G.R. No. 171618-19 March 20, 2009
Jackbilt Industries, Inc. vs. Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU

FACTS

Due to the adverse effects of the Asian economic crisis on the construction industry beginning 1997, petitioner Jackbilt Industries, Inc. decided to temporarily stop its business, compelling most employees to go on leave. Respondent Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU protested, claiming the shutdown was to avoid the duty to bargain collectively and was motivated by anti-union sentiments. On March 9, 1998, respondent went on strike, picketing petitioner’s main gates and preventing ingress and egress. Petitioner filed a petition for injunction with the NLRC. On April 14, 1998, the NLRC issued a TRO directing respondents to refrain from preventing access. Reports revealed the union violated this order. In a July 17, 1998 decision, the NLRC ordered a writ of preliminary injunction, finding that union members obstructed free entry and exit. Meanwhile, petitioner sent memoranda to striking officers and members ordering them to explain why they should not be dismissed for illegal acts during the strike. After respondent ignored these, petitioner dismissed them on May 30, 1998. Respondent filed complaints for illegal lockout, unfair labor practice, and illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter dismissed complaints for illegal lockout and unfair labor practice but found petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal because it did not file a petition to declare the strike illegal before termination. The NLRC modified the decision on appeal, holding only petitioner liable for monetary awards. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s subsequent petition but modified the NLRC decision, finding the temporary shutdown was moved by anti-union sentiments, thus finding petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering payment of backwages and separation pay.

ISSUE

Whether or not the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine qua non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. The principle of conclusiveness of judgment applies. The NLRC, in its July 17, 1998 decision, had already found that respondent committed illegal acts by obstructing free ingress and egress during the strike, which is prohibited under Article 264(e) of the Labor Code. The use of unlawful means renders a strike illegal. Therefore, the March 9, 1998 strike was ipso facto illegal, and a separate petition to declare it illegal was unnecessary. Consequently, pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code, which allows termination of employees who commit illegal acts during a strike, petitioner had the legal right to terminate respondent’s officers and employees. The dismissal was valid, and the complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed for lack of merit.