G.R. No. L-10114; November 26, 1957
BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PHILIPPINE MARINE RADIO OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine Marine Radio Officers’ Association (PHILMAROA), a craft union, filed demands for standardization and increase of salaries, sick and vacation leaves, hospitalization, and a closed shop agreement on September 26, 1953, against several companies, including petitioner Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. A notice of intention to strike was filed on October 24, 1953. Pending the resolution of the dispute, which was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) by the President, two radio operators employed by the petitioner, Benjamin Nadanza and Arcadio Ouano, abandoned their ships on November 30 and December 7, 1953, respectively. Weeks later, they returned and were reinstated by the company. In the proceedings before the CIR, the petitioner contended that the strike was unlawful due to lack of direct notice and that, with the reinstatement of the radio operators, there was no longer any cause of action against it. The CIR held that the petitioner waived the illegality of the strike by accepting the strikers back and that while the defense negated claims for reinstatement and backpay, it did not bar the prosecution of the union’s original demands.

ISSUE

1. Whether PHILMAROA had a cause of action against the petitioner after the reinstatement of the striking radio operators.
2. Whether a craft union like PHILMAROA has the right to bargain collectively.
3. Whether PHILMAROA could bargain for radio operators who were also affiliated with another local union (PHILMASEA).
4. Whether the strike was legal.
5. Whether the presidential certification of the case to the CIR was valid.
6. Whether the CIR had jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

1. Yes, the union retained a cause of action. The return to work and reinstatement of the individual radio operators was a personal act ending the strike but did not constitute a waiver by the union of its original demands, for which the strike was merely a weapon.
2. Yes, a craft union has the right to bargain collectively. This right is expressly recognized under Section 9(f), paragraphs 1 and 2 of Republic Act No. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act).
3. Yes, PHILMAROA could represent the radio operators. The union acted as the representative of Nadanza and Ouano in their capacity as radio officers, a specific craft. There is no legal prohibition against employees being affiliated with both a craft union and an ordinary labor union.
4. The issue of the strike’s legality was waived. Assuming arguendo that the strike was illegal for being premature, the petitioner waived this defense by voluntarily reinstating the radio operators.
5. Yes, the presidential certification was valid. The power of the President to certify a labor dispute to the CIR in the public interest is not limited to preventing strikes or lockouts; it may be exercised even after a strike has commenced.
6. Yes, the CIR had jurisdiction. This assignment of error was found to be clearly without merit.
The petition was denied, and the CIR’s resolution was affirmed. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.