National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs Central Azucarera De La Carlota (CAC)

Facts:

NFSW is the bargaining agent of CAC employees which concluded with CAC a CBA that the
parties agree to maintain the practice of the grant of Christmas Bonus, Milling Bonus and
Amelioration Bonus.
Later, NFSW struck allegedly to compel the payment of 13th month pay, in addition to
christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses being enjoyed by CAC workers. A compromise
agreement was concluded between CAC and NFSW which agree to abide by the final decision
of the SC in the Marcopper case involving 13th month pay law if employer is held liable to pay
13th month pay separate and distinct from bonuses already given.
After the Marcopper case has become final, with 5 Justices voting for denial of petition against
the 13th month pay law, NFSW renewed its demand to CAC but was refused.
On Jan. 22, 1982, NFSW filed a notic of strike on the issue with the Ministry of labor, six days
thereafter, NFSW struck. On Jan. 29, a report of the strike-vote was filed by NFSW with MOLE
CAC filed for illegal strike on grounds that strike was staged before 15-day cooling-off period
for unfair labor practic and before lapse of 7-day ban from submission to MOLE of result of
strike-vote.
LA held strike illegal and directing CAC to resume operations and accept all workers back to
work and that NFSW immediately desist from illegal strike. NFSW filed a petition for
prohibition with the NLRC of the decision rendered by LA, but no restraining order was issued.
Hence, petition by NFSW to the Court.

Issue:

1. WON strike was illegal the resolution which depends on the mandatory character of the
cooling-off period and the 7-day strike ban before strike may be undertaken.
2. WON CAC is obliged to give its workers 13th month pay in addition to christmas, milling and
amelioration bonuses, the aggregate which exceeds the 13th month pay required to be paid.

Held:

1. Yes, strike was illegal. When the law says "the labor union may strike" should the dispute "remain
unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days (cooling-off period) from the filing of the
notice," the unmistakable implication is that the union may not strike before the lapse of the cooling-off
period. Similarly, the mandatory character of the 7-day strike ban after the report on the strike-vote is
manifest in the provision that "in every case," the union shall furnish the MOLE with the results of the
voting "at least seven (7) days before the intended strike, subject to the (prescribed) cooling-off
period." It must be stressed that the requirements of cooling-off period and 7-day strike ban must both
be complied with, although the labor union may take a strike vote and report the same within the
statutory cooling-off period.

If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be deemed mandatory, but not the
waiting periods so specifically and emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed)
for which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required would not be achieved, as
when a strike is declaredimmediately after a strike notice is served, or when as in the instant case
the strike-vote report is filed with MOLE after the strike had actually commenced Such interpretation
of the law ought not and cannot be countenanced. It would indeed be self-defeating for the law to
imperatively require the filing on a strike notice and strike-vote report without at the same time making
the prescribed waiting periods mandatory.

In the case at bar, that strike was conducted before the lapse of the cooling-off period from the notice of
strike and that strike vote was made after the strike, therefore, strike is illegal in accordance with the
law.

2. No. Under the 13th month pay law, exception was made that Employers already paying their
employees 13th month pay or its equivalent are not covered by its decree. The Rules implementing said
law states that: The term "its equivalent" ... shall include Christmas bonus, mid-year bonus, profit-
sharing payments and other cash bonuses amounting to not less than 1/12th of the basic salary but shall
not include cash and stock dividends, cost of living allowances and all other allowances regularly
enjoyed by the employee, as well as non-monetary benefits. Where an employer pays less than 1/12th
of the employee's basic salary, the employer shall pay the difference.

In the case at bar, the NFSW-CAC CBA provides for the grant to CAC workers of said bonuses and
upon the rise of the dispute, NFSW and CAC concluded a compromise agreement that they would
abide by the decision of SC in regards to the Marcopper case. It must be noted however that, although
the decision of the case was against Marcooper, only 5 Justices voted denial of petition by Marcooper
which eventually concluded the case against Marcooper. That the Marcooper case was concluded with
ony 5 Justices without the necessary 8 votes to be doctrinal, said resolution cannot be the basis on
NFSW's claim that its members are entitled to 13th month pay in addition to bonuses already paid by
CAC.