G.R. No. 159460 and G.R. No. 159461, November 15, 2010
Solidbank Corporation (now First Metro Investment Corporation), et al. vs. Ernesto U. Gamier, et al. and Solidbank Union, et al.

FACTS

Solidbank Corporation and the Solidbank Employees’ Union were renegotiating their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). After a deadlock was declared and a Notice of Strike filed, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued an order on March 24, 2000, resolving the economic issues and directing the parties to cease acts that might exacerbate the situation. Dissatisfied, a large number of union members, including the individual respondents, engaged in a series of concerted mass actions, including a “mass leave” and protest rally at the DOLE office and picketing at bank branches from April 3 to 7, 2000. These actions paralyzed the bank’s operations.
Solidbank terminated the employment of the participating officers and members for serious misconduct, willful breach of trust, and participation in an illegal strike. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the dismissals, ruling the mass actions constituted an illegal strike for being staged despite the Secretary’s assumption order, which carried an automatic injunction against strikes. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, ordering reinstatement, finding the mass actions were a valid exercise of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and were not attended by violence, coercion, or intimidation.

ISSUE

Whether the concerted mass actions undertaken by the union members constituted an illegal strike justifying their dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the mass actions constituted an illegal strike, and the dismissals were valid. The legal logic is anchored on the special character of a labor dispute where the Secretary of Labor has assumed jurisdiction under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Such an assumption order automatically enjoins any intended or actual strike or lockout. The union members’ concerted abandonment of work and staging of rallies, which crippled bank operations, was a clear defiance of this legal injunction. The Court emphasized that the right to peaceful assembly and petition does not extend to the commission of illegal acts, such as a work stoppage expressly prohibited by a statutory assumption order.
The absence of violence is immaterial; the illegality stems from the defiance of the assumption order itself. The law imposes a duty to strictly comply with such orders to prevent exacerbation of the dispute. By willfully participating in the illegal strike, the employees committed serious misconduct. The Court also upheld the personal liability of the corporate officers, Deogracias Vistan and Edgardo Mendoza, Jr., finding they acted in the interest of the employer and were not merely performing ministerial duties in effecting the dismissals based on the established illegality of the strike. The NLRC decision was reinstated.