BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH V. DOLE SEC.

July 5, 2010 | Brion, J. | Illegal acts/Prohibited activities | Conejero

G.R. 167401
PETITIONERs: Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International [Union], represented by Sabino Graganza,
Union President, and Reyvilosa Trinidad
RESPONDENTS: Secretary of the DOLE and Triumph International (Phils.) Inc. [Company]
G.R. 167407
PETITIONER: Triumph International (Phils.) Inc.
RESPONDENTS: Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International, Eloisa Figura, Jerry Jaicten, Rowell Frias,
Margarita Patingo and Rosalinda Olangar
SUMMARY: The Union wanted to negotiate a wage increase, which led to a deadlock. Labor Secretary Laguesma assumed
jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issued a return-to-work order, but the Union continued to strike and to block returning
employees. 21 union officers were terminated, leading to the Union moving for their reinstatement and alleging that the
Company violated the Secretarys order. Secretary Laguesma awarded a wage increase but refused to rule on the dismissal of
the union officers, which the CA said he should have done. On the issue of the dismissals due to the prohibited activity of
striking without compliance with procedural requirements, the SC ruled that the Secretary had jurisdiction and that the officers
were validly dismissed under Article 264 for knowingly participating in an illegal strike and other illegal acts during such strike.
DOCTRINE: Violations of return-to-work orders and the staging of strikes like slowdowns, without complying with the
mandatory legal requirements of a strike notice and strike vote, are prohibited activities.

FACTS:
1. The union tried to renegotiate the CBA with a wage increase of P180/day, spread over 3 years (P70, then P60,
then P50 from July 1999-2001), while the company offered P42 and then P45 over the same time period.
2. The union filed a notice of strike on October 15, 1999 after reaching a deadlock the NCMB could not resolve.
The company filed a Notice of Lock-out for ULP due to the unions alleged work slowdown, and the union went
on strike three days later, on November 18, 1999.
3. DOLE Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma on January 29, 2000 assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute,
pursuant to Article 263(g), and directed all strikers to return to work within 24 hours. Upon the Companys
petition, he issued a February 22 order directing the union to stop blocking employees and to allow free
movement into company premises.
4. The striking employees returned to work on March 3-4, 2000 but 20 union officers and a shop steward were
excluded from company premises and directed to explain in writing why they should not be terminated or
disciplined for violating the Labor Secretarys assumption and return-to-work orders, for blocking returning
employees, and for defying the company's return-to-work order of all employees.
5. Upon motion, the Labor Secretary issued a March 9 order for the company to accept the 21 union officers back
to work, without prejudice to the continuation of the investigation. The company agreed to reinstate the union
officers in the payroll and withdrew its notice of lockout, but still placed the officers under preventive
suspension and terminated them after hearing.
6. On June 8, the union and the officers filed a petition to cite the company for contempt, and moved for a
reinstatement order since the company put the union officers under suspension in violation of the Labor
Secretarys return-to-work order, and only reinstated them in the payroll against the Secretarys March 9 order.
7. Secretary Laguesma awarded a wage increase of P48 over 3 years (P15-17 for years 1999-2001)
o denied both MRs, declaring that the petition to cite for contempt was rendered moot and academic
o legality of the officers dismissal falls within original and exclusive jurisdiction of the LA under Art. 217
8. Settlements were reached with individual workers acceptance of the wage award (except for all but two the
union officers) and execution of quitclaims while the unions Rule 65 petition was pending with the CA.
9. The CA affirmed the wage increase award but modified his ruling on the dismissal of the union officers, saying
that jurisdiction over the issue of dismissal of union officers was with the Labor Secretary
o International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. SOLE: the Labor Secretary has jurisdiction over all questions
arising from an assumed dispute, including cases over which the LA has exclusive jurisdiction.
o While the labor dispute initially involved a bargaining deadlock, the dismissal was the result of and is
entertwined with the strike that was the subject of the Labor Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction.
o CA, however, avoided a remand of the case as the 6 officers, out of work for 4 years, would be
inconvenienced by "calvary" of protracted litigation and following justice and equity resolved the
dismissal issue itself by saying that without substantial evidence, the officers were terminated without
 valid and just cause, making their dismissal illegal except for Trinidad who was proven to have
obstructed ingress and egress from company premises.

PETITIONS/ARGUMENTS:

In the first case: The union contends that the CBA wage increases in 1994-1998 ranged from P16/day
to P27/day for every year, that the companys materials sources were unaffected by the financial crisis in the
region, and that the companys financial condition and number one rank should be basis of wage
determination. The Union also seeks a reversal of Trinidads dismissal, which was based solely on the self-
serving affidavits executed by company officers of the company regarding her alleged megaphone message to
striking employees not to return to work. The strike had not been declared illegal and Trinidad was
discriminated in comparison to other employees without a company offer of benefits to settle the dispute.

In the second case: The company seeks to annul the CA rulings on the dismissal issue. It argues that the LA
has jurisdiction to decide legality or illegality of strikes or lockouts pursuant to Article 217; that the Labor
Secretarys authority under Article 263 encompasses only the issues, not the legality or illegality of any strike
that may have occurred in the meantime, or an incidental issue such as a dismissal question which is not
properly submitted to him. The company also says the dismissals were with valid ground, and it had no
opportunity to adduce evidence to that effect (such as malicious mischief charges against 2 officers for stoning
a company vehicle during the strike), especially given the illegal work slowdown without notice of strike.

ISSUES/RATIO:
1. Whether the wage increase of P48/day over 3 years was properYES. The Court said it needed to
balance the award given the companys losses for 1999 and the sufficient support of the non-wage benefits
provided to employees.
o 3 factors considered as justification:
The regional financial crisis and the downturn in the economy at the time, impacting on the
performance of the company as indicated in its negative financial picture in 1999.
The companys favorable comparison with industry standards in terms of employee benefits,
especially wagesthe average daily basic wage of P310.00 is 40% higher than the statutory
minimum wage of P223.50, and superior to the industrys average of P258.00. For the years
prior to the 1999 negotiations, its aggregate daily wage increase of P64.00 surpassed the
statutory minimum increase of P33.00.

The 42 non-wage benefit programs of the company which extend the reach of the employees'
cash wage in enhancing the well-being of the employees and their families
o Amount of award is reasonable: during the pendency of the dispute, the parties entered into a new
CBA for the years 2000-2005, providing for the same P45.00/day wage increase for the workers

2. Whether the dismissal of the union officers was validYES.

o Labor Secretary should have resolved the dismissal issue.
Power to assume jurisdiction: Article 263(g) is both an extraordinary and a preemptive power to
address an extraordinary situation a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the
national interest. This grant is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout
that may have preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or
lockout that in the meanwhile may have taken place. As the term "assume jurisdiction"
connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor Secretary full authority to resolve all matters
within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or lockout; it includes and
extends to all questions and controversies arising from or related to the dispute, including
cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction
Issue submitted to the Labor Secretary: the union filed motion for the issuance of an order for
immediate reinstatement of the dismissed officers and the companys opposition to the motion.
CA should not have resolved the issue: In Marcos-Araneta v. CA it was held that the CA cannot
resolve the merits of the case on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and must confine itself
to the jurisdictional issues raised. SC will rule on the issue in the public interest and in the
expeditious administration of justice.
o Three categories of charges/bases for dismissal of union officers:
the work slowdown during the CBA negotiations
 defiance of the return-to-work orders of the Labor Secretary: first on January 27, 2000 (more
than two months after the union struck on November 18, 1999) and on February 22, 2000. In
decreeing a return-to-work for the second time, the Labor Secretary noted that the Union
continues to strike and block company premises.
illegal acts during the strike such as blocking and preventing the entry of returning employees,
and acts of violence (stoning of a company car) were committed
o Union officers may be dismissed:
Article 264(a), paragraph 3 of the Labor Code provides that "Any union officer who knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status."
In Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC,82 we held that "[t]he law, in using the word
may, grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal
strike as having lost his employment."
o The union officers were responsible for illegal acts:
for violations of Secretary Laguesmas orders and for the slowdown, a form of strike
undertaken by the union without complying with the mandatory legal requirements of a strike
notice and strike vote, which are similarly prohibited activities
illegal concerted actions resulted from a collective decision of the entire union leadership and
constituted a major component of the unions strategy to obtain concessions from the company
management during the CBA negotiations.
a security officer stated that in October 1999, the union members were engaging in a noise-
barrage everyday and when it was time to go back to work at noontime, they would move
slowly around the production area or the toilet discussing; on one day only about 50% of union
members returned to work stations from lunch
Two sewers deposed that in September 1999, all sewers were told by the shop stewards at a
meeting to reduce efficiency below 75%. They proceeded to slow down at pre-production and
early down the production line.

DISPOSITIVE: CA affirmed with modification. Secretary Laguesmas wage increase award and Trinidads dismissal is affirmed;
the dismissal of union officers Figura, Jaicten and Frias is declared valid and for just cause; and Olangars dismissal is declared
illegal, with the CA award sustained in her case.