G.R. No. L-20662 and L-20663; March 19, 1968
PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS’ GUILD, petitioner, vs. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, PHILIPPINE STEAMSHIP NAVIGATION CO., MADRIGAL SHIPPING CO., COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS ASSOCIATE JUDGES ARSENIO MARTINEZ, BALTAZAR VILLANUEVA, and ARMANDO BUGAYONG, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Philippine Marine Officers’ Guild (PMOG), a labor organization of marine officers and engineers, sent demands in June 1954 to several shipping companies, including respondents Compañia Maritima (MARITIMA), Philippine Steamship Navigation Company (PHILSTEAM), and Madrigal Shipping Company (MADRIGAL). A dispute arose, and PMOG filed notices of intention to strike. Conciliation conferences failed. On August 16, 1954, MARITIMA concluded a collective bargaining agreement with another union, the Marine Officers Association of the Philippines (MOAP). On August 24, 1954, PHILSTEAM entered into an agreement with the Cebu Seaman’s Association, Inc. (CSA). PMOG declared a strike against the three companies and engaged in picketing. On January 14, 1955, the President certified the dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), docketed as Case No. 6-IPA. The CIR issued a return-to-work order, but it was not enforced due to an injunction from the Supreme Court. Subsequently, several unfair labor practice cases were filed and consolidated. The CIR rendered a single decision with findings on each case.

ISSUE

The primary issues for review pertained to the legality of the strikes against each company and the corresponding rights to reinstatement, as determined by the CIR in its consolidated decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR decision with modification regarding reinstatement at MARITIMA. The CIR found: (1) In Case No. 617-ULP, MARITIMA had not refused to bargain collectively nor engaged in any unfair labor practice. The strike against it was declared for no cause, and unlawful means were used; thus, the strike was illegal from its inception. (2) In Case No. 618-ULP, PHILSTEAM committed unfair labor practices by interrogating employees and discouraging union membership, but did not refuse to bargain. The strike against it was justified and lawful. (3) In Case No. 646-ULP, MADRIGAL interfered with employees’ right to self-organization but did not refuse to bargain. The strike against it was proper and legal. (4) In Cases No. 672-ULP and 1002-ULP, charges against PMOG were not proven. The Supreme Court held that where a strike is unjustified and illegal, as against MARITIMA, the employer may not be compelled to reinstate the strikers. It affirmed the CIR majority’s denial of reinstatement for MARITIMA strikers, while affirming the ordered reinstatement for strikers at PHILSTEAM and MADRIGAL. Costs were charged against petitioner PMOG.