G.R. No. 150437 . July 17, 2006.
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, Philippine Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) Local 460 Sukhothai Restaurant Chapter, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents, employees of petitioner Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant, organized a union. In December 1998, the union filed a Notice of Strike on grounds of unfair labor practice. The parties subsequently entered into a Submission Agreement, referring the dispute to voluntary arbitration. During the pendency of arbitration, the petitioner terminated a union member, Eugene Lucente, in March 1999. On June 24, 1999, another union member, Jose Lanorias, was dismissed. In protest, the respondents staged a work stoppage, which escalated into a “sit-down strike” and then an “actual strike” on June 25 and 26, 1999. The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike.
The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal, finding that the union failed to comply with mandatory procedural requisites, as the existing Notice of Strike pertained to the earlier dispute submitted to arbitration and not to the new terminations. The NLRC reversed this decision, dismissing the illegal strike complaint and ordering reinstatement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the strike staged by the private respondents on June 24-26, 1999, was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was legal. The legal logic hinges on the doctrine that a strike is presumed legal, and the burden of proving its illegality rests on the employer. The Court found that the strike was a response to a valid and urgent cause: the dismissal of union members Lanorias and Lucente during the pendency of arbitration, which constituted an unfair labor practice and violated the petitioner’s earlier guarantee against termination. These dismissals provided a valid economic strike issue separate from the earlier arbitrated dispute.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the union failed to comply with procedural requirements like filing a new notice. It held that the dismissals constituted a “supervening event” that justified immediate concerted action, as they were blatant acts of union busting that rendered the ongoing arbitration ineffective. The law does not require workers to follow a rigid sequence when confronted with such oppressive acts. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence of alleged illegal acts during the strike, such as violence and obstruction, to be insufficiently substantiated. Consequently, the strike was declared legal, and the dismissal of the strikers was invalid.