G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955
KOPPEL (PHILIPPINES) INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and KOPPEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, respondents.

FACTS

The Koppel Employees Association (the union) and Koppel (Philippines) Inc. (the company) had entered into collective bargaining agreements on October 18, 1948 and June 14, 1949. These agreements were renewed annually, with the last renewal expiring on October 18, 1952. Clause 4 of the 1949 agreement stipulated that the parties “shall negotiate with each other within sixty days before the expiration on October 18, 1949, of the present collective bargaining agreement for the succeeding collective bargaining agreement.” On September 3, 1952, within the 60-day period before the agreement’s expiration, the union presented a petition to the company demanding a general wage increase. The company denied the general increase but granted raises to ten deserving workers. The union insisted on a general increase, and after the company’s refusal, the union declared a strike on September 22, 1952. The company filed a case with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) seeking to declare the strike illegal. The CIR Presiding Judge initially declared the strike illegal, but upon motion for reconsideration, a majority of the CIR judges (three members) declared the strike legal, with two judges dissenting. The company appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the strike declared by the Koppel Employees Association on September 22, 1952, was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Justice Pablo, affirmed the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations and declared the strike legal. The Court held that the strikers did not violate the collective bargaining agreement in force until October 18, 1952. On the contrary, they were exercising a right granted by the agreement (Annex “C”), which authorized them to negotiate new working conditions within sixty days before the agreement’s expiration. Since the company denied the petition duly filed within the agreed 60-day period, the workers were justified in declaring a strike. The strike was merely an incident of the petition filed by the workers to assert their right to negotiate new conditions of work for the following year. The Court distinguished this case from Manila Oriental Sawmills vs. National Labor Union and Liberal Labor Union vs. Philippine Can Company, where strikes were declared illegal for violating existing agreements. Here, the strike was not used to violate an existing agreement but to enforce a right to negotiate a future agreement as stipulated. The legality or illegality of a strike is determined by its purpose and the manner of its execution. A strike is legal when used to enforce a collective bargaining agreement or to secure better working conditions, such as higher wages.