G.R. No. 153664 & 153665; July 18, 2003
Grand Boulevard Hotel (formerly Silahis International Hotel, Inc.), petitioner, vs. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN) and Edna B. Dacanay, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel and respondent union GLOWHRAIN had a history of labor disputes, leading to several notices of strike and certification for compulsory arbitration by the Secretary of Labor (SOLE). On October 31, 1990, the SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum order certifying the latest dispute to the NLRC and enjoining any strike or lockout. Despite this order, the union conducted a strike vote on November 5, 1990, and subsequently staged a strike on November 6, 1990. The hotel then terminated the employment of the striking workers for illegal strike and implemented a retrenchment program.
The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and upheld the dismissals and retrenchment. The NLRC reversed, ordering reinstatement and backwages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, finding the strike legal as the union allegedly complied with procedural requirements and the hotel committed unfair labor practices. The hotel elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the strike staged by respondent union on November 6, 1990, was illegal.

RULING

Yes, the strike was illegal. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the union’s failure to comply with mandatory procedural requisites for a valid strike and its defiance of a valid assumption or certification order.
First, the SOLE’s October 31, 1990 order was a valid certification order under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, issued due to the hotel’s critical role in tourism and foreign exchange. This order enjoined any strike or lockout. The union’s conduct of a strike vote and the actual strike on November 5 and 6, 1990, respectively, constituted a direct violation of this legally effective order. A certification order automatically enjoins a strike, and any strike undertaken thereafter is illegal.
Second, the union failed to prove it complied with the mandatory cooling-off period and strike vote reportorial requirements. The notice of strike was filed on September 27, 1990. The strike on November 6, 1990, fell within the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period from the filing of the notice, which had not expired due to the intervening certification order. Furthermore, the union did not submit the strike vote results to the Department of Labor at least seven days before the intended strike, as required by law. Non-compliance with these procedural steps renders a strike illegal.
Consequently, the striking employees lost their employment status. The Court found no merit in the union’s claim of unfair labor practice to justify the strike, as the alleged acts were not substantiated. The retrenchment program was also upheld as a valid exercise of management prerogative due to proven financial losses.