GR 158075; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158075 ; June 30, 2006
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT, INC. (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL), Petitioner, vs. MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Manila Diamond Hotel Employees’ Union, despite not being a certified bargaining agent, served a notice to bargain on petitioner Manila Diamond Hotel. The Hotel refused to negotiate, citing the union’s lack of certification. The union subsequently filed a notice of strike for unfair labor practice, alleging refusal to bargain and harassment of members. Conciliation proceedings were held by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), during which the parties agreed to explore a consent election. However, before the scheduled follow-up meeting, the union suddenly staged a strike on November 29, 1997. The strike involved acts of obstruction at the hotel’s entrances. The Secretary of Labor eventually assumed jurisdiction and ordered a return-to-work.
ISSUE
Was the strike staged by the respondent union illegal?
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ declaration that the strike was illegal. The legal logic rests on the absence of a valid bargaining status and the commission of prohibited acts. First, the union had no legal right to demand bargaining as it was not the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the hotel’s rank-and-file employees. Its petition for certification election had been denied by the DOLE. Consequently, the hotel’s refusal to bargain could not constitute an unfair labor practice to justify a strike. Second, the strike itself was tainted with illegality. The union staged it suddenly while conciliation was ongoing and after agreeing with management to discuss a consent election, violating the mandatory cooling-off period and making it a premature strike. Furthermore, the strikers committed illegal acts by obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the hotel premises, which is expressly prohibited under Article 264(e) of the Labor Code. Given these grounds—lack of a valid cause, prematurity, and commission of illegal acts—the strike was declared illegal. The Court upheld the loss of employment status for the union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike. However, it affirmed the reinstatement of the ordinary union members, as their participation was not shown to be attended by malice or bad faith.