G.R. No. L-4061 May 28, 1952
CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE OIL INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION (CLO, C. V. C. LOCAL), ET AL., respondent-appellees.

FACTS

The Central Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Company, Inc. and the Philippine Oil Industry Workers Union entered into an agreement on July 17, 1948, approved by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on July 23, 1948. This agreement was made in contemplation of the installation of new machinery which might necessitate personnel reorganization. It stipulated, among other things, that upon the factory’s reopening in all departments, the company and a union representative would fix wages similar to those of the Philippine Refining Company, with any disagreement to be submitted to the CIR for arbitration. During the installation of new machinery, 24 laborers were allowed to work one day each week from June 27 to July 5, 1949, and were granted a loan equivalent to one day’s salary per week. From July 5 to August 6, 1949, they worked full-time while super dous were being tested. On August 6, 1949, a notice was posted stating the oil mill would stop operation for machinery readjustment until further notice and that all shifts, mechanics, and assistants should report for work on August 8, 1949. On August 8, the three mechanics and three assistants reported, but the 24 laborers did not. The company filed a petition with the CIR to discharge these laborers for declaring an illegal strike. The CIR, through Judge Arsenio C. Roldan, initially authorized their dismissal. Upon the Union’s motion for reconsideration, the CIR ordered the laborers’ reinstatement with back wages, with Judges Yanson and Bautista holding no strike was staged as there was no work, and Judge Lanting concurring in reinstatement but holding that even if a strike occurred, it was not illegal. Judges Roldan and Castillo dissented, holding the strike was illegal and in violation of the July 17, 1948 agreement. The company petitioned for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the strike declared on August 8, 1949, by the 24 laborers was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court, assuming there was a strike, ruled that the strike declared on August 8, 1949, was legitimate. The strike was prompted by the company’s refusal to discuss the Union’s 14-point petition for better conditions and to concede at least two working days a week. The Court held that the laborers’ plea for better conditions and more working days was not trivial, unreasonable, unjust, or illegal. It emphasized the inherent right and duty of all free men to improve their living standards through honest work that pays a decent wage. The demand for two working days a week was deemed legitimate as it affected the laborers’ very right to live. The Court found that the agreement of July 17, 1948, did not absolutely prohibit the Union from seeking more working days or better conditions, and such a prohibition would be patently immoral if not illegal. While the Union was charged with violating the agreement by refusing to name a representative to fix wage scales, the Court noted the Union’s belief that the company first violated the agreement by employing extra laborers. The Court concluded that the fixing of wages should be subordinated to the more urgent and legitimate demand for more working days. Therefore, the strike was not illegal. The decision of the CIR ordering reinstatement with back wages was affirmed.