G.R. No. 124823 July 28, 1999
PASVIL/PASCUAL LINER, INC., WORKERS UNION-NAFLU, et al., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PASVIL/PASCUAL LINER, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Union filed a notice of strike against respondent company, PASVIL/Pascual Liner, Inc., alleging unfair labor practices. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) found the real issues—the dismissal of the union president and a pending certification election—were not proper strike subjects but were for preventive mediation. Conciliation failed, and the Union staged a strike on February 18, 1995. Due to the company’s vital role in public transportation, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction, certified the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, and issued a return-to-work order. The Union defied this order, continuing to picket and barricade company premises, preventing workers from returning.
The NLRC proceeded to resolve the case based on submitted position papers after the Union’s repeated non-appearance at hearings led the commission to deem its request for a formal trial as dilatory. The NLRC ruled the strike was illegal due to lack of a valid factual basis, as the alleged unfair labor practices were unsubstantiated. It further found the Union’s defiance of the return-to-work order aggravated the illegality. Consequently, the NLRC declared the strike illegal and held the individual petitioners to have lost their employment status.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the strike illegal and in dismissing the individual petitioners from employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the right to strike is not absolute and must be exercised within legal parameters. First, a strike must be based on a bona fide labor dispute. The Court upheld the NLRC’s factual finding that the Union’s grounds—alleged union busting and discriminatory dismissal—were not substantiated by evidence. The dismissal of the union president was a separate case pending before a Labor Arbiter, and the removal of buses was a legitimate business decision to address operational losses, not an anti-union act. Without proof of unfair labor practice, the strike lacked a legal basis, rendering it illegal from its inception.
Second, the Union’s defiance of the Secretary of Labor’s assumption of jurisdiction and return-to-work order constituted a separate and aggravated illegality. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code mandates immediate compliance with such orders in industries indispensable to national interest. The transportation company serviced thousands of commuters; thus, the Secretary properly intervened. The Union’s continued picketing and barricading, which obstructed returning workers, were blatant violations. This defiance justified the severe penalty of dismissal for the striking officers and members. The NLRC’s denial of a formal hearing was not arbitrary, as the Union’s procedural maneuvers and non-appearance warranted resolution based on the evidence on record. Therefore, the findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the penalties imposed were within the NLRC’s discretionary power.