G.R. No. 169632 ; March 28, 2006
University of San Agustin Employees’ Union-FFW (USAEU-FFW), et al., Petitioners, vs. The Court of Appeals and University of San Agustin, Respondents.

FACTS

The University of San Agustin and the petitioner Union had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) containing a “no strike, no lockout” clause and a grievance procedure culminating in voluntary arbitration. During negotiations for new economic provisions, a deadlock arose over computing the tuition incremental proceeds. The Union declared a bargaining deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike. The University moved to refer the dispute to voluntary arbitration per the CBA. The parties jointly requested the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) to assume jurisdiction. On September 18, 2003, the SOLE issued an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO) enjoining any strike. On September 19, sheriffs attempted to serve the AJO on the Union’s vice-president at the university gates, but she refused receipt, citing a union resolution that only the president was authorized. The sheriffs explained that refusal would not prevent service, and they subsequently posted copies at the main gate, building entrances, and the union office. Despite this, the Union proceeded with a strike that morning. The Union president received a copy later that afternoon.

ISSUE

Whether the strike staged by the petitioner Union on September 19, 2003, was illegal.

RULING

Yes, the strike was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The legal logic rests on two grounds. First, the Union violated the “no strike” provision of its CBA. The clause was a valid waiver of the right to strike, and the dispute over the computation of the tuition incremental proceeds was a bargaining deadlock that fell under the CBA’s grievance machinery, which mandated voluntary arbitration as the final step. By striking over this issue, the Union violated its contractual commitment. Second, and more critically, the Union defied the SOLE’s AJO. Service of the AJO was completed upon its posting at the university’s main gate and other conspicuous places at 8:45 a.m., which constituted constructive notice to the Union. The Union’s refusal of personal service by its officer did not negate the validity of the service by posting. The strike, which commenced after this constructive service, was therefore staged in defiance of a return-to-work order, rendering it illegal. Consequently, the union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike were deemed to have lost their employment status. The Court also upheld the CA’s directive for the parties to resolve the unresolved economic issues through voluntary arbitration as stipulated in their CBA.