G.R. No. L-53427 June 27, 1985
CESAR ARICA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. MINISTER OF LABOR and RIVERSIDE MILLS CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, officers and members of the Samahang Diwang Manggagawa sa RMC, were involved in a collective bargaining deadlock with private respondent Riverside Mills Corporation (RMC). Following a failed negotiation and a notice of strike, an agreement was brokered by the Undersecretary of Labor on February 17, 1978. However, the union officers later refused to sign the drafted CBA, alleging unincorporated and unagreed provisions. When RMC failed to pay part of a signing bonus by the afternoon of March 15, 1978, the workers staged a walkout. The Minister of Labor subsequently certified the dispute for compulsory arbitration and issued a return-to-work order on March 16, which was ignored. A second order on March 18 declared the strike illegal and again directed a return to work. This too was unheeded. Finally, on March 20, 1978, the Deputy Minister issued an order settling all unresolved bargaining issues and directing the execution of a CBA by March 21. A CBA was executed, and operations resumed on March 27. RMC then applied for clearance to terminate the petitioners for engaging in an illegal strike, and the Regional Director granted the application, a decision affirmed by the Minister of Labor.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners were legally dismissed for participating in an illegal strike, and if so, whether the penalty of termination was correctly applied to all petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the union officers but ordered the reinstatement of the four mere members. The Court first noted that the constitutional challenge to P.D. No. 823 (which banned strikes in vital industries) was rendered moot by its subsequent amendment. On the merits, the Court upheld the finding that the strike was illegal. The union staged the work stoppage despite a pending assumption of jurisdiction by the Minister of Labor and in defiance of explicit return-to-work orders. The claim that the March 20 settlement order extinguished any liability for the strike was rejected. The Court clarified that while the order settled the collective bargaining deadlock, it did not constitute a waiver by RMC of its right to seek disciplinary action for the illegal strike, a right which RMC had expressly reserved. The penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate for the union officers who led and actively participated in the illegal strike. However, for the four petitioners who were mere members (Bernardo Alvarez, Apolonio Anis, Hernani Patriarca, and Leonardo San Juan), the Court found no evidence of active participation. Mere union membership, without proof of individual culpable acts in furtherance of the illegal strike, is insufficient grounds for termination. Consequently, the orders were affirmed regarding the officers but reversed for the four members, who were ordered reinstated.