G.R. No. 167347 ; January 31, 2007
CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND/OR EDWIN CHUA, Petitioners, vs. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa, the recognized bargaining agent for the company’s rank-and-file employees, held a special election on May 10, 1999, where Camilo Lenizo was elected president. Petitioner corporation refused to recognize the new officers, citing an intra-union conflict between the factions of Lenizo and former acting president Romeo Ibanez. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Director and later the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) issued orders directing the corporation to recognize Lenizo’s group. Despite the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement on November 30, 2000, the corporation, relying on the alleged intra-union dispute, refused to bargain with Lenizo’s group. This led respondent to file a notice of strike and subsequently stage a strike on April 25, 2001.
The corporation petitioned the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to declare the strike illegal, alleging it was based on an intra-union dispute and that unlawful means, such as blocking the company gates, were employed. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC declared the strike illegal, resulting in the loss of employment status for the union officers and members who participated. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the strike’s illegality but ordered the reinstatement of thirty-one union members, excluding the officers, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the thirty-one union members who participated in the illegal strike are entitled to reinstatement.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating the thirty-one members. The legal logic rests on distinguishing between union officers and mere members in the consequences of participating in an illegal strike. Under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code, any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike is deemed to have lost employment status. For mere members, however, loss of employment is not automatic; it requires proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike.
The Court found that the NLRC’s decision to dismiss all strikers was based on a misapprehension of facts, as it failed to distinguish between officers and members and made a blanket ruling without specific evidence of illegal acts by the individual members. The ocular inspection report and testimonies cited by the NLRC primarily pertained to acts of blocking ingress and egress, but the evidence did not sufficiently establish that these specific thirty-one members personally committed such unlawful acts. Consequently, without substantial evidence proving their individual participation in illegal activities, these members cannot be deemed to have lost their employment status. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the law by ordering their reinstatement.