Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 51

Republic of the Philippines

City of Taguig
Taguig City University
Gen. Santos Avenue, Central Bicutan, Taguig City

A Term Paper
Presented to the
Faculty of Graduate School
of
Taguig City University

Presented to:
RENATO R. SADARAN, Ph. D

In partial fulfillment of the requirements


for the subject

CRISIS INTERVENTION AND MANAGEMENT

by:

Jeyson G. Macaraig
Dennis H. Morales
Arman T. Duque

STRIKE AND LOCKOUT

DEFINITION OF TERMS
1 NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD or NCMB, for
short, refers to the agency attached to the Department of Labor and
Employment principally in charge of the settlement of labor disputes
through conciliation, mediation and
the promotion of voluntary
approaches to labor dispute prevention and settlement.
2 CONCILIATOR-MEDIATOR official of the NCMB whose principal
function is to settle and dispose potential and actual labor disputes
through conciliation and preventive mediation including the promotion and
encouragement of voluntary approaches to labor dispute prevention and
settlement.

3 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION NLRC, for short, refers


to the agency attached to the Department of Labor and Employment in
charge of deciding labor cases through compulsory arbitration.
4 BARGAINING DEADLOCK failure to agree on the terms
and
conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the
management and the union.
5 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE - either by employers or labor organizations
as enumerated under Article 248 and 249 of the Labor Code, as amended.
6 PREVENTIVE MEDIATION CASE refers to the potential or brewing
labor dispute which is the subject of a formal or informal request for
conciliation and mediation assistance sought by either or both parties in
order to remedy, contain or prevent its degeneration into a full blown
dispute through amicable settlement.
7 INTRA-UNION DISPUTE refers to a case involving the control,
supervision and management of the internal affairs of a duly registered
labor union such as those relating to specific violations of the unions
constitution and by-laws.
8.

INTER-UNION DISPUTE refers to cases involving a petition for


certification election and direct certification filed by a duly registered labor
organization which is seeking to be recognized as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit of a company, firm or establishment.

9.

VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION a third party settlement of a labor dispute


involving the mutual consent by the representative of the company and
the labor union involved in a labor dispute to submit their case for
arbitration.

10.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING- is a process of negotiations between


employers and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements that
regulate working conditions. The interests of the employees are commonly
presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees
belong. The collective agreements reached by these negotiations usually
set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime,
grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company
affairs

11.

STRIKE-BREAKER

A strike-breaker means any person who obstructs, impedes or interferes


with by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation any peaceful
picket by employees during any labor controversy.
12

STRIKE AREA includes: (a) the establishment of the employer struck


against including run-away shops, factories or warehouses and other

WHAT IS STRIKE AND LOCKOUT?


A

1.
STRIKE means any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of the employees as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute. (Art. 212 (o), Labor Code, as amended by Sec. 4, R.
A. 6715)
2.
LOCKOUT means the temporary refusal of an employer to
furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. (Article
212 (p) Labor Code, as amended by Section 4, R.A. 6715).

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF STRIKES?


1.

LEGAL STRIKE one called for a valid purpose and


conducted through means allowed by law.

2.

ILLEGAL STRIKE one staged for a purpose not recognized by


law, or if for a valid purpose, conducted through means not
sanctioned by law.

ECONOMIC STRIKE one staged by workers to force wage or


other economic concessions from the employer which he is not
required by law to grant (Consolidated Labor Association of the
Phil. vs. Marsman and Company, 11 SCRA 589)

4.

ULP STRIKE one called to protest against the employers acts of


unfair labor practice enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor Code,
as amended, including gross violation of the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) and union busting.

5.

SLOWDOWN STRIKE one staged without the workers


quitting their work but merely slackening or by reducing their
normal work output.

3.

6.

WILD-CAT STRIKE one declared and staged without filing the


required notice of strike and without the majority approval of the
recognized bargaining agent.

7.

SIT DOWN STRIKE one where the workers stop working but do
not leave their place of work.

WHAT IS AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE?


A.

An industrial or labor dispute includes any controversy or matter


concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
arranging the terms and conditions of employment regardless of whether
the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.
(Article 212 (1) Labor Code, as amended by Section 4, R.A. 6715)

4 WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND LOCKOUT?


A.

The right to strike is a constitutional and legal right of the workers as the
employers have the inherent and statutory right to lockout, all within the
context of labor relations and collective bargaining. It is a means of last
resort and presupposes that the duty to bargain in good faith has been
fulfilled and other voluntary modes of dispute settlement have been
tried and exhausted. (Guidelines Governing Labor Relations).

5 WHO MAY DECLARE A STRIKE OR LOCKOUT?


Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a
strike in cases of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice. Likewise,
the employer may declare a lockout in the same cases.
In the absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining representative,
any legitimate labor organization in the establishment may declare a strike
but only on the ground of unfair labor practice. (Section 2, Rule XIII, Book
V, Omnibus Rules Implementing The Labor Code, as amended).
6. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A LAWFUL STRIKE OR LOCKOUT?
A.

The requirements for a valid strike or lockout are as


follows:
It must be based on a valid and factual ground;
A strike or lockout NOTICE shall be filed with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) at least 15 days before
the intended date of the strike or lockout if the issues raised are

unfair labor practices, or at least 30 days before the intended date


thereof if the issue involves bargaining deadlock.
In cases of dismissal from employment of union officers duly
elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws,
which may constitute UNION BUSTING where the existence of the
union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply
and the union may take action immediately after the strike vote is
conducted and the result thereof submitted to the Department of
Labor and Employment.
1

A strike must be approved by a majority vote of the members of the


Union and a lockout must be approved by a majority vote of the
members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation or
Association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret
ballot in a meeting called for that purpose.

A strike or lockout VOTE shall be reported to the NCMB-DOLE


Regional Branch at least 7 days before the intended strike or
lockout subject to the cooling-off period.
In the event the result of the strike/lockout ballot is filed within the
cooling-off period, the 7-day requirement shall be counted from the
day following the expiration of the cooling-off period. (NSFW vs.
Ovejera, G.R. No. 59743, May 31, 1982)
In case of dismissal from employment of union officers which may
constitute union busting, the time requirement for the filing of the
Notice of Strike shall be dispensed with but the strike vote
requirement being mandatory in character, shall in every case be
complied with.
The dispute must not be the subject of an assumption of jurisdiction
by the President or the Secretary of Labor and Employment, a
certification for compulsory or voluntary arbitration nor a subject of
a pending case involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.

7.

WHAT ARE THE VALID GROUNDS FOR DECLARING A STRIKE OR


LOCKOUT?
The law recognizes two grounds for the valid exercise of the right to strike or
lockout, namely:

Collective Bargaining Deadlock (CBD) and/or


Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)
A.
8.

Any notice which does not conform to the foregoing requirements shall be
deemed not having been filed.

WHAT ARE THE PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES?


A.

1.

Declaring a strike or lockout on grounds involving inter-union and


intra-union disputes or on issues brought to voluntary or
compulsory arbitration.
2.

Declaring a strike or lockout without first having bargained


collectively or without first having filed the required notice or without
the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and
reported to the Regional Branch of the NCMB.

4.

Obstructing, impending or interfering with by force, violence,


coercion, threats or intimidation any peaceful picketing by
employees during any labor controversy or in the exercise of their
right to self-organization or collective bargaining, or aiding or
abetting such obstruction or interference.

5.

Employing any strike breaker or being employed as a strikebreaker.

6.

No public official or employee, including officers and personnel of


the Armed Forces of the Philippines, of the Philippine National
Police, or any armed person shall bring in, introduce or escort, in
any manner, any individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering
or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place of strikers.
Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent the aforementioned
officials, employees or peace officers from taking any measure
necessary to maintain peace and order and/or to protect life and
property.

7.

Stationary picket and the use of means like placing of objects to


constitute permanent blockade or to effectively close points of entry
or exit in company premises.

8.

Any act of violence, coercion or intimidation by any picketer.

9.

The obstruction of the free ingress to or egress from the employers


premises for lawful purposes.

10.
9.

Obstruction of public thoroughfares while engaged in picketing.

WHEN MAY A STRIKE OR LOCKOUT BE DECLARED ILLEGAL?


A.

A strike or lockout may be declared illegal if any of the requirements for a


valid strike or lockout is not complied with.
It may also be declared illegal if it is based on non-strikeable issues or if
the issues involved are already the subject of arbitration.
During a strike or lockout, when either of the parties commit prohibited
acts or practices, the strike or lockout may be declared illegal.

10.

WHO HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF STRIKE


AND LOCKOUT?
A.

In general, the Labor Arbiter in the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the


National Labor Relations Commission has the power to determine
questions involving the legality or the illegality of a strike or lockout upon
the filing of a proper complaint and after due hearing.
Where the matter of legality or illegality of strike is raised in the dispute
over which the Secretary assumed jurisdiction or in disputes certified by
the Secretary to the Commission for compulsory arbitration, the same may
be resolved by the Secretary or the Commission, respectively.
(International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs.
Secretary of Labor and
Associated Labor Union, G.R. No. 92981-83, January 9, 1992.)

11.
CAN ANY PERSON PERFORMING ANY PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
CHARGED BEFORE THE COURT?

BE

Yes. They may be charged before the appropriate civil and criminal courts.
12.

WHAT IS THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE?


A.

Any person violating any of the provisions of Article 265 of the Labor Code
(performing any of the above prohibited activities) shall be punished by a
fine of not exceeding P500.00 and/or imprisonment for not less than one
(1) day nor more than six (6) months.
If the person so convicted is a foreigner, he shall be subjected to
immediate and summary deportation and will be permanently barred from
re-entering the country without the special permission of the President.

If the act is at the same time a violation of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
a prosecution under the Labor Code will preclude prosecution for the
same act under the RPC or vice-versa.
14

CAN THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) BE DEPUTIZED TO ENFORCE


ORDERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT?
A.

15

Yes. The Secretary of Labor and Employment, the National Labor


Relations Commission (NLRC) or any Labor Arbiter may deputize the PNP
to enforce any of its order, award or decision.

IN CASE THE PNP IS DEPUTIZED TO ENFORCE ORDERS FROM THE


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WHAT WILL BE ITS ROLE?
In such a case, the role of the PNP is merely to assist the sheriff or the
appropriate DOLE Officers in enforcing the decision, award or order. It
shall maintain peace and order and public safety in the area where the
decision, award or order is to be enforced. It shall also give security to the
officers enforcing the decision, award or order. (Please see also Article
264 (d), Article 266 of the Labor Code, as amended, and Guidelines for
the Conduct of PNP During Strikes, Lockouts and Labor Disputes in
General, Oct. 22, 1987).

Unfair Labor Practices of Employers


It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practice:
a.
To interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization
b.

To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee


shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he
belongs;
c.
To contract out services or functions being performed by union
members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization;

d.

To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with, restrain or coerce


employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization;
e.
To discriminate in regard to wages, hours or work and other terms
and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization;

f.

To dismiss, discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an


employee for having given or being about to give testimony against the
employer;

g.

To violate the duty to bargain collectively;

h.

To pay negotiation or attorneys fees to the union or its officers or agents


as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other
dispute; or

i.

To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations


It shall be unlawful for a labor organization, its officers, agents or
representatives to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
a.
To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization: Provided, that labor organization shall have the right to prescribe
its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;
b. To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom
membership in such organization has been denied to or terminate an employee
on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which
membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members;
c.
To violate the duty or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer,
provided it is the representative of the employees;
d.
To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or agree to pay or
deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for
services which are not performed or not to be performed including the demand
for a fee for union negotiations;
e.
To ask for or accept negotiation or attorneys fees from employers as part
of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or
f.

To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

RELATED CONSTITUTIONAL AND


STATUTORY PROVISIONS
I

RELATED CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS


Sec. 18 Article II. The State affirms labor as a prime social economic
force. It shall protect the right of workers and promote their welfare.
Sec. 3 Article XIII The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled
to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and living wage. They
shall participate in policy and decision-making process affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility
between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary
modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between the workers and
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of
production and the right of enterprises to reasonable return on
investments, and to expansion and growth.

II

PROVISIONS FROM THE LABOR CODE


Art. 211 Declaration of Policy
A

B.

It is the policy of the State:


a

To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective


bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration,
mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or
industrial disputes;

To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the


enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social
justice and developments;

To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and


united labor movement;

To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their


rights and obligations as union members and as employees;

To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the


expeditious settlement of labor or industrial dispute;

To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace;


and

To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policymaking processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.

To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations


between the employers and employees by means of agreement
freely entered into through collective bargaining, no court or
administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix
wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of
employment, except as otherwise provided under this Code.

Art. 248.

Unfair Labor Practices of Employers.

It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following


unfair labor practice:

a.

To interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise


of their right to self-organization;

b.

To require as a condition of employment that a person or an


employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw
from one to which he belongs;

c.

To contract out services or functions being performed by


union members when such will interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to selforganization;

d.

To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with,


restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization;

e.

To discriminate in regard to wages, hours or work and other


terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage
or discourage membership in any labor organization.
Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties
from requiring membership in a recognized collective
bargaining agent. Employees of an appropriate collective
bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized
collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable
fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members
of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such nonunion members accept the benefits under the collective
agreement.
Provided, that the individual authorization
required under Art. 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not
apply to the non-members of the recognized collective
bargaining agent;

f.

To dismiss, discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate


against an employee for having given or being about to give
testimony under this Code;

g.

To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by


this Code;

h.

To pay negotiation or attorneys fees to the union or its


officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in
collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

i.

To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

The provision of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the


officers and agents of corporation, association or partnership who have
actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practice shall be
held criminally liable.
Art. 249.

Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations.

It shall be unlawful for a labor organization, its officers, agents or


representatives to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
a.

To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right


to self-organization: Provided, that labor organization shall
have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention of membership;
b To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
against an employee, including discrimination against an
employee with respect to whom membership in such
organization has been denied to or terminate an employee
on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions
under which membership or continuation of membership is
made available to other members;

c.

To violate the duty or refuse to bargain collectively with the


employer, provided it is the representative of the employees;

d.

To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or agree to


pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the
nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed
or not to be performed including the demand for a fee for
union negotiations;

e.

To ask for or accept negotiation or attorneys fees from


employers as part of the settlement of any issue in collective
bargaining or any other dispute; or

To violate a collective bargaining agreement.


The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding,
only the officers, members of governing boards,
representatives or agents or members of labor associations
or organizations who have actually participated in,
authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held
criminally liable.

Art. 263.

Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts

a.

It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism


and free collective bargaining;

b.

Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities


for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual
benefit and protection.
The right of legitimate labor
organization to strike and picket and of employers to lockout,
consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be
recognized and respected. However, no labor union may
strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds
involving inter-union and intra-union disputes;

c.

In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or


recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Department at
least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of
unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days
and in the absence of duly certified or recognized bargaining
agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate
labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in
case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly
elected in accordance with the union constitution and bylaws,
which may constitute union busting where the
existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day coolingoff period shall not apply and the union may take action
immediately;

d.

The notice must be in accordance with such implementing


rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and
Employment may promulgate;

e.

During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the


Department to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation
to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain
unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from
the mandatory filing of the notice the labor union may
declare a strike.

f.

A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority


of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
concerned, obtained by a secret ballot in meetings or
referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a
lockout must be approved by the majority of the board of
directors of the corporation or association or of the partners

in a partnership, obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting


called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the
duration of the disputes based on substantially the same
grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was
taken. The Department may, at its own initiative or upon the
request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the
secret balloting. In every case, the union or employer shall
furnish the Department the results of the voting at least
seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to
the cooling-off period herein provided.
g.

When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or


likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor
and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute
and decide it or certify the same to the Commission
(National
Labor Relations Commission) for compulsory arbitration.
Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or
lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order.
If one has already taken place at the time of assumption of
certification, all striking or locked out employees shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers
under the same terms and condition prevailing before the
strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or
the Commission may seek assistance of law enforcement
agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as
with such order as he may issue to enforce the same.
In line with the national concern for and the highest respect
accorded to the right of patients to life and health, strikes
and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and similar medical
institutions shall, to every extent possible, be avoided, and
all serious efforts, not only by labor and management but
government as well, be exhausted to substantially minimize,
if not prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health,
through the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right
to strike and by management to lockout. In labor disputes
adversely affecting the continued operation
of such
hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of
the striking union or locking-out employer to provide and
maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other
health personnel, whose movement and services shall be

unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure


the proper and adequate protection of the life of its patients,
most especially emergency cases, for the duration of the
strike or lockout.
In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and
Employment may immediately assume, within twenty-four
(24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike
or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the
Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose,
the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with
such orders, prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment or
the
Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary action,
including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment
by the locking-out employer or backwages, damages and
other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against
either or both of them.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the
Philippines shall not be precluded from determining the
industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to the
national interest, and from intervening at any time and
assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to
settle or terminate the same.
h.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or


the voluntary arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute,
as the case may be. The decision of the President, the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or the
voluntary arbitrator shall be final and executory ten (10 )
calendar days after receipt thereof by the parties.

GUIDELINES IN THE CONDUCT OF PNP PERSONNEL,


PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS AND COMPANY GUARD
FORCES DURING STRIKES, LOCKOUTS AND LABOR
DISPUTES IN GENERAL
In order to promote public interest and safety, industrial peace and stability, and
peace and order, the following guidelines are hereby prescribed to govern the official
conduct of all members of the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) during strikes,
lockout and labor disputes in general:
GENERAL POLICY
1.
It is the essence of these guidelines that labor disputes are within the sole
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and/or through its
appropriate agencies while matters involving peace and order, are under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) through the Philippine
National Police (PNP); but as labor disputes involving strikes and lockouts have peace
and order implications, close coordination between the two departments is necessary.

2.
The involvement of the PNP during strikes, lockouts and labor disputes in
general shall be limited to the maintenance of peace and order, enforcement of laws
and legal orders of duly constituted authorities.
3

Any request for police assistance issued by duly constituted authorities shall specify the
acts to be performed or conducted by PNP personnel.

Whenever the assistance of the PNP is necessary, elements of the local police force
should be called upon to render assistance. Such request for assistance shall be
addressed to the Regional Director, National Capital Regional Command (NCRC), or
the City Director in the case of cities, or the Provincial Director in the case of provinces
or cities not under the City Police Command. Unless directed by the President or
personally by the Chairman of the National Police Commission upon consultation with
the Secretary of Labor and Employment or when requested by the latter, personnel from
the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall not intervene nor be utilized in any labor
dispute.

Insofar as practicable, no officer of the law shall be allowed to render services in


connection with a strike or lockout if there is question or complaint as regards his
relationship by affinity or consanguinity to any official/leader of the parties in the
controversy or if he has financial or pecuniary interest therein.
6.
A peace keeping detail shall be established in a strike or lockout area
when requested by DOLE or as the Regional Director, National Capital Regional
Command, City Police Command/Provincial Director may deem necessary for the
purpose of maintaining peace and order in the area.
7.
Personnel detailed as peace keeping force in a strike or lockout areas
shall be in uniform, with proper nameplate at all times. They shall exercise maximum
tolerance and shall observe courtesy and strict neutrality in their dealings with both
parties to the controversy bearing in mind that the parties to the labor dispute are not
their adversaries but their partners in the quest for industrial peace and human dignity.
As much as possible, they shall not inflict any physical harm upon strikers and/or
picketers or any person involved in the strike/lockout. When called for by the situation
or when all other peaceful and non-violent means have been exhausted, law enforcers
may employ, as a last resort only such force as may be necessary and reasonable to
prevent or repel an aggression.
PEACE KEEPING DETAILS
8.
The peace keeping detail shall not be stationed in the picket (or
confrontation line) but should be stationed such that their presence may deter the
commission of criminal acts or any untoward incident from either side. The members of
the peace keeping detail shall stay outside a 50 meter radius from the picket line,
except, if the 50 meter radius includes a public thoroughfare, they may station

themselves in such public thoroughfare for the purpose of insuring the free flow of
traffic.
ARRESTS/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
9.
Arrests and searches in strike/lockout areas shall be effected only on the
basis of an existing and valid Warrant of Arrest/Search and Seizure or in accordance
with Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Whenever possible, union
representatives (for laborers/workers) or management representatives (for management
personnel) shall be requested to facilitate the service of the Warrant of Arrest/ Search
and Seizure Order.
10.
Any person who, during the strike/lockout, violates any law, statute,
ordinance or any provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 or the Public Assembly Act may
be arrested and charged accordingly in court.
11.
Any person who obstructs the free and lawful ingress to and egress from
the employers premises in contemplation of Article 264, par. (e) of the Labor Code, as
amended, or who obstructs public thoroughfares may be arrested and accordingly
charged in court.
12.
The DOLE shall immediately be informed by the PNP unit concerned in
cases of violence in the picket line. When arrests are made pursuant to a warrant
issued by competent authorities, the arresting officers shall coordinate with the
Leaders/ Representatives of the union and management, as the case may be, and also
inform them of the arrest and the reason thereof.
SERVICE OF DOLE, COURT OR LAWFUL ORDERS/WRITS
13

The service of DOLE, court or lawful order/writs is the primary concern of the DOLE
representative, sheriff, representative of the government agency issuing the order
respectively. Before service of the Order, the DOLE representative, sheriff or
representative of the agency issuing the order shall coordinate and dialogue with the
leaders of the striking group and the representatives of management and shall inform
them of the nature and content of the Order to be enforced including possible
consequences of any defiance thereto. Whenever necessary, coordination with the
local government units shall be made by the DOLE and the other concerned agencies
issuing the Order to facilitate the service of Order and to prevent unnecessary
intervention.
14.
Orders enjoining any picketing, strike, or lockout are enforceable strictly in
accordance with Articles 218 and 263 of the Labor Code, as amended.

15 Any person who is not a laborer/worker of the company/ business establishment on


strike but has joined the striking laborers/workers in their picket or strike, shall be
treated by the law enforcers in the same manner as the strikers/picketers. If such
persons presence in the strike area obstructs the peaceful picketing, the law enforcers
shall compel him to leave the area. The conduct of rallies and marches on issues not
relation to the labor dispute shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of
Batas Pambansa 880.
ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION
16.
Except as provided in these guidelines the matter of determining whether
a strike, picket or lockout is legal or not should be left to DOLE and its appropriate
agencies. PNP elements are enjoined from interfering in a strike, picket or lockout,
except as herein provided, for the sole reason that is illegal.
17.
Picketing as part of the freedom of expression during the strikes shall be
respected provided it is peaceful. Shanties and structures set-up to effectively block
lawful ingress to and egress from company premises for legal purposes and the free
passage in public thoroughfares shall be summarily demolished in accordance with
Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
18.
No personal escort shall be provided to any of the parties to the
controversy unless so directed by the competent authority. Whenever escorts are to be
provided to any, the other party shall be informed accordingly. All escorts shall be in
uniform at all times.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
21

All complaints/reports leveled against any personnel of the PNP on the occasion of
strike/lockout shall be possessed and resolved in accordance with the PNP
Administrative Disciplinary Machinery pursuant to Chapter III, paragraph (c) of Republic
Act 6975. For DOLE personnel, the complaints shall be processed in accordance with
the DOLE Manual on the Disposition of Administrative Cases. Whenever applicable,
and if the evidence so warrants, appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against
the erring personnel.
ROLE OF SECURITY GUARDS

22

Conduct of security guards during strikes and lockouts shall be in accordance with Rule
18 of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act 5487.

Jacinto vs. CA
Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metropolitan Manila. Between the
period September 17 to 21, 1990, they incurred unauthorized absences in connection with the
mass actions then staged. Consequently, due to their failure to heed the return-to-work order,
DECS Sec. Cario immediately issued formal charges and preventive suspension orders against
them.
ISSUE: Were the public school teachers penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble
peacefully and to petition the government for redress of grievances?
HELD: The petitioners here, except Merlinda Jacinto, were not penalized for the exercise of
their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Rather, the Civil Service Commission found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service for having absented themselves without proper authority, from their
schools during regular school days, in order to participate in the mass protest, their absence
ineluctably resulting in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of
education, for which they were responsible. Had petitioners availed themselves of their free time
-- recess, after classes, weekends or holidays -- to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue
with the proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one -- not the DECS, the CSC or even
this Court -- could have held them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally

guaranteed rights. As it was, the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their activity
necessarily disrupted public services, the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition
against strikes by government workers. Their act by its nature was enjoined by the Civil Service
law, rules and regulations, for which they must, therefore, be made answerable.

MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, FIDEL FABABIER MERLIN


ANONUEVO, MINDA GALANG and other teacher-members so numerous similarly situated vs.
HON. PERFECTO LAGUIO JR
A "mass action" was undertaken by some 800 public school teachers, among them members of
the petitioning associations to "dramatize and highlight" the teachers' plight resulting from the
alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been
brought to the latter's attention. The petition alleges in great detail the character and origins of
those grievances as perceived by the petitioners, and the attempts to negotiate their correction.
ISSUE: Are employees in the public service prohibited from forming unions and holding strikes?
HELD: Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the
right to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition Congress for the
betterment of employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate government
agencies for the improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law.
Public school teachers have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances but NOT
during class hours, for then this would be a strike, which is illegal for them

Section 82. Prohibitions; Penalties. As professional police, fire and jail officers and members
responsible for the maintenance of peace and order and public safety, the members and officers
of the PNP, Fire or Jail Force are hereby prohibited from engaging in strikes, rallies,
demonstrations and other similar concerted activities, or performing other acts prejudicial to
good order and police discipline.
Any PNP, fire or Jail Force member found guilty by final judgment of violating the provisions of
the preceding paragraph shall be dismissed from the service without prejudice to whatever
criminal or civil liability he may have incurred in relation to such violations.

In May 2000, Mediator-Arbiter Ma. Zosima Lameyra issued an order certifying Toyota Motor
Philippines Corporation Workers Association as the exclusive bargaining agent of all Toyota
rank-and-file employees. Toyota filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the said order.
Lameyra denied the motion and Toyota eventually appealed the order before the DOLE
Secretary.

Meanwhile, the Union submitted its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) proposals to Toyota
but the latter refused to bargain pending its appeal before the DOLE Secretary. The Union then
filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The NCMB
converted the notice of strike to a preventive mediation considering that the DOLE Secretary was
yet to decide on Toyotas appeal.
In relation to Toyotas appeal, the parties were invited to a hearing. Union members were not
allowed to attend the hearing as they were aptly represented by the Union. But despite this,
many Union members and officers failed to render overtime and work on the following day
which caused Toyota to lose P53,849,991.00. The union members went to the hearing and
assembled before the Bureau of Labor Relations.
Subsequently, Toyota terminated 227 employees. The terminated employees allegedly abandoned
their work.
This resulted to another rally within Toyotas premises as the strikers barricaded the entrances of
Toyota preventing non-strikers from going to work.
In April 2001, the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issued a
return-to-work order. The Union ended its strike in the same month. However, in May and June
2001, union members still conducted rallies and pickets.
ISSUE: Whether or not the strikes conducted by the Union on different occasions are illegal.
HELD: Yes. The strike conducted before the BLR as well as the strike conducted when the 227
employees were terminated is illegal because both did not go through the proper procedure
required by the Labor Code. It cannot be said that the strike conducted before the BLR is beyond
the ambit of the strikes contemplated in the Labor Code. The Union argues that the strike is
actually a protest directed against the government and is covered by their constitutional right to
peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. The SC disagreed
with this argument because the Union failed to provide evidence that the Mediator-Arbiter was
biased against them. Further, if this were the kind of protest they were claiming, they should
have secured a rally permit. Further still, this case involves a labor dispute. The employees may
shroud their strike as mere demonstrations covered by the constitution but in reality these are
temporary work stoppages.
The strikes conducted after the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute are
illegal for they violated the return-to-work order.
The Supreme Court also cited the 6 categories of illegal strikes which are:

1. When it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing


governmental functions; or
2. When it violates a specific requirement of law, [such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the
requisites of a valid strike]; or
3. When it is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer to commit an
unfair labor practice against non-union employees; or
4. When it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as a widespread terrorism
of non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code]; or
5. When it is declared in violation of an existing injunction, [such as injunction, prohibition, or
order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or
6. When it is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or conclusive
arbitration clause

Strikers: No retreat until PAL surrenders


Philippine Daily Inquirer, 23 July 1998
THE STRIKE will last until the airline closes. Unless PAL changes its position and recalls the
retrenched workers, we will not stop the strike.
So warned Alex Barrientos, president of the 8,000-member ground crew union which yesterday
went on strike at 3:30 a.m. to demand that the company recall the 5,000 workers who were laid
off last month during the strike launched by the pilot's union.
President Estrada appealed to management and striking employees to remain open to an
amicable settlement as the labor unrest was harmful to the economy as well as an embarrassment
to the country.
Sa buong miyembro ng PAL, lagi nating isipin na hindi lamang ang international at domestic
flights kung hindi ang ating ekonomiya ang naaapektuhan ng strike (Let us keep in mind that the
economy as a whole is adversely affected by the strike), the President said in an interview with
dzRH.
He was scheduled to meet with Lucio Tan (principal stockholder of the now privatized PAL;
sg)and later have dinner at 7 last night with Labor Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma and labor
leaders, among them officials of the PAL unions--Palea, Airline Pilots Association of the
Philippines (Alpap) and Flight Attendants' and Stewards' Association of the Philippines (Fasap).

The President reiterated his willingness to mediate the dispute. He said he was scheduled to meet
with Palea last week, but the union representatives failed to make it to Malaca=F1ang.
Members of the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (Palea) include reservation clerks,
maintenance crew, caterers, cargo handlers and load controllers, who also service 19 of the 35
international carriers at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
PAL said a strike by its ground personnel could force Asia's oldest airline to close down after 57
years of operation.
Palea asked the riding public for utmost understanding, saying that it never wanted to go on
strike. Palea is defending not just its survival, we are defending our very lives, the union said in a
statement.
PAL, which reported a record P8.08 billion net loss in its fiscal year ending March 1998, said it
was unable to make payments on about $2 billion of debt.
This reckless and ill-advised action, like a fatal blow, may ultimately crush Philippine Airlines,
the company said in a statement.
By staging this illegal strike, Palea has put in jeopardy any proposed rehabilitation plan for the
airline, and, with it, our last hope for survival as well, it added.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has the authority to approve the rehabilitation plan. If
it withholds approval because of the labor dispute, the airline would have no option but to close.
SEC Chair Perfecto Yasay expressed concern about the strike's effect on the rehabilitation
proposal.

Doubts
Doubts had been aired on whether the President would take up the cudgels for the workers,
because of his close ties with tycoon Lucio Tan, PAL's majority owner. Tan was said to be major
contributor to Mr. Estrada's campaign.
On the other hand, it was also hoped that the President's relationship with Tan would enable him
to convince the tycoon to reach a settlement with the strikers.
In a single day and without any kind of warning, the Lucio Tan PAL management ordered the
immediate termination of 5,000 employees literally shattering their lives and their families.
Worse it was done in a manner that was patently unjust and inhuman, Palea said.
The airline maintained its downsizing program was necessary for survival.
PAL said it tried to find acceptable solutions to the problem to avert a strike by exhausting all
possible means of finding an amicable settlement with the management and the labor
department.
Palea said it even met with Tan himself on Tuesday night in a last-ditch effort to avoid a strike.
But to our dismay and to the detriment of the entire country which depends on PAL's continued
reliability, the Lucio Tan group insists on their hardline position.

Manolo Aquino, PAL executive vice president, said that during a meeting with the union PAL
offered to suspend its downsizing program for one month but the union stuck to its demand that
employees already retrenched should be re-hired.
Aquino said that was impossible as PAL had cut back its operations by 80 percent since a pilots'
22-day strike last month and had no more positions for the retrenched workers.
He said the strike was illegal because the government's labor department had assumed
jurisdiction and had warned labor unions against striking.
Labor Secretary Laguesma has vowed to push for continuing negotiations between PAL and
Palea.
Earlier, he issued an order assuming jurisdiction of the dispute in a bid to avert a strike. In the
order, Laguesma has asked Palea not to go on strike and for PAL to stop firing employees.
Laguesma clarified that he did not issue a return-to-work order to Palea on July 9. Palea cited
Laguesma's alleged bias for PAL as indicated by the reported issuance of the order as one of the
grounds for the strike.

June pilots' strike


In June, PAL was embroiled in a crippling pilots' strike that brought the company close to
financial ruin.
At the height of the strike, PAL laid off 5,000 of its nearly 14,000 workers.
Palea then threatened to go on strike to demand the reinstatement of the terminated workers but
the labor department assumed jurisdiction of the union's dispute with PAL on July 10 and
prohibited any work stoppage.
The labor department also ordered the airline to suspend any more layoffs. The union, however,
said it would go ahead with the strike plans.
The union filed a second strike notice with the labor department yesterday afternoon charging an
illegal lockout, union busting and termination of union officers.
Palea's strike caused some delays in several domestic flights but failed to paralyze the airlines'
operations.
As of presstime, regular flights to Tacloban, Cebu, Zamboanga, Cagayan de Oro, and Hong
Kong proceeded with minor delays.
PAL said that as of 7 p.m. it was able to operate all its domestic and international flights out of
Manila, except for two US-bound flights scheduled to depart later last night.
PAL said it dispatched 19 domestic flights and four flights to three Asian destinations.
Rolly Estabillo, PAL spokesperson, said the support of an overwhelming number of PAL's air
and ground employees of management made it possible for the airline to continue its operation.
Estabillo said many rank and file employees crossed the picket line and manned their posts.
The strike was staged even as hundreds of PAL employees petitioned Barrientos to reconsider
union plans to go on strike, citing that the airline may collapse.

Aside from asking Barrientos to reconsider the planned strike, the employees expressed support
for PAL's rehabilitation. The employees also lamented the interference of non-PAL unions in the
airlines' labor dispute.
Officials at Naia's ground handling operations said only a few PAL employees showed up for
work and other airlines that use PAL ground crew had prepared contingency plans.
The non-strikers and ground crew from other airlines were expected to be capable of handling
the services at the international airport during light traffic in the first half of the day but delays
are expected to increase by the much busier afternoon period, according to airport sources.

No support outside Metro


The strike of the Manila-based Palea members did not seem to enjoy much support from their
counterparts in the Visayas.
PAL employees on Mactan Island, Cebu, and the cities of Iloilo, Tacloban and Bacolod opted to
report for work yesterday.
PAL was able to mount the scheduled flights in Tacloban, Cebu, and Iloilo yesterday although
these were delayed by at least two hours.
In Bacolod, one incoming flight and another outgoing flight were cancelled, not because of the
strike, but because there were only few passengers.
With the support of its ground personnel, PAL was able to mount, albeit delayed, three incoming
and three outgoing flights in Mactan, Cebu; one incoming and outgoing in Bacolod and
Tacloban; and two incoming and two outgoing in Iloilo.
Mike Villanueva of Palea Bacolod said that except for the group's spokesman Emilio Garingalao,
most of the 32 PAL employees reported for work. But, he added, he expected more Palea
members in Bacolod to join the strike in a few days.
Not a single PAL employee in Iloilo and Tacloban cities joined the strike.
Simeon Canton Jr., PAL spokesperson in Cebu, said all 400 retained PAL employees in Mactan
Cebu International Airport did not join the strike.
But Clemencio Galindo, Palea board member in Cebu, belied Canton's claim, saying that at least
34 retained PAL workers joined the strike. Some 266 retrenched employees joined the mass
action.
Still, he added, he was disappointed that most of the PAL ground personnel in Cebu reported for
work.
The indefinite strike came days before Mr. Estrada's first State of the Nation Address and as the
Philippines prepares to host an important diplomatic gathering.
The 31st Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) ministerial meeting opens this week in
Manila.

By Virgil B. Lopez
Friday, April 1, 2011

IN SEPTEMBER 1998, Philippine Airlines (PAL) was hit by a double-whammy. Revenues fell
after it reportedly bought too many planes that served supposedly unprofitable routes.
The passenger slowdown resulting from the Asian crisis during that year didn't help.
As a result, the company decided to close shop.
Fortunately, two weeks later, on October 7 of the same year, the Philippines' flag carrier flew
again.
To sustain operations, the Lucio Tan-controlled airline sought court approval to temporarily
suspend debt payments.
Part of that rehabilitation plan included a proposal that asked workers to defer pay increases until
the airline becomes financially stable again.
More than 10 years later, the airline was able to post earnings after it managed to exit
rehabilitation earlier than expected.
But no new CBA has been negotiated after it expired in 2000.
This has prompted the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PAL) to file a series of strike
notices, especially after the airline bared plans of outsourcing thousands of jobs in 2009.
The question now is: Will the strike take off? Or will the government -- through the Department
of Labor and Employment (Dole) -- assume jurisdiction, citing national interest like it did before
and tell workers to go back to work
What went before?
August 27 2009
Citing a $301.4-million loss at the end of its fiscal year last March 2009, PAL president and chief
operating officer Jaime Bautista announced intentions of employing cost-cutting measures to stay
afloat.

Among these measures include a plan to reduce labor costs, which accounts for 18 percent of
PAL's yearly expenses. From 2008-2009, total expenses reached $361 million. Bautista said the
company seeks to put manpower costs at a single digit level, aimed at saving at least P1 billion.
September 22, 2009
Consultations regarding the outsourcing plan were held as the union asked the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board, an attached agency of the Department of Labor and
Employment (Dole), to facilitate talks. However, the 3,500-member Palea later sought the
suspension of negotiations in October, citing lack of progress.
January 28, 2010
The Palea filed a notice of strike with the Dole to protest the looming job cuts.
Palea cited PAL's "intended mass lay-off of union members and officers by April 2010, illegal
outsourcing of regular positions, direct negotiations with union members, unresolved issues
during preventive mediation, and non-compliance of pay scale review during settlement of the
wage distortion."
April 18, 2010
PAL formally announced its plan to outsource 2,600 "non-core" jobs and shutter three
departments -- airport services, in-flight catering, and reservations. PAL president Jaime Bautista
said higher fuel prices, the downgrade of the Philippines' aviation safety rating to Category 2 by
the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the European blacklist of all Philippine
carriers necessitated the outsourcing program.
The airline said around P2 billion will be spent to cover the early retirement packages of wouldbe retrenched employees.
April 27, 2010
The Dole has assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute, which effectively halted the union's
plan to go on strike. Acting Labor Secretary Romeo Lagman also promised to review and come
up with a decision on the validity of the outsourcing plan as soon as possible.
June 15, 2010
Acting Labor Secretary Romeo Lagman ruled in favor of the airline's spinoff program, calling it
as a "valid exercise of management prerogative."
June 28, 2010

Palea filed an appeal, urging the Labor department to reconsider its position. It also assailed
Lagman's decision as a "midnight" order, since the term of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
ended just a month ago.
July 31, 2010
PAL was forced to cancel 11 flights after 25 pilots resigned. The airline warned that charges
could be filed over what it called employment contract breaches.
"PAL will soon be filing appropriate charges against those pilots who chose not to report for
work immediately after submitting resignation letters. Most of the pilots still owe PAL the cost of
their aviation school training, which run into millions of pesos per pilot," PAL president Jaime
Bautista said.
Out of the 25 resigned pilots, two have already served the five-year minimum service while the
rest have not yet finished the contract, Bautista added.
See full story.
August 1, 2010
President Benigno Aquino III ordered government officials led by Transportation Secretary Jose
"Ping" de Jesus to talk with representatives from PAL and Palea to discuss the mass resignation
of pilots.
"PAL [does] have obligations when [it] secured the franchise to operate this public conveyance;
the pilots also have an obligation," he said in a press briefing.
Aquino warned that the flight cancellations due to lack of pilots manning the Airbus 319 and 320
planes will be dealt severely by the tourism industry.
See full story.
August 7, 2010
PAL temporarily suspended its Cebu-Davao flights and reduced operations to other routes in time
for the "lean season," which generally last from August to November.
"Capacity rationalization is routinely done in anticipation of lower passenger volume, especially
tourists, during the rainy months from August to November. It also coincides with the reduced
number of PAL pilots who left for jobs abroad," PAL president Jaime Bautista said.
See full story.
October 8, 2010

Stalled for the past 12 years, the union presented to PAL management its proposal for a new
collective bargaining agreement, which covers a five-year period (2008-2013).
"We believe that the CBA should retroact to 2008 since the CBA moratorium was only for 10
years not 12," Palea president Gerry Rivera said, referring to the 10-year suspension of its pay
agreement with the ailing PAL in 1998.
The PAL-Palea CBA was put on moratorium for 10 years in the wake of the bitter 1998 labor
dispute that saw a pilots' and ground crew strike, and the closure of the airline.
The moratorium has been extended for two more years under the term of previous union
leaderships.
Besides including an upgraded pay scale, the proposal also revises the provision of the old CBA
barring contracting out of existing positions, jobs, divisions and departments presently occupied
by present or future regular employees.
See full story.
October 29, 2010
The four-month old Aquino administration through Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz affirmed
the June 15 decision of then acting labor secretary Romeo Lagman allowing PAL to outsource its
call center, catering, and ground service operations.
Baldoz merely referred PAL's move as a "valid exercise of management prerogative," as she
increased the early retirement package from P2 billion to P2.5 billion.
The severance package also gives non-monetary benefits such as medical insurance and free
plane tickets, as well as guaranteed one-year employment from the three service providers
contracted out by PAL.
As expected, Palea criticized the decision as it mulled elevating the case before the Court of
Appeals.
But this failed to materialize after President Benigno Aquino III sought for a "negotiated
settlement" to resolve the labor dispute.
See full story.
November 5, 2010
Palea filed its second notice of strike before the labor department to protest the outsourcing of
PAL's airport services, in-flight catering and call center reservations.

The strike notice was based on two grounds, namely: unfair labor practices such as direct
negotiation with union members and mass termination of its officers amounting to union busting.
However, PAL challenged the strike notice in November 12, citing the complaints have been
rehashed.
See full story.
December 7, 2010
Around 86 percent of Palea's 3,500 members have expressed interest in joining the planned work
stoppage to protest the PAL's alleged unfair labor practices. A strike vote was held last December
6 in all PAL offices and outlying stations from Laoag to Zamboanga.
The labor department said the union has to wait seven more days before undertaking the actual
strike.
See full story.
December 15, 2010
President Benigno Aquino III stepped into the labor row as he asked for a review of PAL's
outsourcing plan, the first time a President assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute.
Palea decided to hold off an actual strike while PAL was disallowed from implementing the
outsourcing program pending a Palace review. Both parties are also ordered to attend conciliation
meetings initiated by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr.
See full story.
March 7, 2011
Unionized workers filed their third notice of strike at the Dole in over a year, after accusing PAL
of refusing to enter into a new collective bargaining agreement.
In October 2010, the union presented its CBA proposal to PAL president Jaime Bautista but the
management said in a letter last February 16 that talks will only take place once the controversial
spinoff program is resolved by Malacaang.
He said CBA negotiations about benefits and working conditions should only cover those who
would be left behind, in case the spinoff is sustained.
Those for early retirement, on the other hand, would be covered by applicable provisions of the
spinoff, according to Bautista.
See full story.

March 23, 2011


Palea held a strike vote among its members regarding PAL's reluctance to hold collective
bargaining negotiations even before the release of Malacaang's review of the outsourcing plan.
See full story.
March 25, 2011
The Office of the President affirmed the October 29, 2010 decision of Labor Secretary Rosalinda
Baldoz, with a modification: increasing the additional gratuity to the employees who will be
dismissed from P50,000 to P100,000.
Other benefits such as separation pay equivalent to 1.25 month's salary for every year of service,
free plane tickets, automatic one-year stay in the third-party service provider, and medical
insurance were also guaranteed.
In support of this position, the Palace cited jurisprudence referring to management prerogatives
to close or cease its operations.
"The severance of employment of rank-and-file employees to be affected by the outsourcing of
services was valid, and that PAL could not be held liable for unfair labor practice for pursuing a
legitimate exercise of management prerogative," the Malacaang statement said.
PAL first leaked the decision to the media while the union received its copy only last March 28.
Prior to this development, both sides met in Malacaang last February 11 but talks ended in a
deadlock.
On the same day, Palea president Gerry Rivera said 95 percent favored the strike plan after the
poll last March 23. Around 70 percent of the 3,500-member union also turned out for the strike
vote and a mere four percent opposed the measure.
See full story.
March 27, 2011
Palea accused President Benigno Aquino III of conniving with PAL's billionaire owner Lucio
Tan in the implementation of the mass layoff program. It also set week-long activities in protest
of the Palace's decision and as a run up to the soon-to-be conducted strike.
The union said it is still studying possible legal remedies including a direct appeal to the Office
of the President.
See full story.
March 28, 2011

PAL presented its counterpart proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. Under PAL's
proposal, employees will receive pay increases of P750 for the first year, P1,500 for the second
year, and another P1,500 for the third year.
"This is what management believes the company can afford at this time, given the string of
massive losses suffered by PAL since 2008," said Jose Uybarreta, PAL vice president for human
resources.
However, the offer will only cover rank-and-file employees within the bargaining unit to be left
behind after the retrenchment of 2,600 workers.
For his part, Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Secretary Ricky
Carandang encouraged the union to file an appeal before the Office of the President.
See full story.
April 1, 2011
The seven-day call off period following the successful strike vote ends. Palea can
hold an actual strike from April 2 onwards unless the Labor department intervenes
anew in the labor dispute.

Under the Labor Code, the secretary of labor has the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor
dispute or issue a return-to-work order in case of an actual work stoppage.
PAL had said that contingency measures are already in place to address the looming strike, which
include the tapping of administrative personnel to do certain functions and transferring
passengers to sister airline Airphil Express and 134 interline partners.
The company said a strike, if declared illegal by proper authorities, could lead to the forfeiture of
striking workers' benefits, including those ordered by the Office of the President on March 25.
(Sunnex)
9

Business
No.
Police officers took a sworn oath to protect lives and property.
Imagine what would happen in you neighborhood, if the police went on strike. the governor
would have to call up the national guard, if there any soldiers left in the United States to call.
And, the people would never forget what happened, if police officers were to strike. the next
time the police wanted a raise or new equipment, do you think the public would support them.

no way.
There are other means of gaining someone's attention for better pay, benefits, etc.
Sick in, blue flu, slowdowns are just a few available and are very effective.
When the money ceases to flow into the local or state government, politicians take notice and
react.
Police striking? No, it goes against the very oath officers sworn to uphold.

Read more: Should the Police be allowed to Strike? | Answerbag


http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/525135#ixzz2seCTIuuG

Legality[edit]
Some Crime Acts make it illegal for anyone to interfere with police in the course of their duty.
Thus anyone calling on police to stop work or support a fellow worker would be guilty of a
criminal offence. Police officers do not have the employment rights enjoyed by other workers
because of the nature of the job they do on behalf of the public.
In the United Kingdom Police officers are currently banned from taking strike action under the
Police Act 1996. The police have been banned from striking since 1919, when the Police Act was
first established. The Police Federation of England and Wales is to ballot rank-and-file officers
on moves to overturn the law.[1]

Causes[edit]
One cause for police strikes has been increases in the difficulty of policing itself. The wave of
American police strikes in the late 1960s and 1970s accompanied other forms of social unrest
which themselves put pressure on police forces. Also, police wages, which had historically been
exceptional, declined relative to the wages of other workers.[24] Police strikes have also occurred
in situations where national control was in question and the police's alignment differed from the
current rulers (i.e. in occupied France and India).
Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not
have the right to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to
petition Congress for the betterment of employment terms and conditions and to
negotiate with appropriate government agencies for the improvement of such
working conditions as are not fixed by law

digests article III sections 5-8,


constitutional law

Garces vs. Estenso

Facts: The case is about the constitutionality of four resolutions of the barangay council of
Valencia, Ormoc City, regarding the acquisition of the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be
used in the celebration of his annual feast day. That issue was spawned by the controversy as to
whether the parish priest or a layman should have the custody of the image. On March 23, 1976,
the said barangay council adopted Resolution No. 5, "reviving the traditional socio-religious
celebration" every fifth day of April "of the feast day of Seor San Vicente Ferrer, the patron
saint of Valencia".

Issue: Is the holding of fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, valid and constitutional?

Held: Yes. The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio
fiesta honoring the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any
religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents. One
of the highlights of the fiesta was the mass. Consequently, the image of the patron saint had to
be placed in the church when the mass was celebrated.
If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the
barrio, then any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as the
acquisition and display of his image) cannot be branded as illegal. As noted in the first
resolution, the barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its celebration is an ingrained tradition in
rural communities. The fiesta relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of the masses.

Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance


Facts: These are motions seeking reconsideration of our decision dismissing the petitions filed
in these cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the
Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. Now it is contended by the PPI that by removing the
exemption of the press from the VAT while maintaining those granted to others, the law
discriminates against the press. At any rate, it is averred, "even nondiscriminatory taxation of
constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional."

Issue: Does sales tax on bible sales violative of religious freedom?

Held: No. The Court was speaking in that case of a license tax, which, unlike an ordinary tax, is
mainly for regulation. Its imposition on the press is unconstitutional because it lays a prior
restraint on the exercise of its right. Hence, although its application to others, such those selling
goods, is valid, its application to the press or to religious groups, such as the Jehovah's
Witnesses, in connection with the latter's sale of religious books and pamphlets, is
unconstitutional. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, "it is one thing to impose a tax on income or
property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax on him for delivering a sermon."
The VAT is, however, different. It is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a privilege,
much less a constitutional right. It is imposed on the sale, barter, lease or exchange of goods or
properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for revenue
purposes. To subject the press to its payment is not to burden the exercise of its right any more
than to make the press pay income tax or subject it to general regulation is not to violate its
freedom under the Constitution
Manosca vs. CA
Facts: Petitioners inherited a piece of land when the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have
been the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No. 1,
declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. Petitioners moved to dismiss the
complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose and,
incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public funds, directly or indirectly,
for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of
Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue: The expropriation of the land whereat Manalo was born, valid and constitutional?

Held: Yes. The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt that a
literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must
be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not
allowable. It is not so any more. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of
eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove
any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into
small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is the transfer, through the exercise of this

power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then
that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the
requirement of public use.

Ebralinag vs. DepEd


Facts: All the petitioners in the original case were minor school children, and members of the
sect, Jehovah's Witnesses (assisted by their parents) who were expelled from their classes by
various public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem
and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 of July 11, 1955 and by
Department Order No. 8, dated July 21, 1955 issued by the Department of Education. Aimed
primarily at private educational institutions which did not observe the flag ceremony exercises,
Republic Act No. 1265 penalizes all educational institutions for failure or refusal to observe the
flag ceremony with public censure on first offense and cancellation of the recognition or permit
on second offense.

Issue: Does refusal to take part in the flag ceremony, on account of religious belief, so offensive
as to prompt legitimate state intervention?

Held: No. While conceding to the idea adverted to by the Solicitor General that certain methods
of religious expression may be prohibited to serve legitimate societal purposes, refusal to
participate in the flag ceremony hardly constitutes a form of religious expression so offensive
and noxious as to prompt legitimate State intervention. It bears repeating that their absence
from the ceremony hardly constitutes a danger so grave and imminent as to warrant the state's
intervention. In the case of a regulation which appears to abridge a right to which the
fundamental law accords high significance it is the regulation, not the act (or refusal to act),
which is the exception and which requires the court's strictest scrutiny. In the case at bench, the
government has not shown that refusal to do the acts of conformity exacted by the assailed
orders, which respondents point out attained legislative cachet in the Administrative Code of
1987, would pose a clear and present danger of a danger so serious and imminent, that it would
prompt legitimate State intervention.

Estrada vs. Escritor?


Facts: Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an investigation of rumors
that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her
husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. He filed the charge against

Escritor as he believes that she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the
court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the
court condones her act.

Issue: What is the doctrine of benevolent neutrality? Is respondent entitled thereto? Is the
doctrine of benevolent neutrality consistent with the free exercise clause?

Held: Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and
interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible
within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is
secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion,
provided it does not offend compelling state interests. It still remains to be seen if respondent is
entitled to such doctrine as the state has not been afforded the chance has demonstrate the
compelling state interest of prohibiting the act of respondent, thus the case is remanded to the
RTC.

Benevolent neutrality is inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause as far as it prohibits such
exercise given a compelling state interest. It is the respondents stance that her conjugal
arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise
protection. Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free
Exercise Clause, the Courts action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to
religious freedom. We cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondents claim of
religious freedom, but must instead apply the compelling state interest test. The government
must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of
demonstrating the states compelling interest which can override respondents religious belief
and practice.

Pamil vs. Teleron?


Facts: The novel question in this case concerns the eligibility of an ecclesiastic to an elective
municipal position. Private respondent, Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, was, in 1971, elected to
the position of municipal mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. Therefore, he was duly proclaimed. A
suit was then filed by petitioner, himself an aspirant for the office, for his disqualification based

on this Administrative Code provision: "In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a
municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries or
compensation from provincial or national funds, or contractors for public works of the
municipality."

Issue: Is the prohibition imposed on ecclesiastics from holding appointive or elective municipal
offices a religious test?

Held: No. The vote is thus indecisive. While five members of the Court constitute a minority, the
vote of the remaining seven does not suffice to render the challenged provision ineffective.
Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code, as far as ecclesiastics are concerned, must be
accorded respect. The presumption of validity calls for its application. Under the circumstances,
certiorari lies. That is the conclusion arrived at by the writer of this opinion, joined by Justice
Concepcion Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero. They have no choice then but to vote for the
reversal of the lower court decision and declare ineligible respondent Father Margarito R.
Gonzaga for the office of municipal mayor. With the aforesaid five other members, led by the
Chief Justice, entertaining no doubt as to his lack of eligibility, this petition for certiorari must
be granted.

It would be an unjustified departure from a settled principle of the applicable construction of the
provision on what laws remain operative after 1935 if the plea of petitioner in this case were to
be heeded. The challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar as it declares
ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent with the
religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. To so exclude them is to impose a religious
test.

Here being an ecclesiastic and therefore professing a religious faith suffices to disqualify for a
public office. There is thus an incompatibility between the Administrative Code provision relied
upon by petitioner and an express constitutional mandate. It is not a valid argument against this
conclusion to assert that under the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, there was such a
prohibition against a religious test, and yet such a ban on holding a municipal position had not
been nullified. It suffices to answer that no question was raised as to its validity.

Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz

Facts: Petitioners were lay members of the Philippine Independent Church (PIC). On June 28,
1993, Bishop de la Cruz declared petitioners expelled/excommunicated from the Philippine
Independent Church. Because of the order of expulsion/excommunication, petitioners filed a
complaint for damages with preliminary injunction against Bishop de la Cruz before the
Regional Trial Court.They contended that their expulsion was illegal because it was done
without trial thus violating their right to due process of law.

Issue: What is the role of the State, through the Courts, on matters of religious intramurals?

Held: The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution/organization is a


matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons, of said
institution/organization. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities in the
performance of their discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of
religious institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations.

Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious organization except for the
protection of civil or property rights. Those rights may be the subject of litigation in a civil court,
and the courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted claims to the title, use, or possession
of church property.

Obviously, there was no violation of a civil right in the present case.

Soriano vs. La Guardia


Facts: On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating
Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against INC. Two days after, before the
MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon
and seven other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against
petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt
directly alluded to in petitioners remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the
TV program Ang Tamang Daan.

Issue: Are Sorianos statements during the televised Ang Dating Daan part of the religious
discourse and within the protection of Section 5, Art.III?

Held: No. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, therefore, and considering the
adverse effect of petitioners utterances on the viewers fundamental rights as well as petitioners
clear violation of his duty as a public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended him from
appearing in Ang Dating Daan for three months.
Furthermore, it cannot be properly asserted that petitioners suspension was an undue
curtailment of his right to free speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment.
Aside from the reasons given above (re the paramountcy of viewers rights, the public trusteeship
character of a broadcasters role and the power of the State to regulate broadcast media), a
requirement that indecent language be avoided has its primary effect on the form, rather than
the content, of serious communication. There are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be expressed
by the use of less offensive language.
Section 6

Yap vs. CA
Facts: The right against excessive bail, and the liberty of abode and travel, are being invoked to
set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals which fixed bail at P5,500,000.00 and imposed
conditions on change of residence and travel abroad. For misappropriating amounts equivalent
to P5,500,000.00, petitioner was convicted of estafa and was sentenced to four years and two
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, in
addition to one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 but in no case
shall it exceed twenty (20) years. He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allowed
provisional liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings.

Issue: Was the condition imposed by the CA on accuseds bail bond violative the liberty of abode
and right to travel?

Held: Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. Under
the circumstances of this case, we find that appropriate conditions have been imposed in the bail
bond to ensure against the risk of flight, particularly, the combination of the hold-departure
order and the requirement that petitioner inform the court of any change of residence and of his

whereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail while the case is on appeal may be
meritorious, we find that the setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive,
and constitutes an effective denial of petitioners right to bail.

Cojuangco vs. Sandiganbayan


Facts: This petition for prohibition seeks to dismiss Criminal Case entitled People of the
Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., now pending before respondent
Sandiganbayan and to prohibit said court from further proceeding with the case. Petitioner
invokes his constitutional right to due process, a speedy trial, and a speedy determination of his
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. Further, he prays for the
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining
respondent Sandiganbayan from further enforcing and/or implementing its order dated
February 20, 1995 which bans petitioner from leaving the country except upon prior approval by
said court.

Issue: When a person is criminally charged, is his right to travel absolutely curtailed?

Held: No.The travel ban should be lifted, considering all the circumstances now prevailing. The
rule laid down by this Court is that a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally
released on bail does not have an unrestricted right to travel, the reason being that a persons
right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding
the system of justice. But, significantly, the Office of the Solicitor General in its Manifestation
dated November 20, 1998 indicated that it is not interposing any objection to petitioners prayer
that he be allowed to travel abroad based on the following considerations: (1) that it is well
within the power of this Court to suspend its own rules, including the second paragraph, Section
23, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court; (2) that it has been shown in the past that the petitioner has
always returned to the Philippines after the expiration of the period of his allowed travel; and (3)
that petitioner, now Chairman of the Board of San Miguel Corporation, may be constrained to
leave the country for business purposes, more often than he had done in the past.

Mirasol vs. DPWH


Facts: On 19 February 1968, Secretary Antonio V. Raquiza of the Department of Public Works
and Communications issued AO 1, which, among others, prohibited motorcycles on limited
access highways. Accordingly, petitioners filed an Amended Petition on February 8, 2001
wherein petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid administrative issuances.

Moreover, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the total ban on motorcycles along the
entire breadth of North and South Luzon Expressways and the Manila-Cavite (Coastal Road)
Toll Expressway under DO 215.

Issue: Is DPWH Administrative Order No.1, DO 74 violative of the right to travel? Are all
motorized vehicles created equal?

Held: DO 74 and DO 215 are void because the DPWH has no authority to declare certain
expressways as limited access facilities. Under the law, it is the DOTC which is authorized to
administer and enforce all laws, rules and regulations in the field of transportation and to
regulate related activities. The DPWH cannot delegate a power or function which it does not
possess in the first place.
We find that it is neither warranted nor reasonable for petitioners to say that the only justifiable
classification among modes of transport is the motorized against the non-motorized. Not all
motorized vehicles are created equal. A 16-wheeler truck is substantially different from other
light vehicles. The first may be denied access to some roads where the latter are free to drive.
Old vehicles may be reasonably differentiated from newer models.46 We find that real and
substantial differences exist between a motorcycle and other forms of transport sufficient to
justify its classification among those prohibited from plying the toll ways. Amongst all types of
motorized transport, it is obvious, even to a child, that a motorcycle is quite different from a car,
a bus or a truck. The most obvious and troubling difference would be that a two-wheeled vehicle
is less stable and more easily overturned than a four-wheeled vehicle.
Section 8
Jacinto vs. CA
Facts: Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metropolitan Manila.
Between the period September 17 to 21, 1990, they incurred unauthorized absences in
connection with the mass actions then staged; and on September 17, 1990, DECS Secretary
Isidro Cario immediately issued a return-to-work order. They were administratively charged
with gross misconduct; gross neglect of duty, etc. for joining unauthorized mass actions;
ignoring report-to-work directives; unjustified abandonment of teaching posts; non-observance
of Civil Service law, rules and regulations; non-compliance with reasonable office rules and
regulations; and incurring unauthorized absences without leave, etc.

Issue: Were the public school teachers penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble

peacefully and to petition the government for redress of grievances?

Held: Improper Exercise of the Right to Peaceful Assembly and to Petition for a Redress of
Grievances. There is no question as to the petitioners rights to peaceful assembly to petition the
government for a redress of grievances and, for that matter, to organize or form associations for
purposes not contrary to law, as well as to engage in peaceful concerted activities. Although the
Constitution vests in them the right to organize, to assemble peaceably and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances, there is no like express provision granting them the
right to strike. Rather, the constitutional grant of the right to strike is restrained by the proviso
that its exercise shall be done in accordance with law.
It cannot be denied that the mass action or assembly staged by the petitioners resulted in the
non-holding of classes in several public schools during the corresponding period.

MPSTA vs. Laguio


Facts:

The series of events that touched off these cases started with the so-called "mass action"
undertaken by some 800 public school teachers, among them members of the petitioning
associations in both cases, on September 17, 1990 to "dramatize and highlight" 1 the teachers'
plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had
time and again been brought to the latter's attention.

Issue: Are employees in the public service prohibited from forming unions and holding strikes?

Held:

these mass actions were to all intents and purposes a strike; they constituted a concerted and
unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers duty to perform,
undertaken for essentially economic reasons, should not principally resolve the present case, as
the underlying facts are allegedly not identical.

Air Philippines vs Pennswell Inc. Gr. 172835


Facts: Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of air transportation
services. While, respondent was organized to engage in the business of manufacturing and
selling industrial chemicals, solvents, and special lubricants. In particular, petitioner alleged
that it was defrauded by respondent for its previous sale. Petitioner seeks to convince this Court
that it has a right to obtain the chemical composition and ingredients of respondents products
to conduct a comparative analysis of its products
Issue: Can chemical components of Pennswell products be accessed pursuant to RA 7394, 8203,
6969 and right to information under Sec. 7, Art III?
Held: No. Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the private character of trade secrets.
There is a privilege not to disclose ones trade secrets. Foremost, this Court has declared that
trade secrets and banking transactions are among the recognized restrictions to the right of the
people to information as embodied in the Constitution.
Petitioner cannot rely on Section 77 of Republic Act 7394, or the Consumer Act of the
Philippines, in order to compel respondent to reveal the chemical components of its products.
While it is true that all consumer products domestically sold, whether manufactured locally or
imported, shall indicate their general make or active ingredients in their respective labels of
packaging, the law does not apply to respondent. Respondents specialized lubricants are not
consumer products. Its products are not intended for personal, family, household or agricultural
purposes. Rather, they are for industrial use, specifically for the use of aircraft propellers and
engines.
Petitioners argument that Republic Act No. 8203, or the Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs,
requires the disclosure of the active ingredients of a drug is also on faulty ground. Respondents
products are outside the scope of the cited law. They do not come within the purview of a drug
which, as defined therein, refers to any chemical compound or biological substance, other than
food, that is intended for use in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease in man or
animals. Again, such are not the characteristics of respondents products.

Republic Act No. 6969, or the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act
of 1990, also contains a provision that limits the right of the public to have access to records,
reports or information concerning chemical substances and mixtures including safety data
submitted and data on emission or discharge into the environment, if the matter is confidential
such that it would divulge trade secrets, production or sales figures; or methods, production or
processes unique to such manufacturer, processor or distributor; or would otherwise tend to
affect adversely the competitive position of such manufacturer, processor or distributor.

Akbayan vs. Aquino , GR 170516


FACTS: This is a Petition for mandamus and prohibition requesting respondents to submit to
them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).
Petitioner emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the said agreement violates
there right to information on matters of public concern and of public interest. That the nondisclosure of the same documents undermines their right to effective and reasonable
participation in all levels of social, political and economic decision making.
ISSUE: Are the JPEPA negotiations within the scope of the constitutional guarantee of access to
information?
HELD: No. Secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional
provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information.
The Court holds that, in determining whether an information is covered by the right to
information, a specific showing of need for such information is not a relevant consideration,
but only whether the same is a matter of public concern. When, however, the government has
claimed executive privilege, and it has established that the information is indeed covered by the
same, then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the privilege, must show that that the
information is vital, not simply for the satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability to effectively
and reasonably participate in social, political, and economic decision-making. The constitutional
right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final
contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government
and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic
secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.

Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744


FACTS: Petitioner asks this Court to define the nature and the extent of the peoples
constitutional right to information on matters of public concern. Petitioner, invoking his
constitutional right to information and the correlative duty of the state to disclose publicly all its
transactions involving the national interest, demands that respondents make public any and all
negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGGs task of recovering the Marcoses ill-gotten

wealth.
ISSUE: Are the negotiations leading to a settlement on ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses within
the scope of the constitutional guarantee of access to information?
HELD: Yes. Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is incumbent upon the
PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient public
information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners
and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions
of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or
communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being
formulated or are in the exploratory stage. There is a need, of course, to observe the same
restrictions on disclosure of information in general -- such as on matters involving national
security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information.

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ
vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
FACTS: The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates Authority ("PEA" for brevity) to disclose
all facts on PEA's then on-going renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay and Development
Corporation ("AMARI" for brevity) to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. The petition further seeks
to enjoin PEA from signing a new agreement with AMARI involving such reclamation. PEA
asserts that in cases of on-going negotiations the right to information is limited to "definite
propositions of the government." PEA maintains the right does not include access to "intraagency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when common
assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the 'exploratory stage'."
ISSUE: Are negotiations leading to a settlement with PIATCO within the scope of the
constitutional guarantee of access to information?
HELD: Yes. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution explains the people's right to information
on matters of public concern: Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used
as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may
be provided by law." Further, The State policy (Sec 28, Art II) of full transparency in all
transactions involving public interest reinforces the people's right to information on matters of
public concern.
These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in
the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to

exercise effectively other constitutional rights.


Information on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken by the
bidding or review committee is not immediately accessible under the right to information. While
the evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no "official acts, transactions, or decisions"
on the bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes its official recommendation, there
arises a "definite proposition" on the part of the government.

Jacinto vs. CA
Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metropolitan Manila. Between the
period September 17 to 21, 1990, they incurred unauthorized absences in connection with the
mass actions then staged. Consequently, due to their failure to heed the return-to-work order,
DECS Sec. Cario immediately issued formal charges and preventive suspension orders against
them.
ISSUE: Were the public school teachers penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble
peacefully and to petition the government for redress of grievances?
HELD: The petitioners here, except Merlinda Jacinto, were not penalized for the exercise of
their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Rather, the Civil Service Commission found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service for having absented themselves without proper authority, from their
schools during regular school days, in order to participate in the mass protest, their absence
ineluctably resulting in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of
education, for which they were responsible. Had petitioners availed themselves of their free time
-- recess, after classes, weekends or holidays -- to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue
with the proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one -- not the DECS, the CSC or even
this Court -- could have held them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally
guaranteed rights. As it was, the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their activity
necessarily disrupted public services, the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition
against strikes by government workers. Their act by its nature was enjoined by the Civil Service
law, rules and regulations, for which they must, therefore, be made answerable.

MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, FIDEL FABABIER MERLIN


ANONUEVO, MINDA GALANG and other teacher-members so numerous similarly situated vs.
HON. PERFECTO LAGUIO JR
A "mass action" was undertaken by some 800 public school teachers, among them members of

the petitioning associations to "dramatize and highlight" the teachers' plight resulting from the
alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been
brought to the latter's attention. The petition alleges in great detail the character and origins of
those grievances as perceived by the petitioners, and the attempts to negotiate their correction.
ISSUE: Are employees in the public service prohibited from forming unions and holding strikes?
HELD: Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the
right to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition Congress for the
betterment of employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate government
agencies for the improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law.
Public school teachers have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances but NOT
during class hours, for then this would be a strike, which is illegal for them.