G.R. No. 160058 June 22, 2007 PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION (PTC) vs.

PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PILTEA), x-----------------------------x G.R. No. 160094 June 22, 2007 PILTEA vs. NLRC and PTC PUNO, C.J.: FACTS: CBA between the Union and PTC was due to expire. The Union submitted to the Company its proposals for the renegotiation of the non-representation aspects of their CBA. As there was a standstill on several issues, the parties submitted their dispute to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for preventive mediation. The conciliation proceedings before the NCMB failed. The Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB for unfair labor practice due to the alleged acts of "restraint and coercion of union members and interference with their right to self-organization (such as prohibiting employees from conducting and preventing employees from participating in Union activities). The Company filed a petition for Consolidated Assumption of Jurisdiction with the Office of the Labor Secretary Laguesma, who then issued an Order, (1) assuming jurisdiction over the entire labor dispute, and (2) directing the parties to cease and desist from committing any or all acts that might exacerbate the situation. (3) To expedite the resolution of the dispute, the parties are hereby directed to file their respective position papers and documentary evidence within TEN (10) days from receipt of this Order. On September 1998, the Union filed a second Notice of Strike with the NCMB on the grounds of: a) union busting, for the alleged refusal of the Company to turn over union funds; and b) the mass promotion of union members during the CBA negotiation, allegedly aimed at excluding them from the bargaining unit during the CBA negotiation. On the same day, the Union went on strike. On September 9, 1998, Secretary Laguesma directed the striking Union officers and members to return to work within 24 hrs from receipt of the Order and for the Company to accept all strikers under the same terms and conditions of employment prior to the strike. The Union and its members complied. On December 7, 1998, the Company filed with the NLRC a petitionto declare the Union's September 4, 1998 strike illegal. Labor Arbiter Aliman D. Mangandog held that the strike conducted by PILTEA is declared illegal. Accordingly, the 10 union officers of PILTEL/MKP, namely: de Leon, Briones, Pineda, Sta. Ana, Escalante, Torres, Hilotin, Tayas, Fidel and Gamboa are declared to have lost their employment status. While the other 14 emplyees, namely: Anonuevo Molaer, Herrera, Aquino, Ablis, Zulieta, Cornel, Garcia, Mendoza, Antonio, Usman, Francisco, Mogol and Madrid are hereby suspended for six (6) months without pay. The Labor Arbiter cited Scholastica's College v. Ruben Torres which ruled that a strike undertaken despite the issuance of an assumption or certification order by the Secretary of Labor is a prohibited activity, hence, illegal under Article 264 of the Labor Code. Also, the staging of the strike was likewise found to suffer from fatal procedural defects (see below). On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter in toto. Petitioner filed to CA certiorari, and CA modified the ruling of LA and NLRC, lowering the penaltyof those dismissed to just 6 months suspension for without pay. MR denied. ISSUES: HELD: 1. The strike was illegal. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6715, and Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code outline the following procedural requirements for a valid strike: 1) A notice of strike, with the required contents, should be filed with the DOLE, specifically the Regional Branch of the NCMB, copy furnished the employer of the union; 2) A cooling-off period must be observed between the filing of notice and the actual execution of the strike thirty (30) days in case of bargaining deadlock and fifteen (15) days in case of unfair labor practice. However, in the case of union busting where the union's existence is threatened, the cooling-off period need not be observed. 3) Before a strike is actually commenced, a strike vote should be taken by secret balloting, with a 24-hour prior notice to NCMB. The decision to declare a strike requires the secret-ballot approval of majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned. 4) The result of the strike vote should be reported to the NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period. It is settled that these requirements are mandatory in nature and failure to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. As found by the Labor Arbiter, the staging of the strike was likewise found to suffer from fatal procedural defects, to wit: a) the notice of strike was filed on the same day that the strike was conducted; b) the fifteen (15)-day cooling-off period was not observed; c) the Union failed to conduct a strike vote within the time prescribed by law; and d) the result of the strike vote was not furnished to the NCMB at least seven (7) days prior to the intended strike. e) Moreover, certain illegal acts were likewise found to have been committed by members during the strike. 2. A union officer may be terminated from employment for knowingly participating in an illegal strike. However, mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the union member, unless such member commits unlawful acts during such strike. a. The CA, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter were unanimous in finding that bad faith existed in the conduct of the subject strike. The relevant portion of the CA Decision stating, The union cannot claim good faith in the conduct of the strike because, as can be gleaned from the findings of the Labor Arbiter, this was an extensively coordinated strike having been conducted all through out the offices of PILTEL all over the country. Evidently, the strike was planned. Hence, the open, blatant and willful defiance by the respondents of the Order emanating from the Secretary of Labor and Employment in this labor dispute only goes to show that the respondents have little or no regard at all for lawful orders from duly constituted authorities. For what their officers and members have suffered they have no one else to blame. b. Strike being the most preeminent economic weapon of the workers to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and capital, exert some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor and management, but also on the general peace and progress of society and economic well-being of the State. This weapon is so critical that the law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on union officers who irresponsibly participate in an illegal strike and union members who commit unlawful acts during a strike. The grave penalty of dismissal imposed on the guilty parties is a natural consequence, considering the interest of public welfare. 1. WON the strike is legal. 2. WON the penalty to be imposed on the Union officers proper.