G.R. Nos. 86917-18; January 25, 1991
RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE EMPLOYEES UNION, respondents.

FACTS

The dispute originated from a change in the seating arrangement within the company’s underwriting department, which four union members protested, leading to a heated argument and their subsequent dismissal for alleged misconduct. The union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. While this case was pending, the union filed a notice of strike and, crucially, staged the actual strike on March 17, 1987, even before the scheduled initial conciliation conference could be held on that same afternoon. The company petitioned to declare the strike illegal, citing blatant violations of procedural requirements, including defiance of the mandatory cooling-off period and failure to comply with strike vote reporting rules.
Both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found the strike to be illegal. However, the NLRC modified the penalty, ordering the reinstatement of the striking union officers without backwages. The NLRC justified this lesser penalty by invoking the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ferrer and Almira, which emphasized that a penalty less severe than dismissal may suffice, considering the hardship of unemployment and the union’s belief that the company was committing unfair labor practices.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of union officers who participated in a strike declared illegal due to procedural infirmities.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the NLRC’s order of reinstatement. The legal logic is clear: the procedural violations in this case were not mere technical defects but constituted a strike in bad faith. The union defied the cooling-off period by striking even before the conciliation meeting meant to address the very notice of strike had commenced. This demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the legal process designed to foster peaceful settlement. The Court distinguished the cited precedents. In Ferrer, the strike, while defective, was undertaken in a good faith belief against unfair labor practices. Here, the union’s pre-emptive action showed “plain arrogance, pride, and cynicism,” negating any claim of good faith. Furthermore, the Court noted that one union officer had already accepted separation pay, constituting a waiver of his right to reinstatement. While the Constitution mandates sympathy for labor, the Court must ensure results are fair and conform to rules. Reinstating employees who knowingly engaged in an illegal strike, absent good faith, would reward conduct contrary to public policy.