G.R. No. L-7425; July 21, 1955
DAVID M. ALMEDA, ET AL., (Pepsi-Cola Labor Organization), petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, INC., respondents.

FACTS

The Pepsi-Cola Labor Organization presented demands to the company’s president, Mr. John P. Clarkin, on March 12, 1952. After Mr. Clarkin left for the United States, the union submitted new demands to Treasurer Jose Pascual on April 23, 1952, giving a two-day ultimatum. Knowing Mr. Pascual lacked authority to act, the union agreed to wait for Mr. Clarkin’s reply until April 28. At a conference on April 28, Mr. Pascual reiterated his lack of authority and promised to relay the demands to Mr. Clarkin, but the union threatened to strike. The company filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) to enjoin the strike. At a preliminary conference on May 2, 1952, union president Antonio Ramos assured the CIR that they would not strike before May 15. Relying on this assurance, the court did not issue an injunction. Despite this promise, the union went on strike at 8:55 p.m. on May 8, 1952. The strike caused the spoilage of syrup worth P2,000, and picketers used threats and intimidation, preventing others from entering the company premises and causing daily damages of P4,000. The CIR, in an order dated May 16, 1952, declared the strike unjustified and illegal. After the order, the company offered reinstatement on a temporary basis. Fifty strikers accepted, but thirty-two refused, demanding reinstatement under pre-strike conditions. The company later dismissed nineteen of the reinstated union members along with forty-two non-union members. The CIR, in an order dated June 12, 1953, initially directed the reinstatement of the thirty-two strikers without backpay. Upon reconsideration, the CIR, in a resolution dated January 4, 1954, reversed this order, holding that the strikers, by staging an unjustified strike, had forfeited their employment status. The petitioners sought review of this resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, having staged an unjustified and illegal strike, forfeited their status as employees and may be refused reinstatement by the company.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations. The strike was declared unjustified because the petitioners went on strike knowing their demands could not be acted upon by the Treasurer in the absence of the President and without waiting for the President’s reply. Furthermore, the strike was staged after the union’s representatives had assured the CIR they would not strike before a specified date, which misled the court. The picketing was carried out through unlawful means, including threats and intimidation. Applying established doctrines, the Court held that by reason of the unjustified strike, the employer-employee relationship between the company and the strikers was severed. Consequently, the company could not be compelled to reinstate the strikers. The resolution was affirmed with costs.