G.R. No. L-34974 July 25, 1974
P. A. ALMIRA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. B. F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC., COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and HONORABLE JOAQUIN SALVADOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, employees of B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc., staged a strike. The respondent Court of Industrial Relations, through Judge Joaquin Salvador, declared the strike illegal. The court found that the strike was motivated by the company’s refusal to recognize the petitioners’ union despite a pending certification election, which was an improper ground. More critically, the court found that the strike was conducted through illegal means. The order detailed widespread coercive activities, including mass picketing that physically blocked entry to company premises, preventing non-striking employees and customers from entering. Acts of violence and intimidation were committed, resulting in injuries to company personnel. The company published notices for employees to return to work, and the failure of many petitioners to do so was construed as participation in the illegal strike. Consequently, the court held the strike was an unfair labor practice and declared all petitioners to have lost their employment status.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Industrial Relations committed a grave abuse of discretion in declaring the strike illegal and, more specifically, in automatically dismissing all striking employees as a consequence.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision. It upheld the finding that the strike was illegal due to the improper motivation and, more importantly, the commission of illegal acts during its conduct, such as violence, intimidation, and obstruction. The Court cited established jurisprudence, including Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Cement Workers Union, which holds that a strike may be declared illegal based on the means employed, irrespective of its purpose. However, the Supreme Court reversed the automatic dismissal of all petitioners. It ruled that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in imposing a blanket penalty of termination. Following the doctrine in Shell Oil Workers’ Union v. Shell Co. of the Philippines, Ltd., the illegality of a strike does not justify the wholesale dismissal of all participants. The penalty must be proportionate to the offense, considering the degree of participation of each individual. The constitutional mandate on security of tenure requires that termination be a measure of last resort. The case was remanded to the lower court to determine the specific liability of each petitioner. Only those who committed illegal acts or were found to be guilty of unfair labor practice should be dismissed. Others may be reinstated without backpay, or with partial backpay, depending on their involvement. This ensures a balanced application of justice, protecting the right to strike while condemning its abuse, and upholding the constitutional right to security of tenure.