G.R. No. 166879; August 14, 2009
A. SORIANO AVIATION, Petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF A. SORIANO AVIATION, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner A. Soriano Aviation and respondent Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective January 1, 1997, containing a “No-Strike, No-Lockout” clause. On three legal holidays in May and June 1997, eight Union-member mechanics refused to render overtime work. The company treated this as a concerted action violating the CBA, suspending them for 30 days and filing an illegal strike complaint (NLRC Case No. 07-05409-97), later dismissed to pursue settlement. Settlement failed, and the Union filed a Notice of Strike on October 3, 1997, citing various unfair labor practices. After failed conciliation, the Union went on strike on October 22, 1997.
Meanwhile, the company moved to reopen its earlier complaint. The Labor Arbiter, in a September 28, 1998 Decision, ruled the work-shift change was a valid management prerogative and the mechanics’ refusal to work was a concerted protest, declaring the strike illegal for non-compliance with statutory requirements. The NLRC affirmed. Separately, on June 16, 1998, the company filed another complaint (NLRC Case No. 00-06-04890-98) seeking to declare the ongoing “second strike” illegal due to alleged violent acts by strikers, including shouting vulgarities, threats, property damage, and displaying insulting placards. The Labor Arbiter declared this strike illegal, noting the initial strike was over a non-strikeable issue and violent acts warranted loss of employment. The NLRC affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether the strike staged by the Union is illegal, and if so, whether the individual respondents should be deemed to have lost their employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the NLRC’s finding of an illegal strike, with modification. The legal logic is twofold. First, the strike was illegal from its inception. The Union’s Notice of Strike included the alleged illegal suspension of the eight mechanics as a ground. However, this suspension arose from their refusal to work overtime, which the Labor Arbiter in the first case had already definitively ruled was a concerted action and an illegal strike. A strike grounded on an issue already authoritatively resolved as a non-strikeable violation is itself illegal. The Union therefore struck over a non-strikeable issue, violating the CBA’s no-strike clause and statutory requirements.
Second, the commission of violent acts during the strike independently rendered it illegal. The Court rejected the appellate court’s minimization of the violence, noting that the cited precedents do not require a specific threshold of pervasiveness. The commission of any violence during a strike can convert a legal strike into an illegal one. The documented acts—threats, coercion, property damage, and public vilification—constituted unlawful conduct. Consequently, the strike was illegal both procedurally and due to the violence. The individual respondents who participated in the illegal strike and committed unlawful acts lost their employment status. The case was remanded to the NLRC to determine the specific status and liability of each individual respondent.