GR L 28607; (February, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28607. February 12, 1972.
SHELL OIL WORKERS’ UNION, petitioner, vs. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, LTD., and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner union staged a strike against respondent company. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) declared the strike illegal. On appeal, this Court, in a decision dated May 31, 1971, unanimously reversed the CIR and upheld the strike’s validity, thereby reinstating the strikers with back wages. The respondent company filed an extensive motion for reconsideration, vigorously contesting this ruling.
The initial Supreme Court decision was unanimous, though with a concurring opinion by Justice Barredo (joined by Justices Reyes and Makalintal). Justice Barredo disagreed with the majority on a key factual point, finding no actual violation of the collective bargaining agreement by the company. Nevertheless, he concurred in reversing the CIR and validating the strike based on broader principles of labor justice.
ISSUE
Whether the motion for reconsideration presents sufficient grounds to reverse the Court’s prior decision upholding the validity of the petitioner union’s strike.
RULING
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Court remains unanimous in sustaining the strike’s legality. The core legal principle applied is that a strike called in good faith belief that the employer committed an unfair labor practice—such as breaching a collective bargaining agreement—is valid, even if no actual unfair labor practice is later proven. This doctrine, established in prior jurisprudence like Republic Savings Bank v. CIR, renders the company’s argument that a CBA breach is not an unfair labor practice untenable.
The Court also addresses the concern that the decision condones violence. It clarifies that while the right to strike is recognized, the use of pervasive and deliberate force as policy can render a strike illegal. However, responsibility for violent acts is individual, not collective, to avoid nullifying the right to strike itself. In this case, the strike’s validity is not negated by attendant violence. The separate opinions regarding the specific reinstatement terms for security guards do not affect the unanimous denial of the motion for reconsideration on the central issue of strike legality. The Court finds no legal justification to alter its prior judgment.