G.R. No. L-10112; November 29, 1957
RADIO OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE MARINE RADIO OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine Marine Radio Officers Association (PHILMAROA) filed a notice of intention to strike against shipping companies. After a conference, the companies were given six days to answer the demands. However, PHILMAROA withdrew its members from Compania Maritima on November 16, 1953, before the period expired. On November 19, 1953, the Philippine Steam Navigation Company expressed willingness to bargain, but PHILMAROA declared a strike against it the same day. Strikes were also declared against other companies, including Madrigal Shipping Co., around November 24. The shipping companies hired replacements from the members of the petitioner, Radio Operators Association of the Philippines. The case was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations by the President. The petitioner intervened in the case. The Court of Industrial Relations issued an order allowing the strikers to return to their positions. The petitioner seeks reversal of this order, arguing its members, as replacements, have the right to be retained because the strike was voluntary and illegal, and no unfair labor practices were committed by the employers.

ISSUE

1. Does the employment of strike breakers destroy the right of strikers to return to work after a strike settlement?
2. Is the Court of Industrial Relations deprived of jurisdiction to order the return of strikers due to the voluntary employment of strike breakers?

RULING

1. No, the employment of strike breakers does not automatically destroy the strikers’ right to return. The right depends on the circumstances, legality, and good faith of the strike. In this case, the strike was legitimate, aimed at securing improvements in pay and employment conditions. The strikers’ demands, presented months earlier, showed good faith. While the strike was premature for not waiting the full six-day period, this rashness was excused by the prior delay and only resulted in loss of backpay, not the right to return. Strikers do not abandon their employment by striking; they only cease labor. Strike breakers should know their employment is temporary, subject to the strike’s outcome.
2. No, the Court of Industrial Relations is not deprived of jurisdiction. The case was certified by the President under Section 10 of the Industrial Peace Act ( Republic Act No. 875 ), granting the court authority to resolve the industrial dispute. The solution ordered by the court under this authority cannot be questioned.
The petition is denied, and the order of the Court of Industrial Relations is affirmed.