G.R. No. 158158 ; January 17, 2005
Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (BMC-SUPER), et al., petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, and Clothman Knitting Corporation, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are officers and members of the Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation (BMC-SUPER), a legitimate labor union of rank-and-file employees of respondent Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC). In 2001, due to a decline in orders, CKC reduced work schedules and temporarily shut down its Dyeing and Finishing Division, notifying the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The union members, protesting the shutdown and demanding the resumption of work and payment of the 13th month pay, staged a picket from June 11 to 18, 2001, in front of the company compound, carrying placards with their grievances.
CKC filed a petition to declare the strike illegal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), alleging the union failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for a lawful strike. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of CKC, declaring the strike illegal and resulting in the loss of employment status for the union officers who participated. This decision was affirmed by the NLRC and subsequently by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the NLRC’s ruling that the strike staged by the petitioner union from June 11 to 18, 2001, was illegal.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding the strike illegal due to the union’s failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under the Labor Code. For a strike to be legal, the union must observe specific steps: filing a notice of strike with the DOLE, observing a mandatory cooling-off period, and conducting a strike vote where the majority of the union members in a secret ballot approve the strike, with the results reported to the DOLE.
The Court found that the petitioner union did not file any notice of strike with the DOLE prior to the picket. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that a strike vote was conducted and its results reported. These requirements are not mere formalities but essential conditions intended to regulate the right to strike and encourage the peaceful resolution of labor disputes. Non-compliance renders the strike illegal. Consequently, under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code, union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike are deemed to have lost their employment status. The petitioners’ activities, while a form of concerted action, constituted a strike as they were a temporary stoppage of work through a concerted refusal to work or a picket to enforce demands. Their failure to adhere to the legal prerequisites justified the declaration of illegality and the termination of the union officers.