G.R. No. L-47848 August 23, 1978
TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ELISEO E. PEÑAFLOR and ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION, respondents.

FACTS

This is the third certiorari petition filed by petitioner Tablante-Tungol Enterprises against the public respondents (Director and Med-Arbiter of the Bureau of Labor Relations) and the private respondent labor union, Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO). The petitioner had previously filed two unsuccessful petitions: the first sought to set aside an order for a certification election, and the second aimed to nullify the election itself where ADLO was unanimously chosen as the bargaining agent. Both prior petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.
In this instant petition, the petitioner raised a novel legal issue. It alleged that the public respondents should have cancelled the registration and permit of ADLO because the union had engaged in an illegal strike. The petitioner anchored its argument on a provision of the then-operative Presidential Decree No. 823, which listed cancellation as a penalty for violations. However, this decree was later amended by Presidential Decree No. 849, which removed the specific penalty of cancellation. The petitioner alternatively invoked Article 240(e) of the Labor Code, which allows cancellation if a union engages in “any activity prohibited by law,” arguing that an illegal strike falls under this clause.

ISSUE

Whether or not the commission of an illegal strike by a labor union constitutes a ground for the cancellation of its registration and permit under the Labor Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic, as the parties had filed a joint motion to dismiss stating they had settled their disputes. Nevertheless, the Court, through the exhaustive Comment of the Solicitor General which it adopted, provided a clear legal ruling on the substantive issue raised.
The Court held that an illegal strike is not a ground for cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code. The petitioner’s reliance on Article 240(e) of the Code, which cites “engaging in any activity prohibited by law” as a ground for cancellation, is misplaced. Applying the statutory construction maxims of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps) and ejusdem generis (of the same kind), the phrase “any activity prohibited by law” must be interpreted in relation to the specific activities enumerated in the same provision, namely, “acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the ‘cabo’ system.” Therefore, the prohibited activities contemplated are those akin to labor contracting or the cabo system, not strikes. The Court emphasized that a strike per se is a legal activity, and if the law intended to include an illegal strike as a ground for cancellation, it would have expressly stated so, as was previously done in the now-amended Presidential Decree No. 823. Thus, the petition lacked merit.