/
lockouts here.)
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, as amended by DOLE DO No. 40-
H-13
Conciliation, Strikes And Lockouts
Section 1. Conciliation of labor-management disputes. -
The board may, upon request of either of both parties or
upon its own initiative, provide conciliation-mediation
services to labor disputes other than notices of strikes or
lockouts. Conciliation cases which are not subjects of
notices of strike or lockout shall be docketed as preventive
mediation cases.
Section 2. Privileged communication. – Information and
statements given in confidence at conciliation
proceedings shall be treated as privileged
communications. Conciliators and similar officials shall not
testify in any court or body regarding any matter taken up
at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 8
Section 3. Issuance of subpoena. - The Board shall have
the power to require the appearance of any parties at
conciliation meetings.
Section 4. Compromise Agreements. – Any compromise
settlement, including those involving labor standard laws,
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance
of the Board and its regional branches shall be final and
binding upon the parties. The National Labor Relations
Commission or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over
issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance
thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the
settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation,
or coercion. Upon motion of any interested party, the
Labor Arbiter in the region where the agreement was
reached may issue a writ of execution requiring a sheriff of
the Commission or the courts to enforce the terms of the
agreement.
Section 5. Grounds for strike or lockout. - A strike or lockout
may be declared in cases of bargaining deadlocks and
ULPs. Violations of CBAs, except flagrant and/or malicious
refusal to comply with its economic provisions, shall not be
considered ULP and shall not be strikeable. No strike or
lockout may be declared on grounds involving inter- union
and intraunion disputes or without first having filed a notice
of strike or lockout or without the necessary strike or
lockout vote having been obtained and reported to the
Board. Neither will a strike be declared after assumption of
jurisdiction by the Secretary or after certification of
submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the
same grounds or the strike or lockout.
Section 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
ULPs. 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 ULPs.
Section 7. Notice of strike or lockout. – In bargaining
deadlocks, a notice of strike or lockout shall be filed with
the regional branch of the Board at least thirty (30) days
before the intended date thereof, a copy of said notice
having been served on the other party concerned. In
cases of ULP, the period of notice shall be fifteen (15) days.
However, in case of ULP involving the dismissal from
employment of any union officer duly elected in
accordance with the union constitution and by-laws
which may constitute unionbusting where the existence of
the union is threatened, the fifteen-day cooling-off period
shall not apply and the union may take action
immediately after the strike vote is conducted and the
results thereof submitted to the appropriate regional
branch of the Board.
Section 8. Contents of notice. - The notice shall state,
among others, the names and addresses of the employer
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

and the union involved, the nature of the industry to which
the employer belongs, the number of union members and
of the workers in the bargaining unit, and such other
relevant data as may facilitate the settlement of the
dispute, such as a brief statement or enumeration of all
pending labor disputes involving the same parties.
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far
as practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the
bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the
written proposals of the union, the counterproposals of the
employer and the proof of a request for conference to
settle the differences. In cases of ULPs, the notice shall, as
far as practicable, state the acts complained of and the
efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably.
In case a notice does not conform with the requirements
of this and the foregoing section/s, the regional branch of
the Board shall inform the concerned party of such fact.
Section 9. Action on Notice. - Upon receipt of the notice,
the regional branch of the Board shall exert all efforts at
mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to settle
the dispute amicably. The regional branch of the Board
may, upon agreement of the parties, treat a notice as a
preventive mediation case. It shall also encourage the
parties to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
During the proceedings, the parties shall not do any act
which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the
dispute. They are obliged, as part of their duty to bargain
collectively in good faith and to participate fully and
promptly in the conciliation meetings called by the
regional branch of the Board.
A notice, upon agreement of the parties, may be referred
to alternative modes of dispute resolution, including
voluntary arbitration.
Section 10. Strike or lockout vote. - 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 the
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be
approved by a majority of the Board of Directors of the
employer, corporation or association or the partners in a
partnership obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting
called for the purpose.
The regional branch of the Board may, at its own initiative
or upon request of any affected party, supervise the
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or
the employer shall furnish the regional branch of the Board
and the notice of meetings referred to in the preceding
paragraph at least twenty-four (24) hours before such
meetings as well as the results of the voting at least seven
(7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to
the cooling-off period provided in this Rule.
Section 11. Declaration of strike or lockout. - Should the
dispute remain unsettled after the lapse of the requisite
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 3
! 9
number of days from the filing of the notice of strike or
lockout and of the results of the election required in the
preceding section, the labor union may strike or the
employer may lock out its workers. The regional branch of
the Board shall continue mediating and conciliating.
Section 12. Improved offer balloting. - In case of a strike,
the regional branch of the Board shall, at its own initiative
or upon the request of any affected party, conduct a
referendum by secret balloting on the improved offer of
the employer on or before the 30th day of strike. When at
least a majority of the union members vote to accept the
improved offer, the striking workers shall immediately return
to work and the employer shall thereupon re-admit them
upon the signing of the agreement.
In case of a lockout, the regional branch of the Board shall
also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the
reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th day of the
lockout. When at least a majority of the board of directors
or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in
the case of partnership vote to accept the reduced offer,
the workers shall immediately return to work and the
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing
of the agreement.
Section 13. Peaceful picketing. - Workers shall have the
right to peaceful picketing. No person engaged in
picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or
intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from
the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct
public thoroughfares. force, violence, coercion, threats or
intimidation, any peaceful picketing by workers during any
labor controversy or in the exercise of the right to self
organization or collective bargaining or shall aid or abet
such obstruction or interference. No employer shall use or
employ any person to commit such acts nor shall any
person be employed for such purpose.
Section 14. Injunctions. - No court or entity shall enjoin any
picketing, strike or lockout, except as provided in Articles
218 and 263 of the Labor Code.
The Commission shall have the power to issue temporary
restraining orders in such cases but only after due notice
and hearing and in accordance with its rules. The
reception of evidence for the application of a writ of
injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any
Labor Arbiter who shall submit his recommendations to the
Commission for its consideration and resolution.
Any ex parte restraining order issued by the Commission, or
its chairman or Vice-Chairman where the Commission is
not in session and as prescribed by its rules, shall be valid
for a period not exceeding twenty (20) days.
Section 15. Assumption by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. — When a labor dispute causes or is 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
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

certify the same to the National Labor Relations
Commission for compulsory arbitration, provided, that any
of the following conditions is present:
1. Both parties have requested the Secretary of Labor
and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor
dispute; or
2. After a conference called by the Office of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment on the propriety
of its issuance, motu proprio or upon a request or
petition by either parties to the labor dispute.
Such assumption shall have the effect of automatically
enjoining an impending strike or lockout. If a strike/lockout
has already taken place at the time of assumption, all
sriking or locked out employees and other employees
subject of the notice of strike shall immediately return to
work and the employer shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all employees under the same
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, parties to the case may
agree at any time to submit the dispute to the Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representative as Voluntary
Arbitrator or to a duly accredited Voluntary Arbitrator or to
a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.
Section 16. Industries Indispensable to the National
Intersest. – For the guidance of the workers and employers
in the filing of petition for assumption of jurisdiction, the
following industries/services are hereby recognized as
deemed indispensable to the national interest:
a) Hospital sector;
b) Electric power industry;
c) Water supply services, to exclude small water
supply services such as bottling and refilling
stations;
d) Air traffic control; and
e) Such other industries as may be recommended by
the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council
(TIPC).
Section 17. Requirement for Minimum Operational Service.
— In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued
operation of hospitals, clinics, or medical institutions, it shall
be the duty of the striking union tor locking-out employer
to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of
medical and other health personnel, whose movement
and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are
necessary to ensure the proper and adequate protection
of the life and health of its patients, most especially
emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout.
Section 18. Decision of the Assumed Labor Dispute; Finality.
— Within five (5) days from the issuance of the assumption
or certification order, a preliminary conference or hearing
shall immediately be conducted by the Office of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, the NLRC, or
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 0
Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, as the
case may be.
The decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
the NLRC or voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators shall be rendered within thirty (30) calendar
days from submission of the case for resolution and shall
be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after
receipt thereof by the parties.
Section 19. Prohibitions on Law Enforcement Agencies or
Public Officials/Employees, Armed Persons, Private Security
Guards and Similar Personnel in The Private Security
Agency, Exception. — No public official or employee,
including officers and personnel of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines or the Philippine National Police, or armed
person, private security guards and similar personnel in the
private security agency shall bring in, introduce or escort in
any manner, any individual who seeks to replace strikers in
entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in
place of the strikers.
The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unless
actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein.
But any public officer, the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or the NLRC may seek the assistance of law
enforcement agencies to maintain peace and order,
protect life and property, and/or enforce the law and
legal order pursuant to the providions or the joint DOLE-
DILG-PEZA guidelines in the conduct of PNP personnel,
economic zone police and security guards, company
security guards and similar personnel during labor disputes.
Section 20. Criminal Prosecution. — The regular courts shall
have jurisdiction over any criminal action under Article 272
of the Labor Code, as amended, but subject to the
required clearance from the DOLE on cases arising out of
or related to a labor dispute pursuant to the Ministry of
Justice
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) vs. NLRC
FACTS: IBM wanted SMC to implement a wage increase
pursuant to the Wage Rationalization Act. SMC only gave
P7 across the board increase out of the P15 demand. In
retaliation, the workers of SMC followed an 8-hour shifting
which led to substantial losses to SMC. SMC sought to
declare the strike illegal.
HELD: The strike was illegal. In the instance of "distortions of
the wage structure within an establishment" resulting from
"the application of any prescribed wage increase by
virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of RA 6727
prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive
procedure for the correction thereof, thereby implicitly
excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities
as a modes of settlement of the issue.
Moreover, the CBA between the SMC and the Union also
prescribes a similar avoidance of strikes or other similar or
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

related concerted activities as a mode of resolving
disputes or controversies, generally, said agreement
stating that settlement of "all disputes, disagreements or
controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the
stipulated grievance procedure and ultimately by
arbitration.
DOCTRINE: Concerted activities may be forbidden or
restricted by law or contract.
3. Limitations
BLT Bus Co. vs. NLRC Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa
BLTB-NAFLU and its reinstated 190 members
FACTS: 190 union members were allegedly refused
admission when they tried to report back to work after
they participated in an allegedly illegal strike conducted
by their union for alleged ULP and violation of CBA
provisions. NLRC dismissed the complaint for ULP and
o rd e re d f o r t h e u n i o n o f f i c i a l s ’ a n d m e m b e r s ’
reinstatement. SC affirmed.
HELD: Employees should be reinstated. An employee who
forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any
logic be said to have abandoned his work. For
abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination
of employment, there must be a deliberate, unjustified
refusal of the employee to resume his employment. A
worker who joins a strike does so precisely to assert or
improve the terms and conditions of his employment. If his
purpose is to abandon his work, he would not go to the
trouble of joining a strike.
DOCTRINE: The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be
handled carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up
in the workers' own hands. Thus, it must be declared only
after the most thoughtful consultation among them,
conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully,
and in every case conformably to reasonable regulation.
Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures, such
as a defiance of a return to work order in industries
affected with public interest, will render the strike illegal, to
the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect.
B. Strike
1. Definition
Labor Code, Art. 219 (o) (212o).
“Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial
or labor dispute.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 1
IRR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (uu).
“Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial
or labor dispute.
Alex Naranjo plus 4 others vs. Biomedica Health Care, Inc.
& Carina Motol
FACTS: Five employees of Biomedica were absent one day
(happened to be Biomedica President’s birthday).
Biomedica terminated them for gross misconduct and
holding an illegal strike.
HELD: SC held that it was not a strike, but an individual
availment of leave benefits. Their absences are presumed
to be for valid causes, in good faith, and in the exercise of
their right to avail themselves of CBA or company benefits.
The 5 workers went on leave for various reasons and were
in different places to attend to their personal needs or
affairs. They did not go to the company premises to
petition Biomedica for their grievance. Thus, there was NO
INTENT TO STRIKE.
DOCTRINE: Petitioners did not stage a mass leave. The term
"Mass Leave" has been left undefined by the Labor Code.
Plainly, the legislature intended that the terms ordinary
sense be used. "Mass" is defined as "participated in,
attended by, or affecting a large number of individuals;
having a large-scale character." While the term "Leave" is
defined as "an authorized absence or vacation from duty
or employment usually with pay." Thus, the phrase "mass
leave" may refer to a simultaneous availment of
authorized leave benefits by a large number of employees
in a company. It is undeniable that going on leave or
absenting ones self from work for personal reasons when
they have leave benefits available is an employees right.
Petitioners did not go on strike. Art. 212(o) of the Labor
Code defines a strike as "any temporary stoppage of work
by the concerted action of employees as a result of any
industrial or labor dispute." "Concerted" is defined as
"mutually contrived or planned" or "performed in unison." In
the case at bar, the 5 petitioners went on leave for various
reasons.Petitioners were in different places on November
7, 2006 to attend to their personal needs or affairs. They
did not go to the company premises to petition Biomedica
for their grievance. This shows that there was NO intent to
go on strike.
Pilipino Telephone Corporation vs. PILTEA
FACTS: CBA negotiations between PILTEA and the
Company failed so DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction.
PILTEA staged a strike which was held to be illegal
(Defiance of the assumption order, Noncompliance with
the procedural requirements for the conduct of a strike).
HELD: The strike was illegal. Union officers punishable with
dismissal.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

DOCTRINE: Procedural requirements for a valid strike are
mandatory in nature. Failure to comply therewith renders
the strike illegal. Strike, as the most preeminent economic
weapon of the workers to force management to agree to
an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and
capital, exert some disquieting effects not only on the
relationship between labor and management, but also on
the general peace and progress of society and economic
well-being of the State. This weapon is so critical that the
law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on union
officers who irresponsibly participate in an illegal strike and
union members who commit unlawful acts during a strike.
See: Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothmen Knitting Corp.
- Solidarity of Union, Tamaroy plus 11 others vs. CA
FACTS: CK issued Memoranda informing its Dyeing and
Finishing Division employees of a temporary shutdown of
operations and advising them to go on vacation leave. A
service truck was stopped by employees led by the union
president. The union members began picketing outside
the CK compound, demanding 13th month pay and
resumption of work.
HELD: Strike is illegal for non-compliance with mandatory
requirements for a valid strike.
DOCTRINE: A strike is any temporary stoppage of work by
the concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute, while 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 the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employer and employee.
For a strike to be valid, the following requirements must be
complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed; (b) a
strike-vote must be taken; and (c) the results of the strike-
vote must be reported to the DOLE. These are
MANDATORY, and noncompliance makes the strike illegal.
2. Nature and Purpose
See again: BLTB Bus. Co. vs. NLRC
DOCTRINE: The right to strike is one of the rights recognized
and guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument of
labor for its protection against exploitation by
management. By virtue of this right, the workers are able
to press their demands for better terms of employment
with more energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to
strike as their reaction to the employer's intransigence.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 2
3. Rationale for Regulation by Law
Lapanday Workers Union, Bacolod plus 15 others vs. NLRC
FACTS: A member of the Board of Directors of the Union,
was gunned down in his house. The gunman was later
identified as an alleged member of the new security
forces of the company. The day after the killing, most of
the members of the Union refused to report for work. They
returned to work the following day but they did not
comply with the "quota system" adopted by the
management to bolster production output. Allegedly, the
Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to
thirty per cent (30%). Companies charged the Union with
economic sabotage through slowdown.
HELD: The strike was plainly illegal as it was held within 7-
day waiting period. The haste in holding the strike
prevented the DOLE from verifying whether it carried the
approval of the majority of the union members. It set to
naught an important policy consideration of our law on
strike.
DOCTRINE: Strikes exert some disquieting effects not only
on the relationship between labor and management but
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our
laws thus regulate their exercise within reasons by
balancing the interests of labor and management
together with the overarching public interest.
4. Scope of the term “Strike”
See again: Sta. Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employees Union vs.
CCBP
FACTS: The Union informed the Company of its desire to
renegotiate CBA terms but the Company wasn’t
amenable. The Union filed a “Notice of Strike” and filed
applications for LOA (which the Company denied). The
Office of the Mayor issued a permit to the Union, allowing
it to conduct a mass protest within the perimeter of the
Plant for 3 hrs. All of the 14 personnel of the Engineering
Section of the Company did not report for work, and 71
production personnel were also absent. The Company
filed a “Petition to Declare Strike Illegal”. The Union filed an
Answer with a Motion to Dismiss/Suspend proceedings
alleging the mass action conducted by its officers and
members was not a strike but just a valid exercise of their
right to picket.
HELD: The basic elements of a strike are present in this
case: 106 members of the Union, whose respective
applications for LOA were disapproved, opted not to
report for work on said date, and gathered in front of the
company premises to hold a mass protest action.
Petitioners deliberately absented themselves and instead
wore red ribbons, carried placards with slogans. Thus,
petitioners engaged in a concerted activity that affected
the company’s operations. The mass concerted activity
constituted a strike.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

DOCTRINE: The fact that the conventional term ‘strike’ was
not used by the striking employees to describe their
common course of action is inconsequential, since the
substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be
deemed to be controlling.” The term “strike” encompasses
not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns,
mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destroy or
sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar
activities. Picketing involves merely the marching to and
fro at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied
by the display of placards and other signs making known
the facts involved in a labor dispute.
5. Effect on Work Relationship
Chuayuco Steel vs. Buklod ng Manggagawa
FACTS: Labor organization held a strike for refusal of
company to recognize the newly elected officers from the
recently concluded special elections. The and LA, NLRC
and CA were unanimous in finding the strike staged by the
respondent illegal because of the commission of violent
acts and barricading.
HELD: Even if the purpose of the strike staged was valid,
the means employed were illegal. Thus, a union officer
may be declared to have lost his employment status if he
knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts
during the strike. Nevertheless, responsibility for these illegal
acts must be on an individual and not collective basis.
DOCTRINE: A union officer may be declared to have lost
his employment status if he knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during the strike.
G&S Transport Corp. vs. Tito Infante
FACTS: Tito Infante et. al. were drivers of G&S Transport.
G&S Transport claimed to have received a letter
memorandum from the Union demanding the dismissal of
2 employees on the ground that they were guilty of
committing acts of disloyalty by filing a petition calling for
a local election. These 2 employees were dismissed. The
drivers learned of this incident and stopped driving their
taxicabs in sympathy for their dismissed colleagues.
Although G&S ordered the drivers to return to work, some
drivers refused to do so, prompting G&S to file an action
against the latter for illegal strike. The drivers then filed a
case for illegal dismissal against G&S.
HELD: A valid strike presupposes the existence of a labor
dispute. In this case, there was no labor dispute. Thus, they
committed an illegal strike in the form of a sitdown strike.
Unlike union officers, mere participation of members in an
illegal strike isn’t a sufficient ground for termination of
services. To warrant dismissal, the members must have
committed illegal acts, and since there was no proof of
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 3
the commission of illegal acts, they should not be
dismissed.
DOCTRINE: A strike is “any temporary stoppage of work by
the concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute.” A valid strike presupposes the
existence of a labor dispute.
6. Types and Conversion
Master Iron Labor Union, Wilfredo Abulencia plus 29 others
vs. NLRC & Master Iron Works and Construction Co.
FACTS: MILU staged a strike against Master alleging that
the latter violated the provisions of the CBA
(subcontracting, disregard of grievance procedure,
among others). The LA and the NLRC held that the strike
was illegal because it is an economic strike and hence, a
violation of the no strike no lockout provision in the CBA.
HELD: The strike is not an economic strike and hence, not a
violation of the no-strike clause. Not illegal.
DOCTRINE: An economic strike is one which is to force
wage or other concessions from the employer which he is
not required by law to grant. Withdrawal of the complaint
for ULP does not convert the other grievances into
economic demands.
a. Unfair Labor Practice
Labor Code, Art. 278 (c) (263c) Strikes, picketing and
lockouts.
c. In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases
of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized
bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
However, in case of dismissal from employment of union
officers duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened,
the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
union may take action immediately.
See again: Shell Oil Workers Union vs. Shell Co. of the
Philippines
DOCTRINE: Not every form of violence suffices to affix the
seal of illegality on a strike or to cause the loss of
employment by the guilty party. It is enough that individual
liability be incurred by those guilty of such acts of violence
that call for loss of employee status.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

b. Bargaining Deadlock
Consolidated Labor Association of the Phil. vs. Marsman
and Co.
FACTS: Union staged a strike after a bargaining deadlock
with the company. They returned to work after the
company promised to discuss their demands. However, 69
union officers and members were not admitted thus they
resumed the strike. Despite repeated requests for
reinstatement, Company still refused, thus union filed a
case of ULP.
HELD: The initial economic strike was converted into a ULP
strike upon the refusal of the company to reinstate the 69
employees.
DOCTRINE: The strike changed its character from the time
the Company refused to reinstate complainants because
of their union activities after it had offered to admit all the
strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then
converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
c. Non-Conversion- Strike to Lockout
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v CA
Facts: Members of the Union filed a Notice of Strike and
conducted a Strike vote. The Union and the company
eventually entered into a Submission agreement, agreeing
to submit the ULP issue for voluntary arbitration. During the
pendency of the arbitration, the company dismissed two
union members, which triggered a strike.
Held: Strike was illegal. No strike or lockout can be made
during the pendency of the case/s. Voluntary arbitration
was entered into precisely to discuss the ULP issue. There
can be no good faith here as the Union was fully aware of
the proceedings.
7. Grounds
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5
Grounds for strike or lockout. - A strike or lockout may be
declared in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair
labor practices. Violations of collective bargaining
agreements, except flagrant and/or malicious refusal to
comply with its economic provisions, shall not be
considered unfair labor practice and shall not be
strikeable. No strike or lockout may be declared on
grounds involving inter union and intra-union disputes OR
without first having filed a notice of strike or lockout or
without the necessary strike or lockout vote having been
obtained and reported to the Board. Neither will a strike
be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the
Secretary 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
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 4
a. Allowable Strikes/Strikeable Grounds
Labor Code, Art. 278 (c)
In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases
of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized
bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
However, in case of dismissal from employment of union
officers duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened,
the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
union may take action immediately.
i. Bargaining Deadlock
ii. ULP
a. Union Busting
b. Prohibited Strikes
Labor Code, Art. 278 (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.
Labor Code, Art. 278 (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. The Secretary of Labor and
Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance
of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with
this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to
enforce the same.
Labor Code, Art. 279 (a)
Prohibited Activities - No labor organization or employer
shall declare a strike or lockout without first having
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

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 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.
Labor Code, Art. 280
Improved offer balloting. In an effort to settle a strike, the
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a
referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the
employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. When at
least a majority of the union members vote to accept the
improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return
to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them
upon the signing of the agreement.
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to
accept the reduced offer, the workers shall immediately
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit
them upon the signing of the agreement.
i. Absence of Labor Dispute
Biflex Philippines Inc Labor Union (NAFLU) v Filfex Industrial
Facts: Petitioner Unions joined the labor sector’s welga ng
bayan without filing a notice of strike. Respondent-
employers terminated union officers pursuant to the labor
arbiter’s decision. Unions claimed that after joining the
welga, employers locked them out as punishment.
Held: Joining welga ng bayan is considered an illegal
strike. The mandatory requirements for a strike haven’t
been complied with.There was no evidence to prove the
alleged lockout. Thus, under Art. 264(a), union officers MAY
be dismissed. This means that management has the
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 5
prerogative to terminate their employment or reinstate
them after the illegal strike ceases.
ii. Assumption of SOLE
UIC v SOLE
Facts: UIC and union were in a bargaining deadlock due
to computation of incremental increase in the salary of
teachers. The SOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered the
creation of a tripartite committee in order to properly
compute the proper amounts of increase during the
effectivity of the CBA. UIC in now assailing the SOLE’s
exercise of power saying it acted without jurisdiction
because the determination of the increases should be
done by the committee in the CBA
Held: The powers of the Secretary in "national interest"
cases are not set by metes and bounds. The SOLE’s power
extends to all questions and controversies arising
therefrom. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature
to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the
primary dispute. The committee provided in the CBA
cannot be given authority because the CBA was not yet
signed
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v NLRC
Facts: Employees alleged wage distortion and demanded
that the Company (SMC) make the necessary
adjustments. When the Company allegedly did nothing,
they stopped working overtime. Note that overtime was
included in their regular work schedule.
Held: The employees’ refusal to adhere to the usual work
schedule is illegal, prohibited by both law and contract.
Although engaging in concerted activities is a right
granted to both employees and employers, there are
limitations to the exercise of this right. It is prohibited by law
since Sec. 3 of RA 6727 provides for a specific procedure
to correct wage distortions. It is also prohibited by
contract, as their CBA clearly proscribed strikes or similar
concerted activities as a mode of resolving disputes
(instead the issue should only go through the prescribed
grievance procedure).
iii. Certification order/ compulsory arbitration
Labor Code, 278 (g), supra pg. 43
Union of Filipro Employees v Nestle Phils Inc
Facts: There were 3 labor cases wherein the union
members staged illegal strikes. During such strikes, the
Minister of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction
over the case and issued resolutions to enjoin the workers
to return to work immediately, but the workers disobeyed
such order.
Held: Art. 263 and 264 are still in effect because no laws
have been passed expressly repealing them. Art. 264(g)
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

provides for assumption and certification orders which are
executory in character and are to be strictly complied
with even during the pendency of any petition questioning
their validity. Regardless of the validity of their claims, the
striking workers must cease and desist from any and all
acts that tend to, or undermine this authority of the
Secretary of Labor. An assumption and/or certification
order of the Secretary of Labor automatically results in a
return-to-work of all striking workers, whether or not a
corresponding order has been issued by the Secretary of
Labor.
iv. Submission agreement/voluntary arbitration
v. Pendency of some issues in other cases
vi. Intra-union/inter-union dispute –
• book v, rule I,
o (x) "Certification Election" means the
process of determining, through secret
ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit, for purposes of collective
bargaining.
o (bb) "Organized Establishment" refers to a
firm or company where there is a
recognized or certified exclusive
bargaining agent
• DO 40-i-15 rule xi section 1. Coverage – inter/intra-
union disputes shall include:
o h. validity/invalidity of SEBA certification
Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v
Ramos
Facts: The local union tried to disaffiliate. Pursuant to the
CBA’s union security clause, the mother federation forced
Greenfield to dismiss the local union’s officers from
employment. The local union claimed ULP and went on
strike despite a “no strike, no lockout clause” in the CBA.
Held: Not an illegal strike even though there was a “no
strike, no lockout clause” in the CBA. Such clause can only
be used against strikes undertaken as economic leverage,
and not in cases of ULP (whether or not such ULP is later on
proven).
vii. No strike/No lockout clause in CBA
Panay Electric Co v NLRC
Facts: The Union went on strike, protesting the dismissal of
its VP. The Company argued that such strike was illegal for
violation of the “no strike, no lock-out” clause in the CBA.
Held: Although a no strike clause in a CBA is valid, it is only
applicable to economic strikes. Strikes conducted by
reason of ULP are still valid.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 6
viii. Wage distortion
RA 6727 Sec. 3 – See: Labor Code Articles 99, 120-129
Labor Code
Art. 99. Regional Minimum Wages. — The minimum wage
rates for agricultural and non-agricultural employees and
workers in each and every region of the country shall be
those prescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Boards.
Art. 120. Creation of the National Wages and Productivity
Commission. — There is hereby created a National Wages
and Productivity Commission, hereinafter referred to as the
Commission, which shall be attached to the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for policy and program
coordination.
Art. 121. Powers and Functions of the Commission. — The
Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
(a) To act as the national consultative and advisory body
to the President of the Philippines and Congress on
matters relating to wages, incomes and productivity;
(b) To formulate policies and guidelines on wages,
incomes and productivity improvement at the
enterprise, industry and national levels;
(c) To prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination
of appropriate minimum wage and productivity
measures at the regional, provincial or industry levels;
(d) To review regional wage levels set by the Regional
Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards to determine
if these are in accordance with prescribed guidelines
and national development plans;
(e) To undertake studies, researches and surveys
necessary for the attainment of its functions and
objectives, and to collect and compile data and
periodically disseminate information on wages and
productivity and other related information, including,
but not limited to, employment, cost-of-living, labor
costs, investments and returns;
(f) To review plans and programs of the Regional
Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards to determine
whether these are consistent with national
development plans;
(g) To exercise technical and administrative supervision
over the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity
Boards;
(h) To call, from time to time, a national tripartite
conference of representatives of government, workers
and employers for the consideration of measures to
promote wage rationalization and productivity; and
(i) To exercise such powers and functions as may be
necessary to implement this Act.
The Commission shall be composed of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment as ex-officio chairman, the
Director-General of the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) as ex-officio vice-
chairman, and two (2) members each from workers and
employers sectors who shall be appointed by the
President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment to be made on the
basis of the list of nominees submitted by the workers and
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

employers sectors, respectively, and who shall serve for a
term of five (5) years. The Executive Director of the
Commission shall also be a member of the Commission.
The Commission shall be assisted by a Secretariat to be
headed by an Executive Director and two (2) Deputy
Directors, who shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment.
The Executive Director shall have the same rank, salary,
benefits and other emoluments as that of a Department
Assistant Secretary, while the Deputy Directors shall have
the same rank, salary, benefits and other emoluments as
that of a Bureau Director. The members of the Commission
representing labor and management shall have the same
rank, emoluments, allowances and other benefits as those
prescribed by law for labor and management
representatives in the Employees' Compensation
Commission.
Art. 122. Creation of Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Boards. — There is hereby created Regional
Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards, hereinafter
referred to as Regional Boards, in all regions, including
autonomous regions as may be established by law. The
Commission shall determine the offices/headquarters of
the respective Regional Boards.
The Regional Boards shall have the following powers and
functions in their respective territorial jurisdiction:
(a) To develop plans, programs and projects relative to
wages, incomes and productivity improvement for
their respective regions;
(b) To determine and fix minimum wage rates applicable
in their region, provinces or industries therein and to
issue the corresponding wage orders, subject to
guidelines issued by the Commission;
(c) To undertake studies, researches and surveys
necessary for the attainment of their functions,
objectives and programs, and to collect and compile
data on wages, incomes, productivity and other
related information and periodically disseminate the
same;
(d) To coordinate with the other Regional Boards as may
be necessary to attain the policy and intention of this
Code;
(e) To receive, process and act on applications for
exemption from prescribed wage rates as may be
provided by law or any Wage Order; and
(f) To exercise such other powers and functions as may
be necessary to carry out their mandate under this
Code.
Implementation of the plans, programs and projects of the
Regional Boards referred to in the second paragraph,
letter (a) of this Article, shall be through the respective
regional offices of the Department of Labor and
Employment within their territorial jurisdiction; Provided,
however, That the Regional Boards shall have technical
supervision over the regional office of the Department of
Labor and Employment with respect to the
implementation of said plans, programs and projects.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 7
Each Regional Board shall be composed of the Regional
Director of the Department of Labor and Employment as
chairman, the Regional Directors of the National
Economic and Development Authority and the
Department of Trade and Industry as vice-chairmen and
two (2) members each from workers and employers
sectors who shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, to be made on the basis of the list
of nominees submitted by the workers and employers
sectors, respectively, and who shall serve for a term of five
(5) years.
Each Regional Board to be headed by its chairman shall
be assisted by a Secretariat.
Art. 123. Wage Order. — Whenever conditions in the region
so warrant, the Regional Board shall investigate and study
all pertinent facts; and based on the standards and
criteria herein prescribed, shall proceed to determine
whether a Wage Order should be issued. Any such Wage
Order shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its
complete publication in at least one (1) newspaper of
general circulation in the region.
In the performance of its wage determining functions, the
Regional Board shall conduct public hearings/
consultations, giving notices to employees' and employers'
groups, provincial, city and municipal officials and other
interested parties.
Any party aggrieved by the Wage Order issued by the
Regional Board may appeal such order to the Commission
within ten (10) calendar days from the publication of such
order. It shall be mandatory for the Commission to decide
such appeal within sixty (60) calendar days from the filing
thereof.
The filing of the appeal does not stay the order unless the
person appealing such order shall file with the Commission
an undertaking with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the
Commission for the payment to the employees affected
by the order of the corresponding increase, in the event
such order is affirmed.
Art. 124. Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing. —
The regional minimum wages to be established by the
Regional Board shall be as nearly adequate as is
economically feasible to maintain the minimum standards
of living necessary for the health, efficiency and general
well-being of the employees within the framework of the
national economic and social development program. In
the determination of such regional minimum wages, the
Regional Board shall, among other relevant factors,
consider the following:
(a) The demand for living wages;
(b) Wage adjustment vis-a-vis the consumer price index;
(c) The cost of living and changes or increases therein;
(d) The needs of workers and their families;
(e) The need to induce industries to invest in the
countryside;
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

(f) Improvements in standards of living;
(g) The prevailing wage levels;
(h) Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to pay
of employers;
(i) Effects on employment generation and family
income; and
(j) The equitable distribution of income and wealth along
the imperatives of economic and social development.
The wages prescribed in accordance with the provisions of
this Title shall be the standard prevailing minimum wages in
every region. These wages shall include wages varying
within industries, provinces or localities if in the judgment of
the Regional Board conditions make such local
differentiation proper and necessary to effectuate the
purpose of this Title.
Any person, company, corporation, partnership or any
other entity engaged in business shall file and register
annually with the appropriate Regional Board, Commission
and the National Statistics Office an itemized listing of their
labor component, specifying the names of their workers
and employees below the managerial level, including
learners, apprentices and disabled/handicapped workers
who were hired under the terms prescribed in the
employment contracts, and their corresponding salaries
and wages.
Where the application of any prescribed wage increase
by virtue of law or Wage order issued by any Regional
Board results in distortions of the wage structure within an
establishment, the employer and the union shall negotiate
to correct the distortions. Any dispute arising from wage
distortions shall be resolved through the grievance
procedure under their collective bargaining agreement
and, if it remains unresolved, through voluntary arbitration.
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, such
dispute shall be decided by the voluntary arbitrator or
panel of voluntary arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days
from the time said dispute was referred to voluntary
arbitration.
In cases where there are no collective agreements or
recognized labor unions, the employers and workers shall
endeavor to correct such distortions. Any dispute arising
therefrom shall be settled through the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board and, if it remains
unresolved after ten (10) calendar days of conciliation,
shall be referred to the appropriate branch of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). It shall be mandatory
for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings and decide
the dispute within twenty (20) calendar days from the time
said dispute is submitted for compulsory arbitration.
The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage distortion
shall not in any way delay the applicability of any increase
in prescribed wage rates pursuant to the provisions of law
or Wage Order.
As used herein, a wage distortion shall mean a situation
where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 8
elimination or severe contraction of intentional
quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between
and among employee groups in an establishment as to
effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such
wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other
logical bases of differentiation.
All workers paid by result, including those who are paid on
piecework, takay, pakyaw or task basis, shall receive not
less than the prescribed wage rates per eight (8) hours
work a day, or a proportion thereof for working less than
eight (8) hours.
All recognized learnership and apprenticeship agreements
shall be considered automatically modified insofar as their
wage clauses are concerned to reflect the prescribed
wage rates.
Art. 126. Prohibition Against Injunction. — No preliminary or
permanent injunction or temporary restraining order may
be issued by any court, tribunal or other entity against any
proceedings before the Commission or the Regional
Boards.
Art. 127. Non-diminution of Benefits. — No Wage Order
issued by any Regional Board shall provide for wage rates
lower than the statutory minimum wage rates prescribed
by Congress."
See again: Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC, supra
pg. 39, 44
8. Striking Party
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 6, supra pg. 38
9. Procedural Requirements –
Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5, supra pg. 43
a. Effort to Bargain –
Labor Code, Art. 279 (a)
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.
Labor Code, Art. 261
Procedure in collective bargaining. The following
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:
a. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement,
it shall serve a written notice upon the other party
with a statement of its proposals. The other party
shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such notice;
b. Should differences arise on the basis of such
notice and reply, either party may request for a
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

conference which shall begin not later than ten
(10) calendar days from the date of request.
c. If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall
intervene upon request of either or both parties or
at its own initiative and immediately call the
parties to conciliation meetings. The Board shall
have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the
attendance of the parties to such meetings. It
shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully
and promptly in the conciliation meetings the
Board may call;
d. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board,
the parties are prohibited from doing any act
which may disrupt or impede the early settlement
of the disputes; and
e. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes
amicably and encourage the parties to submit
their case to a voluntary arbitrator.
Labor Code, Art. 262
Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective
bargaining agreements. In the absence of an agreement
or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more
expeditious manner of collective bargaining, it shall be the
duty of employer and the representatives of the
employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
Labor Code, Art. 263
Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The duty to
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual
obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating
an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and
all other terms and conditions of employment including
proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising
under such agreement and executing a contract
incorporating such agreements if requested by either
party but such duty does not compel any party to agree
to a proposal or to make any concession.
1. Employer’s counter-proposal
Club Filipino v. Bautista
Facts: The Company claimed that the Union’s strike was
illegal on the ground that the Union failed to attach the
company’s counter-proposal to the notice of strike, as
required under Art. 264(a).
Held: Requirement does not apply. Art. 264(a) is qualified
by the phrase “as far as practicable”. Here, it was not only
impracticable but actually impossible for the Union to
have attached the counter-proposal to its notice of strike
as the Company had yet to furnish the same.
b. Filing of notice of intention -
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 4
! 9
Labor Code, Art. 278 (c)(d)(e)
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases
of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized
bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
However, in case of dismissal from employment of union
officers duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened,
the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
union may take action immediately.
(d) The notice must be in accordance with such
implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of Labor
and Employment may promulgate.
(e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the
Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to
effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain
unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days
from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union
may strike or the employer may declare a lockout.
Labor Code, Art. 279
(a) – 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.
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 7
Notice of strike or lockout. - In bargaining deadlocks, a
notice of strike or lockout shall be filed with the regional
branch of the Board at least thirty (30) days before the
intended date thereof, a copy of said notice having been
served on the other party concerned. In cases of unfair
labor practice, the period of notice shall be fifteen (15)
days. However, in case of unfair labor practice involving
the dismissal from employment of any union officer duly
elected in accordance with the union constitution and
by-laws which may constitute union-busting where the
existence of the union is threatened, the fifteen-day
cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take
action immediately after the strike vote is conducted and
the results thereof submitted to the appropriate regional
branch of the Board.
c. Observance of cooling-off period
Labor Code, 278 (c)(e), supra pg. 48
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

d. Vote
Labor Code, Art. 278
(f) - 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. A decision to declare a
lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of
directors of the corporation or association or of the
partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a
meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be
valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially
the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout
vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or
upon the request of any affected party, supervise the
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or
the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the
voting at least seven days before the intended strike or
lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided.
Labor Code, Art. 279 (a), supra pg. 48
Pilipino Telephone Corp v PILTEA
Facts: The Union filed two notices of strike. After the filing of
the first, the Secretary of Labor issued an assumption order
and directed both parties not to do anything that would
exacerbate the situation. Despite the order, the Union filed
a second notice and went on strike.
Held: The strike was illegal for non-compliance with
procedural requirements and defiance of the Secretary’s
order. The Union did not comply with the mandatory
requirements as set forth in Art. 263 in that they did not
observe (1) the required strike-vote before the
commencement of the strike and (2) the mandatory
cooling-off period between notice and actual strike. As to
the cooling-off period, there was no union busting that
took place, which would have warranted its
nonobservance
See again: Sukhothai v. CA, supra pg. 43
10. Test of legality
a. legal strikes
i) Purpose and Means Test
Reliance Surety and Insurance Co v NLRC
Facts: The Company changed seating arrangement of
employees. Employees (union members) protested and
refusing to comply. They were suspended and after
investigation, dismissed. The Union held a strike. Note that
the Union failed to observe procedural requirements
(notice, 2/3 strike vote by secret ballot, and submission of
the strike vote to the DOLE seven days prior to the strike)
and some strikers harassed non-strikers and committed
acts of violence.
Held: The strike was illegal. In jurisprudence, good faith is a
valid defense against claims of illegality of a strike, but
here union officers clearly staged the strike in bad faith.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 0
Rather than a finding of good faith, there was a finding of
arrogance, pride,and cynicism.
ii) Guidelines and balancing of interest
Stamford Mark Corp v Julian
Facts: Upon receiving a letter that the employees had
formed a union, the management of the companies
began dismissing employees. Employees went on strike.
Held: Illegal strike. There was no showing that the Union
was a legitimate labor organization entitled to file a notice
of strike. Furthermore, the requirements prescribed in Art.
263(c)-(f) were not complied with. Although the right to
strike is embedded in the Constitution, the Law regulates
the exercise of the said right by providing procedural steps
before a strike may be conducted. Failure to follow the
mandated steps will render the strike illegal
Shell Oil Workers Union v Shell Co of Phils
Facts: Union staged a strike because the security guard
section was dissolved contrary to their CBA.
Held: Strike was valid. The determination of the legality or
illegality of a strike, particularly in this enlightened era of
progressive thinking on labor- management relations is
something that cannot be achieved by mere straight-
jacketed legalistic argumentation and rationalization; the
process is broader and deeper than that, for to do justice
in deciding such an issue, it is imperative that utmost
consideration should be given to the particular
circumstances of each case, with a view to having the
most comprehensive understanding of the motivations of
the parties, in the light of human needs on the part of
labor, and in the perspective of the orderly and
economical conduct of business and industry, on the part
of management
iii) Defenses – good faith
National Union of Workers Hotels, Restaurant and Allied
Industries v NLRC
Facts: The “rebel union” filed a notice of strike on the basis
of ULP. NCMB dismissed the notice because the issue was
a non-strikeable, being an intra-union dispute.
Meanwhile, the Hotel dismissed one of their officers, which
led to a wildcat strike.
Held: Illegal strike. Even when the employer did not
commit ULP, a strike is still legal provided that the strikers
believed in good faith that ULP acts existed. This belief
must be warranted by the circumstances. Such is not the
case here. The dismissal of one of their officers was not a
sufficient ground to justify the strike. For one, there were
alternative remedies, such as questioning the dismissal’s
legality
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

b. Illegal Strikes
i) Basis of illegality
Labor Code, Art. 278
(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.
(c) – In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases
of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized
bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
However, in case of dismissal from employment of union
officers duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened,
the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
union may take action immediately.
Labor Code, Art. 279 (a)
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.
Labor Code, Art. 280
Improved offer balloting. In an effort to settle a strike, the
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a
referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the
employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. When at
least a majority of the union members vote to accept the
improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return
to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them
upon the signing of the agreement.
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to
accept the reduced offer, the workers shall immediately
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit
them upon the signing of the agreement.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 1
A. Soriano Aviation v Employees Association of A. Soriano
Aviation
Facts: Following the suspension of eight mechanics, the
Union went on strike against the Company. Over a period
of 9 non-consecutive days across 8 months, strikers
shouted insults using a megaphone, threw water at a
personnel manager, shoutedat the COO, a manager,
non-striking employees, and officers, threw gravel and
sand at the car of the company’s lead man, etc.
Held: It was an illegal strike. In accordance with Art. 264,
even an the otherwise legal strike may be rendered illegal
if the means employed were illegal. Even if the acts were
committed on non-consecutive days, the acts were still
pervasive. Art. 264 doesn’t require that violence must be
continuous or that they should exist for the entire duration
of the strike.
ii) Various categories of illegal strikes
Toyota v NLRC <- pa-edit yung pinaka maiksi
Facts: Toyota employees held a strike which led to the
company terminating 227 employees. This led ot another
strike that involved blocking entry and exit to the facilities
causing Toyota great loss in profits. SOLE assumed
jurisdiction and issued return to work order. Employees still
continued the strike
Held: The strikes were illegal because they did not go
through the proper proceeding in the labor code
The following are the categories of illegal strikes
1. When it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such
as strike by employees performing governmental
functions; or
2. When it violates a specific requirement of law, [such as
Article 263 of the Labor Code on the requisites of a
valid strike]; or
3. When it is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as
inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor
practice against non-union employees; or
4. When it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its
objective, such as a widespread terrorism of non-
strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e)
of the Labor Code]; or
5. When it is declared in violation of an existing injunction,
[such as injunction, prohibition, or order issued by the
DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art. 263 of the
Labor Code]; or
6. When it is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a
no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause.
iii) Illegal acts/prohibited activities
Labor Code, Art. 279 –
Prohibited activities.
a. 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
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

necessary strike or lockout vote first having been
obtained and reported to the Ministry.
b. 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.
c. Any worker whose employment has been
terminated as a consequence of any 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.
d. No person shall 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 shall aid or abet such
obstruction or interference.
e. No employer shall use or employ any strike-
breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a
strike-breaker.
f. No public official or employee, including officers
and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the
Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or
armed person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in
any manner, any individual who seeks to replace
strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a
strike area, or work in place of the strikers. The
police force shall keep out of the picket lines
unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur
therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall be
interpreted to prevent any public officer from
taking any measure necessary to maintain peace
and order, protect life and property, and/or
enforce the law and legal order. (As amended by
Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986)
g. No person engaged in picketing shall commit any
act of violence, coercion or intimidation or
obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the
employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or
obstruct public thoroughfares. (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1, 1982)
Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph v. DOLE,
supra pg.
Facts: Long dispute between the Union and the company
over the increase in daily wage proposals for the new
CBA. Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and issued
return-to-work order. Union stopped some employees
from going back to work by blocking the company
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 2
entrances. Secretary issued another return- to-work order,
complete with police assistance. Union agreed to go back
to work, but company stopped 21 employees (union
officers) from entering the premises, and placed them on
preventive suspension and 1st notice with chance to
explain. Employees went to Secretary for relief, and the
latter ordered the company to reinstate them. Company
reinstated them only in payroll and issued another 1st
notice with chance to explain, based on different
grounds. Employees offered explanation but were
terminated anyway. CA affirmed Secretary’s award of
daily wage increase for the new CBA, but resolved the
issue of illegal dismissal itself, holding that only 1 dismissal
was supported by substantial evidence.
Held: 5 of 6 employees were legally dismissed. It is the
company’s prerogative to dismiss employees on legal
grounds, and the violation of the Secretary’s return-to-
work order, as well as the prevention of other workers from
returning to work, was a legal ground for dismissal. Under
the law, the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction over a
labor dispute (or its certification to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration) shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike
or lockout, and 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 before the strike or
lockout. The union defied the Secretary’s return-to-work
order, which made the strike illegal and thus a valid
ground for dismissal under Art. 264 of the Labor Code. The
union officers were liable not only for defying the
Secretary, but also for leading, instigating, and
participating in a work slowdown during the CBA
negotiations without complying with the mandatory legal
requirements of a strike notice and strike vote
iv) Effect of union non-registation
Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood Coop v Kilusang
Manggagawa
Facts: KMLMS filed a notice of strike and conducted its
strike vote before its registration as an independent labor
organization was granted by the DOLE.
Held: The strike is illegal. When KMLMS filed their notice of
strike, it had not yet acquired legal personality and, thus,
could not legally represent the eventual union and its
members. Also, when KMLMS conducted the strike-vote,
there was still no union to speak of. It only acquired legal
personality as an independent legitimate labor
organization the day after it conducted its strike-vote.
Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the
conduct of the strike-vote report were ineffective. The
law, in providing who may declare a strike or lockout,
refers to a “duly certified or recognized bargaining agent”
and (Art. 263 of the Labor Code) and “legitimate labor
organization”(Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code).
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

See again: Abaria v Metro Cebu Comm. Hospital
Facts: Petitioner union held a strike due to the hospital’s
unwillingness to collectively bargain with them. The union
was a chartered local of NFL. Before it had validly
disassociated, it held a strike which was disavowed by NFL.
Held: The strike is illegal because an unregistered union
does not have the personality to avail itself of the rights
under the labor code. The union could not validly
represent its members because of its lack of personality.
v) Effect of illegality
Labor Code, Art. 279 (a) -
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.
Phimco Industries Inc v Phimco Industries Labor
Association
Facts: PILA staged a strike and picketed outside of
PHIMCO premises. PHIMCO dismissed the union officers
and participating employees. Strike was also declared
illegal by the NLRC.
Held: Strike was valid, but the means employed rendered
it illegal. Although the requirements for a valid strike were
complied with, the picketers prevented the ingress and
egress of PHIMCO managers and non-participating
employees from the company premises. The picketing also
created an intimidating atmosphere. Thus the strike was
held illegal. IN this case, the 10 union officers stand to be
dismissed as participating union officers because they
knowingly participated in an illegal strike. In Samahang
Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU v Sulpicio
Lines, Inc., the Court explained that the effect of illegal
strikes (as outlined in Art. 264) differs between workers and
union officers who participate in them. An ordinary striking
worker cannot be terminated for mere participation; there
must be proof that he committed illegal acts, he must be
identified based on substantial evidence, and liability is to
be determined on an individual basis. A union officer, on
the other hand, may be terminated upon proof that he
knowingly participated in an illegal strike, whether or not
he commits illegal acts. In the case at bar, the
participating union officers may be validly dismissed
because they knowingly participated in an illegal strike,
while 37 participating union members may also be validly
dismissed for illegally blocking ingress to and egress from
company premises during the illegal strike, as they were
individually identified through affidavits of other PHIMCO
employees.
See again: Sukhothai vs. CA, supra pg. 43
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 3
vi) Liability of participating members/officers of the union -
individual
Labor Code, Art. 279(a), supra.
Prohibited acts under Art. 279 (a), last paragraph
May be deemed terminated if
committed:
Union Officer knowing participation in the illegal
strike
Union Member knowingly participated in the
commission of illegal acts during the
strike.
HSBC Employees Union vs. NLRC & HSBC
GR No.156635; Jan. 11, 2016; Bersamin, J.
FACTS:
HSBCEU had a CBA with HSBC. During its effectivity, HSBC
implemented a JEP which the union considered as ULP.
During the dispute, union members walked out of the
company premises, blocked entry and exit from the
company causing HSBC to file a petition for habeas
corpus on behalf of its officials and employees prevented
from leaving the premises. HSBC later filed a complaint to
declare the strike illegal. LA declared the strike illegal and
deemed the officers and member of the union who
participated in the strike to have lost their employment
status. NLRC modified this ruling insofar as 18 of the
dismissed employees were not officers of the union nor
have been pinpointed as to have committed illegal acts
during the strike. CA affirmed. Hence, this petition for
certiorari raising the issue that the CA erred in holding that
all employees (save for the 18) were validly dismissed.
HELD:
7. On the legality of the strike.
The strike was illegal for failure to comply with the
procedural requirements, i.e. (1) notice of strike; (2) strike
vote approved by majority of total union membership
obtained through secret balloting; (3) notice of the results
of voting; and (4) observance of the cooling off period.
Moreover, contrary to the claim of the union members that
they did not commit any acts of violence nor block the
entry and exit points of the company, factual
circumstances show otherwise. The picket conducted was
a non-moving, stationary one - nothing less but a
barricade. This office is more than convinced that the
respondents, at least on that day, have demonstrated an
abnormally high degree of hatred and anger at the Bank
and its officers (including the Bank's chief executive officer
who fell to the ground as a result of the pushing and
shoving) leading them to do anything to carry out their
resolve not to let anymore inside the Bank.
Good faith did not avail because of the
patent violation of Article 263 (now 278) of the Labor
Code. For their claim to be upheld, it was not enough for
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

them to believe that their employer was guilty of ULP, for
they must also sufficiently show that the strike was
undertaken with a modicum of obeisance to the
restrictions on their exercise of the right to strike prior to
and during its execution as prescribed by the law.
2. [Main] On the issue of liability
The GR is that the mere finding of the illegality of the strike
does not justify the wholesale termination of the strikers
from their employment. To avoid rendering the recognition
of the workers' right to strike illusory, the responsibility for
the illegal strike is individual instead of collective. (See: Art.
279 (a), last paragraph) There is a need to distinguish
between officers and the members of the union who
participate in an illegal strike. (See: table above).
In this case, the dismissal of one employee who was on
leave before and during the strike for health reasons was
held illegal, him not having participated in the commission
of illegal acts during the strike, although with full moral
support for the strike. The burden of proving the overt
participation in the illegal strike solely belong to HSBC
which they failed to discharge.
As to the dismissal of Union officers, SC held that it was
validly done. The Union officers instigated and knowingly
participated in the strike. Their responsibility as the officers
of the Union who led the illegal strike was greater than the
responsibility of the members simply because the former
had the duty to guide their members to obey and respect
the law. When said officers urged and made their
members violate the law, their dismissal became an
appropriate penalty for their unlawful act.
Unlike Union's officers, the ordinary striking members could
not be terminated for merely taking part in the illegal
strike. Regardless of whether the strike was illegal or not,
the dismissal of the members could be upheld only upon
proof that they had committed illegal acts during the
strike. They must be specifically identified because the
liability for the prohibited acts was determined on an
individual basis. For that purpose, substantial evidence
available under the attendant circumstances justifying the
penalty of dismissal sufficed.
VCMC vs. Yballe et al.
G.R. No. 196156; January 15, 2014; Villarama, Jr.
FACTS:
Emma, Nelia, Eleuteria, and Evelyn all worked for VCMC
(previously MCCHI) as staff nurses or midwives. They were
all dismissed for having allegedly participated in the illegal
concerted activities of their unregistered union, NAMA.
They petitioned the Court raising the issue of the legality of
their dismissal there being no iota of proof that they
participated in the illegal acts committed by NAMA.
HELD:
Their dismissal was illegal because they were merely union
members whose participation was only limited to wearing
of armbands, as found by the CA. An ordinary striking
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 4
worker cannot be dismissed for such mere participation in
the illegal strike.
The law makes a distinction between union members and
union officers. A worker merely participating in an illegal
strike may not be terminated from employment. It is only
when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may
be declared to have lost employment status. In contrast, a
union officer may be terminated from employment for
knowingly participating in an illegal strike or participates in
the commission of illegal acts during a strike. The law
grants the employer the option of declaring a union
officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost
his employment. It possesses the right and prerogative to
terminate the union officers from service.
See: Fadriquelan vs. Monterey Foods Corp.
G.R. No. 178409; June 8, 2011; Abad, J.
FACTS:
Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Monterey-IBM had a CBA
with Monterey Foods which expired. There was a
bargaining deadlock during its renegotiation causing the
union to file for a notice of strike. SOLE assumed JD upon
motion of the company and put the parties on a status
quo. Union filed a second notice of strike on the alleged
commission of the company of ULP. Company sent the
union officers notices (1) charging them with intentional
acts of slowdown, and (2) termination for having violated
the assumption order.
On motion of the company, SOLE included the second
notice of strike in his assumption order, but on the same
day, the union filed a third notice of strike alleging union
busting and illegal dismissal of union officers. SOLE upheld
the dismissal of the union officers. CA modified this insofar
as 10 union officers are concerned.
The union filed a petition before the SC raising the issue of
the legality of the dismissal of its union officers.
HELD:
In this case, there was a slowdown strike which, unlike
other strikes, does not require the employees to walk out of
their jobs to hurt the company. They need only to stop
work or reduce the rate of their work while generally
remaining in their assigned post.  CA held that after the AJ
of the SOLE, union held a slowdown strike.
A distinction exists, however, between the ordinary workers
liability for illegal strike and that of the union officers who
participated in it. The ordinary worker cannot be
terminated for merely participating in the strike. There must
be proof that he committed illegal acts during its conduct.
On the other hand, a union officer can be terminated
upon mere proof that he knowingly participated in the
illegal strike.
Nevertheless, the participating union officers still have to
be properly identified. Here, some union officers were
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

terminated based merely on their positions in the union,
and thus their dismissal was illegal.
See: Escario et al. vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 160302; September 27, 2010; Bersamin
FACTS:
Escario et al. (about 200) were employees of PINA and
were members of Malayang Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa Balanced Foods (Union). During the
course of their employment, their Union conducted a walk
out to support one of their union officers who was charged
with oral defamation by company Personnel Manager. This
allegedly resulted in a settlement but PINA still preventively
suspended and later terminated their employment.
PINA filed for a complaint for ULP alleging illegal walkout,
and that all union officers save one had lost their
employment. Union, on the other hand, filed a notice of
strike alleging union busting. Strike was held the same day.
LA ruled for PINA. NLRC and CA affirmed.
HELD: On the consequences of an illegal strike, the
provision distinguishes between a union officer and a
union member participating in an illegal strike. A union
officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike is
deemed to have lost his employment status, but a union
member who is merely instigated or induced to
participate in the illegal strike is more benignly treated.
Part of the explanation for the benign consideration for the
union member is the policy of reinstating rank-and-file
workers who are misled into supporting illegal strikes,
absent any finding that such workers committed illegal
acts during the period of the illegal strikes.
vii. Effect of Assumption/Certification Order
vii.1. Breadth of Power and jurisdiction of Secretary in AJ
cases
NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter vs. CA,
NLRC, Phil. Hoteliers
G.R. No. 166295; November 11, 2008; Velasco, Jr
FACTS:
Male union members in this case went to work with their
head bald or hairs cropped, contrary to the Hotel
Grooming Standards, after the conciliation proceedings
that was conducted proved unsuccessful. Because of this,
the hotel prevented these workers from entering the
premises.
To retaliate, the Union staged a picket outside the Hotel
premises. Other workers were also prevented from
entering the premises causing them to join the picket.
Hotel subsequently issued notices to Union members,
preventively suspending them and charging them with the
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 5
various offenses. Union, on the other hand, filed a second
notice of strike for ULP, but still continuing their picket.
Their employments were later terminated by the hotel.
Union filed third notice of strike. SOLE assumed JD and
certified case to NLRC for compulsory arbitration under
Art. 278 (g), and gave the Hotel the discretion to opt for
actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement. Hotel issued
memo ordering return to work.
Union raised the issue of W/N the SOLE has discretion to
impose payroll reinstatement when he assumes jurisdiction
over labor disputes.
HELD:
SC cited UIC vs. SOLE in holding that the GR is that the
SOLE should impose actual reinstatement in accordance
with the intent and spirit of Art. 278 (g) of the Labor Code.
However, the case of Manila Diamond Hotel vs. CA
provided for an exception, that is payroll reinstatement in
case actual reinstatement is impracticable.
Here, the actual reinstatement of employees who shaved
their heads or cropped their hair is impracticable
because this was exactly the reason they were prevented
from working in the first place. Further, as with most labor
disputes which have resulted in strikes, there is mutual
antagonism, enmity, and animosity between the union
and the management. Payroll reinstatement, most
especially in this case, would have been the only avenue
where further incidents and damages could be avoided.
Public officials entrusted with specific jurisdictions enjoy
great confidence from the Court. The Secretary surely
meant only to ensure industrial peace as she assumed
jurisdiction over the labor dispute. In this case, SC was not
ready to substitute its own findings in the absence of a
clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on her part.
See again: Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Union vs.
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.
Holding: SOLE may assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, and decide the
same accordingly. And, as a matter of necessity, it
includes questions incidental to the labor dispute; that is,
issues that are necessarily involved in the dispute itself, and
not just to that ascribed in the Notice of Strike or otherwise
submitted to him for resolution. The power of the Secretary
of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over this
dispute includes and extends to all questions and
controversies arising from the said dispute, such as, but not
limited to the union’s allegation of bad faith bargaining. As
there is already an existing controversy on the matter of
wage increase, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
need not wait for a deadlock in the negotiations to take
cognizance of the matter.
Doctrine: Such assumption or certification shall have the
effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

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. The Secretary of
Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the
assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the
compliance with this provision as well as with such orders
as he may issue to enforce the same.
See again: Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa
Triumph Internation vs. SOLE
Doctrine: Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction over
the dispute or its certification to the National Labor
Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration shall have
the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
impending strike or lockout and 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
before the strike or lockout.
viii. Mass Leave
Solidbank Corp. vs. EU Gamier
FACTS:
Solidbank and respondent Solidbank Employees Union
(Union) were set to renegotiate the economic provisions of
their CBA. The union filed a notice of strike seeing that
coming up with an agreement was unlikely. During the
negotiations, union stages a series of mass actions causing
SOLE to assume JD, and later decided their dispute. Union
was dissatisfied so it decided to protest by holding a rally in
front of the Office of the SOLE. Following this,
overwhelming majority of employees joined the mass
leave and protest action at the DOLE Office, while the
bank’s provincial branches in Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod and
Naga followed suit and boycotted regular work. This
paralyzed the operations of the bank.
After 3 days of mass action, the Bank issued a memo
declaring that it was prepared to take back employees
who will report for work provided these employees were/
are not part of those who led or instigated or coerced
their co-employees into participating in this illegal act. Of
712 employees, 513 returned to work, while 199 were
dismissed for failure to return to work.
LA found that their dismissal was illegal and unjustified.
NLRC reversed. CA reinstated LA decision.
HELD:
“Strike” is defined in the Labor Code as any temporary
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees
as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. “Labor dispute”
includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and
conditions of employment or the association or
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 6
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. The term strike shall comprise not only
concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass
leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or
sabotage plant equipment and facilities and similar
activities. Thus, the fact that the conventional term strike
was not used by the striking employees to describe their
common course of action is inconsequential, since the
substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be
deemed to be controlling.
Here, considering that the mass actions stemmed from a
bargaining deadlock and an order of assumption of
jurisdiction had already been issued by the SOLE to avert
an impending strike, there is no doubt that the concerted
work abandonment/boycott was the result of a labor
dispute.
11. In case of Illegal Strike, Illegal Lockout/In pari delicto
doctrine - Status Quo Ante
Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. vs. Progresibong Unyon
ng mga Manggagawa sa AER et al.
FACTS:
AER and Unyon filed cases against each other having
different versions of the story.
AER: 18 employees, acting collectively and in concert,
suddenly and without reason staged a walkout and
assembled illegally in the company premises. Instead of
hearing their plea to return to work, the employees
employed violence and urged others to stop their work
causing AER to dismiss them from service.
UNION: The dispute started when the AER forced all of its
employees to submit their urine samples for drug testing a
day after it filed a PCE, and threatened those who refused
with dismissal. 7 workers tested positive for illegal drugs, all
of which were suspended for violating the Employee’s
handbook. AER only allowed 2 to report back to work,
while the other 5 were required to first submit the required
medical certificate attesting to their fitness to work. While
the employees were in the process of securing such, they
were shocked to receive a letter from AER charging them
with insubordination and absence without leave. Despite
their written explanation, AER refused to reinstate them.
HELD:
AER was guilty of illegal lockout and that the Unyon was
guilty of illegal concerted activities. Since both parties
were guilty of ULP, they were in pari delicto. The situation
warrants the restoration of the status quo ante, bringing the
parties back to their respective positions before the illegal
strike and illegal lockout through the reinstatement of the
employees (Philippines Inter-Fashion, Inc. v NLRC). But
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

while they are entitled to reinstatement, the employees
are not entitled to backwages, as these are only ordered
under exceptional circumstances (e.g. employer is guilty
of oppression and union-busting activities, and strikers
ordered reinstated are denied such reinstatement). Since
the strike was illegal, the principle of “no work, no pay” is
applicable.
12. Employment of Strike Breakers or Scabs
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (c)
Prohibited Activities. x x x
(c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-breaker,
nor shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker.
Labor Code, Art. 219 (212) (r)
Definition of Terms. x x x
(r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs,
impedes, or interferes with by force, violence,
coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful
picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work
or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or
collective bargaining.
13. Improved Balloting and Strikes
Labor Code, Art. 280
Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to settle a strike, the
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a
referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the
employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. When at
least a majority of the union members vote to accept the
improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return
to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them
upon the signing of the agreement.
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to
accept the reduced offer, the workers shall immediately
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit
them upon the signing of the agreement. (Incorporated
by Section 28, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 12
Improved Offer Balloting. - In case of a strike, the regional
branch of the Board shall, at its own initiative, or upon
request of any affected party, conduct a referendum by
secret balloting on the improved offer of the employer on
or before the 30th day of the strike. When at least a
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 7
majority of the union members vote to accept the
improved offer, the striking members shall immediately
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit
them upon signing of the agreement.
In case of a lockout, the regional branch of the Board shall
also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the
reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th day of
the lockout. When at least a majority of board of directors
or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in
the case of partnership vote to accept the reduced offer,
the workers shall immediately return to work and the
employer shall readmit them upon signing of the
agreement.
C. Slowdown as Concerted Activity
See Again: Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC
A slowdown is an inherently illegal activity, essentially
illegal even in the absence of a no-strike clause in a
collective bargaining contract, or statute or rule. A
slowdown is a "strike on the installment plan;" a willful
reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of
workers for the purpose of restricting the output of the
employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by
which workers, without a complete stoppage of work,
retard production or their performance of duties and
functions to compel management to grant their demands.
D. Sit-down Strike
See: Malayang Manggagawa sa Stayfast Phils. Inc. vs.
NLRC
FACTS:
Two unions were vying to be the SEBA of Stayfast Phils. Inc.
thus a CE was held where NLMS-Olalia won. This was
contested by petitioner MMSP-Independent. While the
appeal was pending, both unions filed a notice to strike.
MMSP’s was opposed by the company on the ground that
it had no personality to file a notice of strike. MMSP-
Independent later withdrew its notice of strike but
subsequently held a sit-down strike. Company now
questions the legality of this.
HELD: SC dismissed the petition due to technicalities but
held that even assuming that the petition was proper, the
sit-down strike held by the petitioner union was illegal
because it in violation of respondent company’s rules, and
petitioner’s officers and members ignored the opportunity
given by respondent company for them to explain their
misconduct, which resulted in the termination of their
employment.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

E. Sympathy Strike
Punongbayan & Araullo et al. vs. Lepon
Punongbayan and Araullo is an accounting firm which
hired Roberto Ponce Lepon as an auditor. Later, SGV
commenced negotiation for merging with P&A. However,
this did not push through. P&A later found out that Lepon
met with its clients urging them to engage in the service of
a competitor firm instead and that he also tried to pirate
P&A’s entire staff in its Cebu and Davao Offices. Lepon
was suspended and later dismissed from service due to
loss of trust and confidence.
Lepon filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal
dismissal. This was dismissed by the LA, as affirmed by the
NLRC. CA, however, reversed.
HELD:
He was validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.
by enjoining P&A's staff to engage in a sympathy strike
during his preventive suspension. He did so by enjoining
the staff of the P&A Cebu City Office to sympathize with
him by not reporting to work so as to paralyze the
operations of P&A's Cebu City Office.
F. Picketing
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 13
Peaceful Picketing. - Workers shall have the right to
peaceful picketing. No person engaged shall commit any
act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or obstruct the
free ingress to or egress from the employers premises for
lawful purposes or obstruct public thoroughfares.
No person shall obstruct, impede or interfere with, by
force, violence or coercion, threats or intimidation, any
peaceful picketing by workers during any labor
controversy or the exercise of the right to self-organization
or collective bargaining or shall aid and abet such
obstruction or interference. No employer shall use or
employ any person to commit such acts nor shall any
person be employed for such purpose.
1. Definition
2. Nature and Purpose
See again: Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assoc. vs.
Insular Life Assurance
It must be conceded that some disorder is unfortunately
quite usual in any extensive or long drawn out strike. A
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. Violence of this nature,
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 8
however much it is to be regretted, must have been in the
contemplation of the Congress when it provided in Sec. 13
of Act 29 USCA Sec. 163, that nothing therein should be
construed so
as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the
right to strike. If this were not so, the rights afforded to
employees by the Act would indeed be illusory. It was
accordingly recently held that it was not intended by the
Act that minor disorders of this nature would deprive a
striker of the possibility of reinstatement.
See Again: Sta. Rosa Coca-cola Plant EU vs. CCBP
Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the
premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the
display of placards and other signs making known the
facts involved in a labor dispute. As applied to a labor
dispute, to picket means the stationing of one or more
persons to observe and attempt to observe. The purpose
of pickets is said to be a means of peaceable persuasion.
3. Picketing and Libel Laws
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Philnabank
Employees
FACTS:
PCIB, hurt and affected by a placard alluding to it during
a strike of PNB’s employees against PNB, filed a libel suit
against the said employees.
HELD:
The court found no libelous statement, underscoring that it
can hardly be expected that the “inaccuracies and
imprecision” in language arising from strikes and other
labor disputes (which elicit strong emotional response from
both labor and management) will be courteous and
polite. In deciding suits for libel, the judiciary must
ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may
be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free
press (U.S. v. Bustos). From the time of Mortrera v. CIR
(1947),the SC has been committed to the view that
peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech
guarantee of the Constitution. The labor union made use
of its constitutional right to picket.
4. Curtailment
Nagkahiusang Manggagawa ng Cuizon Hotel vs. Libron
FACTS:
The Labor Arbiter issued an order ruling that since a strike
had been declared illegal, sanctions would likewise be
imposed on immediate incidents thereto, such as
picketing. In other words, once strikers are permanently
enjoined from staging the illegal strike, the picketing
staged should also be simultaneously lifted.
HELD:
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

The SC did not agree. Citing PCIB v. Philnabank, the court
reiterated that from the time of Mortrera v. CIR (1947), it
has been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is
part of the freedom of speech guarantee of the
Constitution. Thus, picketing cannot be prohibited as long
as it is done peacefully. However, peaceful picketing
cannot countenance acts of illegality.
5. Regulations/Restrictions, Innocent Third Party Rule and
Liabilities
Liwayway Publishing Co. Inc vs. Permanent Concrete
Workers Union
FACTS:
Liwayway Publications’ office is in the same premises as
that of Permanent Concrete Products’. One day,
Permanent Concrete Workers Union staged a strike against
the company. They later blocked the entrance to
Liwayway’s bodega, hindering the publication from
access to their newsprint. Liwayway asked for a writ of
preliminary injunction against the strikers from the CFI,
which was granted. The Union questioned the CFI’s power
to issue the writ.
HELD: The union’s right to strike, although guaranteed by
the Constitution, may be regulated if the rights of third
parties or “innocent bystanders” are affected (Phil.
Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) vs. Judge
Gaudencio Cloribel et al.) Liwayway, not being a party to
the labor dispute, was an innocent bystander. (Liwayway is
not in any way related to the striking union, except for the
fact that it was the sublessee of a bodega in the
company’s compound. Liwayway’s business is exclusively
the publication of weekly magazines, which has absolutely
no relation or connection whatsoever with the cause of
the strike of the union against their company, much less
with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers.) As
such, the CFI could validly issue a writ of preliminary
injunction against the union to protect Liwayway’s
interests.
6. Prohibited Activities
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264)
Prohibited Activities.
(a) 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
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 5
! 9
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or
lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated
as a consequence of any 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.
(b) No person shall 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 shall aid or
abet such obstruction or interference.
(c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-breaker,
nor shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker.
(d) No public official or employee, including officers and
personnel of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines
or the Integrated National Police, or armed person,
shall bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, any
individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or
leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place
of the strikers. The police force shall keep out of the
picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal
acts occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall
be interpreted to prevent any public officer from
taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and
order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the
law and legal order. (As amended by Executive Order
No. 111, December 24, 1986).
(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act
of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the
free ingress to or egress from the employer’s premises
for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares.
As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1,
1982).
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 13, supra pg. 57
G. Role of Peace Officers During Strikes and Picketing
1. Escorting
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (d)
Prohibited Activities. x x x
(d) No public official or employee, including officers and
personnel of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines
or the Integrated National Police, or armed person,
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson
 Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 6
! 0

shall bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, any X. Employer Lockout
individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or
leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place A. Basis and Definition
of the strikers. The police force shall keep out of the Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (b)
picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal
Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts. x x x
acts occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
be interpreted to prevent any public officer from
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for
taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and
their mutual benefit and protection. The right of
order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and
law and legal order. (As amended by Executive Order
of employers to lockout, consistent with the national
No. 111, December 24, 1986).
interest, shall continue to be recognized and
respected. However, no labor union may strike and no
employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving
2. Arrest and Detention of Law Violators inter-union and intra-union disputes.
Labor Code, Art. 281 (266)

Requirement for arrest and detention. - Except on grounds Labor Code, Art. 219 (p)
of national security and public peace or in case of
Definition of Terms. x x x
commission of a crime, no union members or union
(p) "Lockout" means any temporary refusal of an
organizers may be arrested or detained for union activities
employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or
without previous consultations with the Secretary of Labor.
labor dispute.

IRR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (gg)

Definition of Terms. -
(a) “Lockout” refers to the temporary refusal of an
employer to furnish work as a result of a labor or industrial
dispute

B. Effect on Work Relationship

Labor Code, Art. 219 (p), supra

C. Ground for Lockout

Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (c)

Strikes, picketing, and lockouts. x x x

(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with
the Ministry at least 30 days before the intended date
thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice
of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor
organization in behalf of its members. However, in
case of dismissal from employment of union officers
duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
busting, where the existence of the union is
threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
apply and the union may take action immediately.
(As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December
24, 1986).

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson


D. Prohibited Lockout
Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (b) (g)
Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts. x x x
(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.
xxx
(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. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or
the Commission may seek the assistance of law
enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this
provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to
enforce the same.
In line with the national concern for and the highest
respect accorded to the right of patients to life and
health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and
similar medical institutions shall, to every extent
possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only
by labor and management but government as well,
be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent,
their adverse effects on such life and health, through
the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to
strike and by management to lockout. In labor
disputes adversely affecting the continued operation
of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall
be the duty of the striking union or locking-out
employer to provide and maintain an effective
skeletal workforce of medical and other health
personnel, whose movement and services shall be
unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to
insure the proper and adequate protection of the life
and health of its patients, most especially emergency
cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such
cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and
Employment may immediately assume, within twenty
four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of
such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or
certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration.
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 6
! 1
For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly
enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/
or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary ofLabor
and Employment or the 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.
The foregoing notwithstanding, 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.
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (a), supra pg. 58
E. Procedural Requirements
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (a)(c)(d)(e), supra pg. 58
Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (e)
Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts. x x x
(e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the
Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and
conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should
the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the
requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of
the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer
may declare a lockout.
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5
Grounds for strike or lockout. - A strike
or lockout may be declared in cases of bargaining
deadlocks and ULPs. Violations of CBAs, except flagrant
and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic
provisions, shall not be considered ULP and shall not be
strikeable. No strike or lockout may be declared on
grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes or
without first having filed a notice of strike or lockout or
without the necessary strike or lockout vote having been
obtained and reported to the Board. Neither will a strike
be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the
Secretary or after certification of submission of the dispute
to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
pendency of cases involving the same grounds or the
strike or lockout. (As amended by DO 40_A-03 [Italized
word "or" added].)
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, 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 ULPs. The
employer may declare a lockout in the same cases. In the
absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

representative, any legitimate labor organization in the
establishment may declare a strike but only on grounds of
ULPs.
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 7
Notice of strike or lockout. - In bargaining deadlocks, a
notice of strike or lockout shall be filed with the regional
branch of the Board at least thirty (30) days before the
intended date thereof, a copy of said notice having been
served on the other party concerned. In cases of ULP, the
period of notice shall be fifteen (15) days. However, in
case of ULP involving the dismissal from employment of
any union officer duly elected in accordance with the
union constitution and by-laws which may constitute union
busting where the existence of the union is threatened, the
fifteen-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
union may take action immediately after the strike vote is
conducted and the results thereof submitted to the
appropriate regional branch of the Board.
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 8
Contents of notice. - The notice shall state, among others,
the names and addresses of the employer and the union
involved, the nature of the industry to which the employer
belongs, the number of union members and of the workers
in the bargaining unit, and such other relevant data as
may facilitate the settlement of the dispute, such as a brief
statement or enumeration of all pending labor disputes
involving the same parties.
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far
as practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the
bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the
written proposals of the union, the counterproposals of the
employer and the proof of a request for conference to
settle the differences. In cases of ULPs, the notice shall, as
far as practicable, state the acts complained of and the
efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably.
In case a notice does not conform with the requirements
of this and the foregoing section/s, the regional branch of
the Board shall inform the concerned party of such fact.
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 9
Action on Notice. - Upon receipt of the notice, the
regional branch of the Board shall exert all efforts at
mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to settle
the dispute amicably. The regional branch of the Board
may, upon agreement of the parties, treat a notice as a
preventive mediation case. It shall also encourage the
parties to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
During the proceedings, the parties shall not do any act
which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the
dispute. They are obliged, as part of their duty to bargain
collectively in good faith and to participate fully and
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 6
! 2
promptly in the conciliation meetings called by the
regional branch of the Board.
A notice, upon agreement of the parties, may be referred
to alternative modes of dispute resolution, including
voluntary arbitration.
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 10
Strike or lockout vote. - 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 the purpose. A
decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a
majority of the Board of Directors of the employer,
corporation or association or the partners in a partnership
obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting called for the
purpose.
The regional branch of the Board may, at its own initiative
or upon request of any affected party, supervise the
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or
the employer shall furnish the regional branch of the Board
and the notice of meetings referred to in the preceding
paragraph at least twenty-four (24) hours before such
meetings as well as the results of the voting at least seven
(7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to
the cooling-off period provided in this Rule
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 11
Declaration of strike or lockout. - Should the dispute
remain unsettled after the lapse of the requisite number of
days from the filing of the notice of strike or lockout and of
the results of the election required in the preceding
section, the labor union may strike or the employer may
lock out its workers. The regional branch of the Board shall
continue mediating and conciliating.
F. Effect of Illegal Lockout
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (a) par. 3, 1st sent.
x x x Any worker whose employment has been terminated
as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be
entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

XI. Labor Injunction
A. Definition and Nature
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC
FACTS: 2 PAL flight stewards were dismissed for their
alleged involvement in currency smuggling. They filed with
the NLRC a petition for injunction, praying that a TRO be
issued prohibiting PAL from effecting the dismissal them or
to reinstate them temporarily while a hearing on the
propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
is being undertaken.
HELD: The petition for injunction filed before the NLRC was,
in reality, an action for illegal dismissal. As such, the
petition should have been filed with the Labor Arbiter, who
has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
such cases. Injunction is a preservative remedy for the
protection of one’s substantive rights or interest. It is not a
cause of action in itself, but a mere provisional remedy
adjunct to a main suit- a special equitable relief granted
only in cases where there is no plain, adequate and
complete remedy at law. In labor cases, Art. 218
empowers the NLRC 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
which, if not restrained or performed, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any
decision in favor of such party.
B. General Rule—Prohibition
Labor Code, Art. 266 (254)
Injunction Prohibited. - No temporary or permanent
injunction or restraining order in any case involving or
growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court
or other entity, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218
and 264 of this Code. (As amended by Batas Pambansa
Bilang 227, June 1, 1982).
Labor Code, Art. 225 (218) (e)
Powers of the Commission. x x x
(e) 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 grave or irreparable damage to
any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of
such party: Provided, That no temporary or permanent
injunction in any case involving or growing out of
alabor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued
except after hearing the testimony of witnesses, with
opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the
allegations of a complaint made under oath, and
testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only
after a finding of fact by the Commission, to the
effect:
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 6
! 3
(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been
threatened and will be committed and will be
continued unless restrained, but no injunction or
temporary restraining order shall be issued on
account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act,
except against the person or persons, association
or organization making the threat or committing
the prohibited or unlawful act or actually
authorizing or ratifying the same after actual
knowledge thereof;
(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to
complainant’s property will follow;
(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted,
greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant
by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon
defendants by the granting of relief;
(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at
law; and
(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to
protect complainant’s property are unable or
unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
Such hearing shall be held after due and personal
notice thereof has been served, in such manner as the
Commission shall direct, to all known persons against
whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief Executive
and other public officials of the province or city within
which the unlawful acts have been threatened or
committed, charged with the duty to protect
complainant’s property: Provided, however, that if a
complainant shall also allege that, unless a temporary
restraining order shall be issued without notice, a
substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s
property will be unavoidable, such a temporary
restraining order may be issued upon testimony under
oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission in
issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after
notice. Such a temporary restraining order shall be
effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall
become void at the expiration of said twenty (20)
days. No such temporary restraining order or
temporary injunction shall be issued except on
condition that complainant shall first file an
undertaking with adequate security in an amount to
be fixed by the Commission sufficient to recompense
those enjoined for any loss, expense or damage
caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of
such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs,
together with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and
expense of defense against the order or against the
granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same
proceeding and subsequently denied by the
Commission.
T h e u n d e r t a k i n g h e re i n m e n t i o n e d s h a l l b e
understood to constitute an agreement entered into
by the complainant and the surety upon which an
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

order may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding
against said complainant and surety, upon a hearing
to assess damages, of which hearing, complainant
and surety shall have reasonable notice, the said
complainant and surety submitting themselves to the
jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. But
nothing herein contained shall deprive any party
having a claim or cause of action under or upon such
undertaking from electing to pursue his ordinary
remedy by suit at law or in equity: Provided, further,
That the reception of evidence for the application of
a writ of injunction may be delegated by the
Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall
conduct such hearings in such places as he may
determine to be accessible to the parties and their
witnesses and shall submit thereafter his
recommendation to the Commission. (As amended by
Section 10, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264), supra pg. 58
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 14
Injunctions. - No court or entity shall enjoin any picketing,
strike or lockout, except as provided in Articles 218 and 263
of the Labor Code.
The Commission shall have the power to issue temporary
restraining orders in such cases but only after due notice
and hearing and in accordance with its rules. The
reception of evidence for the application of a writ of
injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any
Labor Arbiter who shall submit his recommendations to the
Commission for its consideration and resolution.
Any ex parte restraining order issued by the Commission, or
its chairman or Vice-Chairman where the Commission is
not in session and as prescribed by its rules, shall be valid
for a period not exceeding twenty (20) days.
San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC
FACTS:
The Union filed 2 separate notices of strike. The NCMB
found that they were based on non-strikeable issues, and
converted the notices into preventive mediation.
Nonetheless, the Union went on strike. SMC filed a petition
for injunction with prayer for the issuance of TRO. SMC &
the Union agreed to lift the picket lines in exchange of
good faith talks. The Union later distributed flyers declaring
that they could strike at anytime. The NLRC let the TRO it
granted lapse. It denied the petition for injunction.
HELD:
GR is that no temporary or permanent injunction or
restraining order in any case involving or growing out of
labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity
except as otherwise provided in Articles 225 (e) (previously
218) and 279 (264) of the Labor Code, i.e. to restrain the
threat of an unlawful strike, and hen the labor organization
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 6
! 4
or the employer engages in any of the "prohibited
activities”, respectively.
Here, the petition for injunction should have been granted
because of the illegality of the strike.
See again: Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors
Assoc. vs. CIR
CIR cannot validly enjoin strikes. The CIR is virtually
prohibited from issuing injunctive relief arising from labor
disputes (in order to give labor a comparable bargaining
power with capital). The exception is when a labor dispute
arises in an industry indispensable to the national interest
and such dispute is certified by the President to the CIR
(pursuant to Sec. 9(d) of RA875 and Social Security
Employees Assoc. v Hon. Soriano). However, in this
exception, the purpose of the injunction is not to enjoin the
strike itself, but only unlawful activities.
C. Exceptions—When Allowed
Labor Code, Art. 266 (254), supra pg. 62
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264), supra pg. 58
See again: IBM vs. NLRC
Article 264 (now 270) lists down specific “prohibited
activities" which may be forbidden or stopped by a
restraining order or injunction. Article 218 (now 224) inter
alia enumerates the powers of the NLRC and lays down
then conditions under which a restraining order or
preliminary injunction may issue, and the procedure to be
followed in issuing the same. As a rule such restraining
orders or injunctions do not issue ex parte, but only after
compliance with the requisites in the pertinent articles (see
outline above). However, a TRO may be issued ex parte in
certain situations (see outline; more detailed explanation
infra).
D. Issuing Agency
1. NLRC; Labor Arbiter
Labor Code, Art. 225 (218) (e), supra pg. 62
National Mines & Allied Workers Union vs. Vera
G.R. No. L-44230; November 19, 1984; Cuevas
FACTS:
Union obtained a judgment against the Philippine Iron
Mines for an ULP suit, and thereafter secured a writ of
execution. When its properties were levied, the sheriffs
scheduled the sale thereof at a public auction.
It appears, however, that the said properties have already
been foreclosed by the Manila Banking Corporation and
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank prior to the
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

rendition of the ULP judgment. They claimed that the
properties about to be sold were no longer owned by
Philippine Iron Mines, as they were bought by the bank in
the auction sale. The said bank sought an Injunction
against the union to enjoin the projected auction sale of
the said properties with the CFI. Union filed an MTD
claiming that the CFI had no jurisdiction to issue the
injunction to stop the execution of a judgment issued by
the NLRC. CFI ruled thatit had JD. W/N CFI has JD?
HELD:
As judgment creditors, the union’s interest in the properties
levied upon and the bank’s claims of ownership over the
same create a purely civil controversy between them. The
issue involved is exclusively one of property ownership
which cannot legally and reasonably be categorized as
involving or growing out of a ‘labor dispute’ just because
one party’s interest happened to be based on a judgment
in a labor proceeding.
The injunction suit does not arise from a labor dispute. The
banks are not parties to the NLRC case. The present case
does not question either the fact or validity of the NLRC
proceedings nor the decision rendered therein along with
the writ of execution. What is sought to be tried in the
present case is whether the NLRC decision and the writ of
execution shall be permitted to be satisfied against the
properties of the bank and not of the judgment debtor
named in the NLRC case and writ of execution. Such is
within the jurisdiction of CFI.
Simply because a writ of execution was issued by the
NLRC does not authorize the sheriff implementing the
same to levy anybody’s property. Well-settled is the rule
that the power of a court to execute its judgment extends
only over properties unquestionably belonging to the
judgment debtor.
Nestle Phils., Inc. vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 85197; March 18, 1991; Griño-Aquino
FACTS:
Nuñez et al. were employed by Nestle Phils. as sales reps or
medical reps. By reason of their nature of their work, they
were each allowed to avail of the company's car loan
policy. When Nuñez et al. were dismissed from service for
having participated in an illegal strike, and their
complaints for illegal dismissal were dismissed by the LA,
Nestle demanded that they settle the remaining balance
of their car loan or to return the cars to the company. They
refused to do either so the company filed a civil suit to
recover possession of the cars in the RTC. Nuñez et al.
sought TRO with the NLRC to stop the company from
cancelling their car loans and collecting their monthly
amortizations pending the final resolution of their appeals
in the illegal dismissal case. NLRC granted.
HELD:
The power of the NLRC to issue writs of injunction is found in
Article 225 (e) (218e) of the Labor Code. As the statute
provides, it may only be exercised in a labor dispute. Here,
D2019
Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 6
! 5
Nestlé's demand for payment of the private respondents'
amortizations on their car loans, or, in the alternative, the
return of the cars to the company, is not a labor, but a
civil, dispute. It involves debtor-creditor relations, rather
than employee-employer relations. Hence, the NLRC
gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction
by issuing the writ of injunction to stop the company from
enforcing the civil obligation of the private respondents
under the car loan agreements
2. Procedural Requirements and Rules for Issuance of
Labor Injunctions
Labor Code, Art. 225 (218) (e), supra pg. 62
Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 105090; September 16, 1993; Puno
FACTS:
The Union held a strike. The Company filed a petition for
injunction, but the Union was not furnished a copy. The
NLRC issued a TRO to enjoin the strike, and the Union was
again not furnished a copy of the decision. Union filed for
petition for injunction to enjoin the company from asking
the aid of police/military, while the company filed for
immediate issuance of preliminary injunction, alleging that
the Union was still striking. The NLRC issued the preliminary
injunction in favor of the company.
HELD:
The NLRC failed to comply with the letter and spirit of Art.
218 in issuing its order granting the company’s motion for
preliminary injunction. Art. 218 provides the procedural
and substantive requirements which must strictly be
complied with before any injunction can issue. The Union
was denied the right to attend the hearing because they
did not receive any copy of the company’s petition for
injunction. The issuance of an ex parte TRO in a labor
dispute should be characterized by care and caution, for
the law requires that it be clearly justified by considerations
of extreme necessity. Imprudently issued TROs can unduly
tilt the balance of labor warfare in favor of capital.
See again: IBM vs. NLRC
As a rule such restraining orders or injunctions do not issue
ex parte, but only after compliance with the following
requisites, to wit:
a) a hearing held after due and personal notice thereof
has been served, in such manner as the Commission
shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is
sought, and also to the Chief Executive and other
public officials of the province or city within which the
unlawful acts have been threatened or committed
charged with the duty to protect complainant's
property
b) reception at the hearing of "testimony of witnesses,
with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of
the allegations of a complaint made under oath," as
well as "testimony in opposition thereto, if offered
Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson
 Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 6
! 6

c) a finding of fact by the Commission, to the effect: petition for injunction with prayer for issuance of TRO
(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been alleging that the PCIBEU-Comelec was not validly
threatened and will be committed and will be or constituted. Med-Arbiter granted the petition. However,
temporary restraining order shall be issued on only the elections in Metro Manila was suspended, and the
account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, elections in provincial branches continued. After the lapse
except against the person or persons, association of the 20-day period, elections were held in Metro Manila
or organization making the threat or committing and the results were consolidated with the provincial
the prohibited or unlawful act or actually elections. PFR contested the results.
authorizing or ratifying the same after actual
knowledge thereof; HELD:
(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to The TRO should not have been granted at all. Injunctions
complainant's property will follow; or restraining orders are frowned upon as a matter of labor
(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, relations policy. The right must be clear, the injury
greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant impending or threatened, so as to be averted only by the
by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon protecting preventive process of injunction. The issuance
defendants by the granting of relief; of a TRO is addressed to the sound discretion of the Med-
(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at Arbiter, and should be exercised based upon the grounds
law; and and in the manner provided by law, i.e. instances where
(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to the complainant will suffer “grave or irreparable
protect complainant's property are unable or damages”. Such is not the case here, wherein the act
unwilling to furnish adequate protection. complained of may not be said to cause “grave or
irreparable damage” to the complainant. Also, there was
However, a TRO may be issued ex parte under the another [administrative] remedy available (protest).
following conditions:
a) the complainant shall also allege that, unless a
temporary restraining order shall be issued without ~END~
notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to
complainant's property will be unavoidable;
b) there is testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to
justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction
upon hearing after notice;
c) the complainant shall first file an undertaking with
adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the
Commission sufficient to recompense those enjoined
for any loss, expense or damage caused by the
improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or
injunction, including all reasonable costs, together
with a reasonable attorney's fee, and expense of
defense against the order or against the granting of
any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding
and subsequently denied by the Commission; and
d) the TRO shall be effective for no longer than 20 days
and shall become void at the expiration of said 20
days.

The reception of evidence "for the application of a writ of

injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of
its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such
places as he may determine to be accessible to the
parties and their witnesses and shall submit thereafter his
recommendation to the Commission.

3. Temporary Restraining Order

Labor Code, Art. 225 (218) (e), supra pg. 62

Dinio vs. Laguesma

G.R. No. 108475; June 9, 1997; Kapunan

FACTS:
The election of officers of the Union was scheduled. One
of the parties, PFR, headed by Dinio, filed with the BLR a

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson