G.R. No. L-49983 April 20, 1992
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, GERARDO ROSANA, FE DIVINA, PATRICIO MIRANDA, ARTURO GUEVARRA, PURIFICACION CABRERA, ANGELINA GAVIOLA, TITO MARQUEZ, ELPIDIO ORINION, DELIA ABUEG, TERESITA GARCIA, ELENA PADILLA, DOLORES DAILEG, CRESCELIA YBAÑES, ELENA ORTILLA, MARIETA SALONGA, RODOLFO LABARINTO, AURELIA SAN JUAN AND LOURDES LUNA, petitioners, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG AND ARIS (PHILIPPINES), INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Federation of Free Workers (FFW) was declared the authorized bargaining representative for the rank and file employees of private respondent Aris (Philippines), Inc. after a certification election. The company and FFW executed a memorandum of agreement on February 3, 1978, recognizing FFW and agreeing to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), while the expired CBA, containing a “no strike no lockout clause,” would continue in effect. Negotiations for a new CBA deadlocked. FFW filed a notice of strike on February 28, 1978. Conciliation meetings failed. On March 29, 1978, FFW requested respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Amado G. Inciong to assume jurisdiction. On April 1, 1978, after the required 30-day notice, FFW staged a strike at all three plants of the company. The company was classified as a vital industry under Letter of Instruction No. 368 and protected by Presidential Decree No. 823, as amended, against strikes. Respondent Deputy Minister assumed jurisdiction. A conference on April 2, 1978, resulted in an order by Inciong directing a wage increase and ordering strikers to return to work. The strikers failed to lift picket lines and intensified barricades. The company filed an urgent motion to declare the strike illegal and to revoke the April 2 order, and applied for clearance to terminate the strikers. The strikers were placed under preventive suspension. On April 11, 1978, respondent Deputy Minister rendered a decision declaring the strike illegal, ordering all striking employees except union officers to return to work within 24 hours, revoking the April 2, 1978 order, granting clearance to place union officers under preventive suspension, and placing union administration directly under FFW. On the same date, the company and FFW entered into a memorandum of agreement to end the dispute and subsequently executed a CBA on April 12, 1978. On January 29, 1979, respondent Deputy Minister granted the application for clearance to terminate the services of eighteen union officers and members. Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari seeking to annul the April 11, 1978 and January 29, 1979 decisions.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Deputy Minister of Labor gravely abused his discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the decisions dated April 11, 1978 and January 29, 1979, which declared the strike illegal, revoked his prior order, and granted clearance to terminate the employment of the union officers and members.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the decisions of the Deputy Minister of Labor dated April 11, 1978 and January 29, 1979. The Court held that the strike was illegal because: (1) the employer was engaged in a vital industry and thus protected by P.D. 823, as amended, from strikes; (2) the Secretary of Labor had already assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, enjoining the parties from strikes and lockouts; and (3) the strike activities, including the establishment of massive human barricades, were illegal. Citing Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., the Court ruled that a strike undertaken despite the Secretary of Labor’s assumption order is a prohibited activity and illegal, and union officers and members who knowingly participate are deemed to have lost their employment status. The termination of the individual petitioners’ services was justified. The Court found no arbitrariness amounting to grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction in the assailed decisions. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court was lifted.