G.R. No. 120482 January 27, 1997
Reformist Union of R.B. Liner, Inc., Hever Detros, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, R.B. Liner, Inc., Bernita Dejero, et al.

FACTS

The petitioner union, Reformist, staged a strike on December 13, 1989, against R.B. Liner, Inc. due to alleged unfair labor practices. The Secretary of Labor subsequently certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and issued a return-to-work order. The parties later reached an agreement, leading to a certification election where the union’s federation, Lakas, won. However, when Lakas presented a collective bargaining proposal, the company refused to bargain. The petitioners then filed a case for illegal lockout, while the company countered with a case to declare the December 1989 strike illegal. The Labor Arbiter consolidated the cases.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal lockout complaint for lack of merit. Conversely, he declared the strike illegal, finding that the union failed to observe mandatory legal requirements: it did not prove a strike vote was obtained by secret ballot, did not submit the strike vote report to the DOLE at least seven days before the strike, and engaged in the strike while conciliation was ongoing and before a certification election established a definitive bargaining unit. The Arbiter also found the union engaged in illegal activities like obstructing the garage and defied the return-to-work order. Consequently, the participating union officers and members were declared to have lost their employment status. The NLRC affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that the strike was illegal and that the participating union officers and members lost their employment status.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as the NLRC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. The legal logic is grounded in strict compliance with the procedural requirements for a valid strike under the Labor Code. The union’s failure to present concrete evidence proving it conducted a secret strike vote and submitted the required report to the DOLE constituted fatal procedural defects that rendered the strike illegal. Furthermore, the strike was staged while conciliation proceedings were still active, which is a prohibited act. The Court also upheld the finding that the union engaged in illegal acts during the strike, such as obstructing free ingress and egress. Given the finding of an illegal strike coupled with the commission of illegal acts, the penalty of dismissal for the participating union officers and members was justified under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The Court emphasized that the right to strike is not absolute and must be exercised within legal bounds; failure to comply with mandatory steps strips the strike of its legality.