Sukothai Cuisine vs. CA
Sukothai Cuisine vs. CA
Sukothai Cuisine vs. CA
*
G.R. No. 150437. July 17, 2006.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
337
338
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
_______________
340
_______________
342
_______________
343
_______________
7 CA Rollo, p. 16.
8 Rollo, p. 30.
344
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
xxxx
(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 thirty (30) days before the intended date thereof. In cases
of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be fifteen (15) days and in the
absence of a 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 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.
xxxx
(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 secret ballot in
meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must
be approved by a majority 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. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute 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 the 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. (emphasis supplied)
345
_______________
346
11
application of the coercive processes of a strike. Indeed it
is among the chief policies of the State to promote and
emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and
negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation,
and conciliation,
12
as modes of settling labor, or industrial
disputes.
13
In Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of
Labor, Chief Justice Fernando declared that the principle
behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial
peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law.
Relations between private employers and their employees
rest on an essentially voluntary basis, subject to the
minimum requirements 14
of wage laws and other labor and
welfare legislation.
The alleged dismissals of Lucente and respondent
Lanorias, both union members, which allegedly triggered
the wildcat strike, are not sufficient grounds to justify the
radical recourse on the part of the private respondents. The
questions that surround their dismissal, as private
respondents so affirm, are connected to the alleged breach
of the “guarantee” by the petitioner not to dismiss its
employees during the pendency of the arbitration case, the
very questions which they also link to the other incidents of
unfair labor practices allegedly committed by the petitioner
—these matters should have been raised and resolved in
the voluntary arbitration proceedings that were
commenced precisely to address them. On the other hand,
if private respondents believed that the disciplinary
measures had nothing to
_______________
_______________
348
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
349
VOL. 495, JULY 17, 2006 349
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant vs. Court of Appeals
strike may
20
nonetheless be dispensed with in case of union
busting, the Court finds it unnecessary to discuss the
question at length, especially in view of the foregoing
declaration that the strike is illegal, as well as the
considerations of established doctrine: the language of the
law leaves no room for doubt that the cooling-off period and
the seven-day strike ban after
21
the strike-vote report were
intended to be mandatory, and in case of union busting
where the existence of the union is threatened, it is only
the 15-day cooling-off period that may be dispensed with.
Article 263(f) in part states: “In every case, the union or
the 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.”
This provision should be read with Section 3, Rule XXII,
Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, then
applicable at the time of the dispute, the relevant
provisions of which state:
_______________
350
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
_______________
352
_______________
353
_______________
354
38
lated to cause commotion which 39
affected neighboring
establishments within the mall; openly cursing 40
and
shouting at the president in front of customers and using
loud and abusive language, such as “Putang41 ina niyong
lahat!,” toward the rest of the management 42 as well as
their co-workers who refused to go on strike; physically 43
preventing non-strikers from entering the premises, as
well as deliberately
44
blocking their movements inside45the
restaurant, at times by sharply bumping
46
into them or
through indecent physical contact; openly threatening
non-strikers with bodily47 harm, such as “Pag hindi sila
pumayag, upakan mo!”; and shouting at the security
guard “Granada!” which caused panic among the
customers and prompted security to report a possible 48
death
threat to management and the security agency. In the
determination of the liabilities of the individual
respondents, the applicable provision is Article 264(a) of
the Labor Code:
_______________
355
In Samahang Manggagawa 49
sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU
v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. this Court explained that the effects
of such illegal strikes, outlined in Article 264, make a
distinction between workers and union officers who
participate therein: an ordinary striking worker cannot be
terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike.
There must be proof that he or she committed illegal acts
during a strike. A union officer, on the other hand, may be
terminated from work when he knowingly participates in
an illegal strike, and like other
50
workers, when he commits
an illegal act during a strike. In all cases, the striker must
be identified. But proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required. Substantial evidence available under the
_______________
356
Rank in
Private
Respondent Illegal Acts
Respondent
Union
Emmanuel President Knowingly participating in an
Cayno illegal strike; shouting at the
security guard “Granada!” which
caused panic52
among the
customers; Intimidating,
harassing, preventing, and
discouraging customers from
53
entering the restaurant;
publicly denouncing the reputat
54
ion of the establishment; openly
threatening non-strikers
55
with
bodily harm;
Billy Bacus Vice Knowingly participating in an
President illegal strike; Intimidating,
harassing, preventing, and
discouraging customers from
56
entering the restaurant; use of
abusive language towards 57
management or non-strikers;
deliberately blocking the
movements of management or
non-strikers58 inside the
restaurant;
Analiza Secretary Knowingly participating in an
Cablay illegal strike; Intimidating,
harassing, preventing, and
_______________
357
_______________
358
_______________
359
towards management,
80
non-strikers, or
customers;
Joven Member Intimidating, harassing, preventing,
Lualhati and discouraging customers
81
from
entering the restaurant;
82
Antonio Member Id.
Enebrad
83
Edgar Member Id.; cursing and use of abusive
Eugenio language towards management,
84
non-
strikers, or customers;
Albert Member Intimidating, harassing, preventing,
Agbuya and discouraging customers
85
from
entering the restaurant;
86
Arnel Member Id.
Salvador
87
Ricky Member Id.
Del
Prado
88
Bernie Member Id.
Del
Mundo
89
Roberto Member Id.
Eco
90
Joven Member Id.
Talidong
_______________
360
91
Leny Member Id.; threatening non-strikers with
92
92
Lucente bodily harm;
Rigoberto Member Intimidating, harassing, preventing,
Tubaon and discouraging customers
93
from
entering the restaurant; cursing and
use of abusive language towards
management,94
non-strikers, or
customers;
Merly Member Intimidating, harassing, preventing,
Naz and discouraging customers
95
from
entering the restaurant; cursing and
use of abusive language towards
management,96
non-strikers, or
customers;
Lino Member Preventing and discouraging
Salubre customers from
97
entering the
restaurant;
Rolando Member Preventing and discouraging
Pugong customers from
98
entering the
restaurant;
John Member Intimidating, harassing, preventing,
Bathan and discouraging customers
99
from
entering the restaurant;
_______________
361
——o0o——
362
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.