GR 170830; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170830 ; August 11, 2010
PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, vs. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION (PILA), et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Phimco Industries, Inc. (PHIMCO) and the Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA) reached a deadlock in collective bargaining negotiations. PILA filed a Notice of Strike, conducted a strike vote, and subsequently staged a strike on April 21, 1995. PHIMCO filed a petition to declare the strike illegal, alleging that the strikers blocked ingress and egress to the company premises, thereby paralyzing operations. The Labor Arbiter found the strike illegal, declaring that the participating employees lost their employment status. Meanwhile, PHIMCO dismissed 36 union members for alleged illegal acts during the strike, prompting PILA to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) consolidated the illegal strike and illegal dismissal cases. It reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on the illegal strike, finding the picket to have been a peaceful “moving picket.” It also ruled the dismissals illegal, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decisions.
ISSUE
Whether the strike staged by PILA was illegal, thereby justifying the dismissal of the participating union officers and members.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was illegal, reversing the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC. The legal logic hinges on the commission of prohibited acts during the strike, which invalidates an otherwise lawful strike based on a bargaining deadlock. The Court found substantial evidence, including affidavits and photographs, proving that the strikers obstructed the free ingress to and egress from the company premises. They formed human barricades and used physical force and intimidation to prevent non-striking employees and delivery vehicles from entering. This act constitutes a violation of the workers’ right to peaceful picketing, as it employs illegal means to achieve a lawful objective.
Consequently, the union officers, who were deemed to have knowingly participated in or authorized these illegal acts, lost their employment status. However, for the rank-and-file union members, the Court applied the doctrine that mere participation in an illegal strike does not automatically constitute a valid ground for dismissal. Their dismissals were thus declared illegal because PHIMCO failed to prove that these individual members committed specific illegal acts during the strike. The company’s generic charge and failure to provide concrete evidence of individual participation in the blockade warranted their reinstatement with backwages, but without full backwages due to the strike’s illegality.