Neither may the 1987 Constitution be considered to have impliedly repealed

G.R. Nos. 88710-13. December 19, 1990. *

the said Articles considering that there is no showing that said articles are
UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFE), MANUEL L. inconsistent with the said Constitution. Moreover, no court has ever declared
SARMIENTO, BENJAMIN M. ALTAREJOS, RODOLFO D. that the said articles are inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution. "On the
PAGLINAWAN, CARMELITA G. NUQUI, CORAZON Y. SAZON, contrary, the continued validity and operation of Articles 263 and 264 of the
RODRIGO P. LUCAS, RUDOLPH C. ARMAS, EDUARDO A. Labor Code has been recognized by no less than the Congress of the
ABELLA, ANGEL A. CANETE, JUANITO T. CAPILI, ADOLFO S. Philippines when the latter enacted into law R.A. 6715, otherwise known as
CASTILLO, JR., PONCIANO A. CARINGAL, ERIBERTO S. Herrera Law, Section 27 of which amended paragraphs (g) and (i) of Article
LEONARDO, ADELAIDA B. MIRA, EUGENIA C. NUÑEZ, PAZ 263 of the Labor Code.
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Assumption and certification orders are
B. SAN JOSE, VENUSITO S. SOLIS, EMMANUEL S. VILLENA, executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties even
ALFONSO R. RICAFRENTE, MELANIO C. LANTIN, AMADOR during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity.—UFE
M. MONTOJO, RODOLFO M. MUNSOD, RENATO P. DIAZ, completely misses the underlying principle embodied in Art. 264(g) on the
RODRIGO M. URGELLES, CARLOS B. SAN JOSE, EUSTAQUIO settlement of labor disputes and this is, that assumption and certification
E. BUNYI, NELSON P. CENTENO, SOTERO A. GACUTAN, orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the
GUILLERMO G. DE BORJA, DIONISIO H. NIPALES, EUGENIO parties even during the pendency of
398
S. SAN PEDRO, MANUEL DELA FUENTE, CARLO MEDINA,
CESAR B. PONCE, JORGE B. CASTRO, JR., RICARDO
AREVALO, REY M. BEO, FELIX ESGUERRA, REYNALDO 398 SUPREME COURT
ALMENANZA, MELITON C. ROXAS (as represented by his REPORTS ANNOTATED
surviving spouse, MA. CORAZON ROXAS), ROMEO A.
ARANDELA, ISIDRO A. NATIVIDAD, EMILIANO M. SAYAO,
Union of Filipro Employees us.
CELSO J. CENIDO, PAUL C. MEJARES, SILVERIO C. Nestlé Philippines, Inc.
PAMPANG, DIONISIO S. CANLOBO, GILBERT C. NOBLE, any petition questioning their validity. This extraordinary authority
RODOLFO D. CALONGCALONG, SR., PEPITO Q. QUITLONG, given to the Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy
DIONISIO C. COMPLETO, ANTONIO T. AVELINO, ANGELITO solution to labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests. Regardless
therefore of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the striking workers
PAYABYAB, ISAIAS A. RIEZA, DEODITO M. BELARMINO,
must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend to, or undermine this
QUEZON G. MATEO, CARLITO PRE, CIPRIANO P. LUPEBA, authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an assumption and/or certification
EFREN P. DINSAY, WILDON C. BARROS, SUSAN A. BERRO, order is issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore return-to-work orders, citing
MANUEL A. LAVIN, ROY U. BACONGUIS, JEROME T. FIEL, unfair labor practices on the part of the company, to justify their actions.
ANASTACIO G. CABALLERO, JR., ROGELIO E. RAIZ, JOSE T. Same;  Same; Same;  Same; A strike undertaken despite the issuance
ISIDTO, ANGELITO M. ANICIETE, RAUL ROBERTO C. by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a
NANQUIL, LIZA T. VILLANUEVA, CESAR S. CRUZ, prohibited activity, and thus, illegal.—A strike that is undertaken despite the
REYNALDO L. CALIGUIA, ERNESTO M. SOLOMON, OSCAR issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or certification order
becomes a prohibited activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second
G. AGUINALDO, DIEGO P. OLIVA, JAIME D. NILLAS, ELPIDIO
paragraph of Art. 264 of the Labor Code as amended (Zamboanga Wood
A. HERMOCILLA, DANTE L. ESCOSURA, FEDERICO P. Products, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. 82088, October 13, 1989; 178 SCRA 482). The
CONTEMPRATO, LAURO C. MAKILING, RENATO O. Union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their
MINDANAO, RAFAEL C. TURA AND QUINTIN J. PEDRIDO, employment status for having knowingly participated in an illegal act.
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Cooling-off period, mandatory in
_______________ character.—The prescribed mandatory cooling-off period and then 7day strike
and after submission of the report of strike vote at Nestlé's Makati Offices and
*
 FIRST DIVISION. Muntinlupa and Cabuyao Plants were not complied with (NLRC-NCR-12-
4007-85 & NCR-1-295-86), while no notice of strike was filed by respondents
397
when they staged the strike at Nestle's Cagayan de Oro Plant (RABX-2-0047-
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 397 86) contrary to the pertinent provision of Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
Code, emphasizing that "the mandatory character of these cooling-off periods
1990 has already been categorically ruled upon by the Supreme Court."
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé
Philippines, Inc. PETITION to review the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission.
JR., petitioners, vs. NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INC., NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. EDUARDO G.
MAGNO, HON. ZOSIMO T. VASALLO and HON. EVANGELINE The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
S. LUBATON, respondents.      Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Raneses, Sy, Taquio &
Associates for petitioners.
Labor Relations;  Unions; Strikes; Compulsory Arbitration; The      Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for private
power of the Secretary of Labor under Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code, to respondent.
assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute tainted with national interest or to
certify the same for compulsory arbitration, has not been expressly, nor
impliedly repealed.—At the outset, UFE questions the power of the Secretary
MEDIALDEA, J.:
of Labor under Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code to assume jurisdiction over a
labor dispute tainted with national interests, or to certify the same for This petition assails the decision of the NLRC, dated Novem-
compulsory arbitration. UFE contends that Arts. 263 and 264 are based on the 399
1973 Constitution, specifically Sec. 9 of Art. II thereof, the pertinent portion VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 399
of which reads: "Sec. 9. x x x. The State may provide for compulsory
arbitration." (p. 801, Rollo) UFE argues that since the aforecited provision of 1990
Sec. 9 is no longer found in the 1987 Constitution, Arts. 263(g) and 264 of the
Labor Code are now "unconstitutional and must be ignored." We are not Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé
persuaded. We agree with the Solicitor General that on the contrary, both Philippines, Inc.
provisions are still applicable. We quote: "Article 7 of the New Civil Code ber 2,1988 on the consolidated appeals of petitioners, the dispositive
declares that: 'Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or
portion of which provides as follows:
practice to the contrary. x x x.' "In the case at bar, no law has ever been passed
by Congress expressly repealing Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code.
 1. "1.In NLRC Case No. NCR-12-4007-85 and NLRC Case decisions of the Labor Arbiters a quo, declaring illegal the strikes
No. NCR-1-295-86— staged by UFE.
Respondent NLRC premised its decision on the following sets of
1. a.Declaring the strike illegal; facts:
2. b.Declaring the following respondent union officers,
namely; M.L. Sarmiento, B.M. Altarejos, R.D. 1. 1.In NCR 12-4007-85 and NCR 1-295-86:
Paglinawan, C.G. Nuqui, C.Y. Sazon, R. Armas, E.
Abella, A.A. Cañete, A.B. Mira, P.C. Caringal, E. UFE filed a notice of strike on November 14, 1985, (BLR-NS11-344-
Leonardo, E.C. Nuñez, P.D. San Jose, E. Villena, A. 85) with the Bureau of Labor Relations against Filipro (now Nestlé
Ricafrente, M. Lantin, A. Montojo, R. Monsud, R. Diaz, Philippines, Inc., ["Nestlé"]). On December 4,1988, UFE filed a
R. Urgelles, C. San Jose, E. Bunyi, N. Centeno, R. complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) against Nestlé and its
Gacutan, G. de Borja, N. Nipales, E. San Pedro, C. Ponce, officials for violation of the Labor Code (Art. 94) on Holiday Pay,
J. Castro, R. Beo, E. Quino, M. Roxas, R. Arandela, W. non-implementation of the CBA provisions (Labor Management
Ramirez, I. Natividad, S. Pampang, D. Canlobo, R. Corporation scheme), Financial Assistance and other unfair labor
Calong-Calong, G. Noble, E. Sayao, C. Cenido, P. practice (p. 381, Rollo).
Mijares, P. Quitlong, A. Avelino, L. Payabyab, I. Rieza, Acting on Nestlé's petition seeking assumption of jurisdiction
C. Pre, D. Belarmino, to have lost their employment over the labor dispute or its certification to the NLRC for compulsory
status; arbitration, then Minister of Labor and Employment Blas F. Ople
3. c.Ordering the reinstatement of the following respondents- assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued the following order
appellants: Juanito Capili, Carlo Medina, Rodrigo Lucas, on December 11, 1985:
Adolfo Castillo, Jr., Venusito Solis, Ricardo Arevalo, "WHEREFORE, this Office hereby assumes jurisdiction over the labor
Quezon G. Mateo, Jr., Dionisio Completo, Felix Esguerra, dispute at Filipro, Inc. pursuant to Article 264(g) of the Labor Code of the
Manuel dela Fuente and Reymundo Almenanza, to their Philippines, as amended. In line with this assumption a strike, lockout, or any
former or equivalent positions without loss of seniority other form of concerted action such as slowdowns, sitdowns, noise barrages
rights but without backwages; during office hours, which tend to
4. d.Declaring the union (UFE) guilty of unfair labor practice;
401
and
5. e.Dismissing the union complaint for unfair labor practice. VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 401
1990
1. 2.In RAB-X-2-0047-86, the decision sought to be set aside Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé
is AFFIRMED and the individual respondents-appellants
namely: Roy Baconguis, Jerome T. Fiel, Efren P. Dinsay, Philippines, Inc.
Anastacio G. Caballero, Susan E. Berro, Jose T. Isidto, disrupt company operations, are strictly enjoined.
Let a copy of this Order be published in three (3) conspicuous places
Wilson C. Barros, Rogelio E. Raiz, Manuel A. Lavin, inside company premises for strict compliance of all concerned." (p. 381-382,
Cipriano P. Lupeba are hereby declared to have lost their Rollo)
employment status;
2. 3.In NLRC-00-09-0385-87, the challenged decision is On December 20, 1985, UFE filed a petition for certiorari with prayer
likewise AFFIRMED, except as it affects Cesar S. Cruz, for issuance of temporary restraining order, with this Court (G.R. No.
who is ordered reinstated to his former or equivalent 73129) assailing the assumption of jurisdiction by the Minister.
position without backwages." (pp. 417-418, Rollo) Notwithstanding the automatic injunction against any concerted
activity, and an absence of a restraining order, the union members, at
and the resolution dated March 7, 1989, quoted as follows: the instigation of its leaders, and in clear defiance of Minister Ople's
"NLRC CASE NO. NCR-12-4007-85 entitled Union of Filipro Employees Order of December 11, 1985, staged a strike and continued to man
(UFE), Petitioner-Appellants, versus, Filipro, Inc., et al., Respondents- picket lines at the Makati Administrative Office and all of Nestlé's
Appellees, NLRC CASE NO. NCR-1-295-86 entitled Nestlé Phils., Inc., factories and warehouses at Alabang, Muntinlupa, Cabuyao, Laguna,
Petitioner-Appellee, versus, Union of Filipro Employees, et al., Respondents- and Cagayan de Oro City. Likewise, the union officers and members
Appellants, NLRC CASE NO. RAB-X-2- distributed leaflets to employees and passersby advocating a boycott
400
of company products (p. 383, Rollo).
On January 23, 1986, Nestlé filed a petition to declare the strike
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS illegal (NCR-1-295-86) premised on violation of the CBA provisions
ANNOTATED on "no strike/no lockout" clause and the grievance machinery
provisions on settlement of disputes.
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé On January 30, 1986, then Labor Minister Ople issued another
Philippines, Inc. Order, with this disposition:
0047-86 entitled Nestlé Phils., Inc., Petitioner-Appellee, versus, Cagayan de "WHEREFORE, in line with the Order of December 11, 1985, this Office
Oro Filipro Workers Union-WATU, et al., RespondentsAppellants, NCR-00- hereby orders all the striking workers to report for work and the company to
09-0385-87 entitled Union of Filipro Employees (UFE) and its officers, accept them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the work
Complainants-Appellants, versus, Nestlé Phils., et al., Respondents-Appellees. stoppage within forty eight (48) hours from notice of this Order.
The Commission sitting en banc, after deliberation, resolved to rectify par. 3 The Director of Labor Relations is designated to immediately conduct
of the dispositive portion of our November 2,1988 resolution by ordering the appropriate hearings and meetings and submit his recommendations to enable
reinstatement of Quezon G. Mateo, Jr. and Dionisio Completo to their former this Office to decide the issues within thirty (30) days," (p. 383, Rollo)
or equivalent position without backwages and to deny the motion for
reconsideration filed by appellants UFE and its Officials adversely affected by Despite receipt of the second order dated January 30, 1986, and
said resolution." (p. 429, Rollo) knowledge of a notice caused to be published by Nestlé in the
Bulletin on February 1,1986, advising all workers to report to work
In a lengthy and voluminous petition, dwelling largely on facts, not later than February 3, 1986, the officers and members of UFE
petitioner Union of Filipro Employees and 70 union officers and a continued with the strike.
member (henceforth "UFE") maintain that public respondent NLRC On February 4, 1986, the Minister B. Ople denied their
had acted with grave abuse of discretion in its affirmance of the 402
 E. San Pedro, M. de la Fuente, C. Medina, C. Ponce, J. Castro Jr.,
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS R. Arevalo, R. Beo, F. Esguerra, R. Almenanza, E. Quino, M.
ANNOTATED Roxas, R. Arandela, W. Ramirez, I. Natividad, S. Pampang, D.
Canlobo, G. Noble, E. Sayao, C. Cenido, F. Mijares, R.
Union of Filipro Employees us. Nestlé CalongCalong, P. Quitlong, D. Completo, A. Avelino, L.
Philippines, Inc. Payabyab, I. Rieza, D. Belarmino, Q. Mateo, and C. Pre to have
lost their employment status.
motion for reconsideration of the return-to-work order portion as 3. "3.Declaring the union guilty of unfair labor practice; and
follows: 4. "4.Dismissing the Union complaint for unfair labor practice." (pp.
'WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied and no 380-381, Rollo)
further motion of similar nature shall be entertained.
"The parties are further enjoined from committing acts that will disrupt
the peaceful and productive relations between the parties while the dispute is 1. 2.In RAB-X-2-0047-86:
under arbitration as well as acts considered illegal by law for the orderly
implementation of this Order like acts of coercion, harassment, blocking of
public thoroughfares, ingress and egress to company premises for lawful Filipro (Nestlé) and the Cagayan de Oro Filipro Workers Union-
purposes or those undertaken without regard to the rights of the other party. WATU, renewed a 3-year contract, made effective from December 1,
"Police and military authorities are requested to assist in the proper and 1984 up to June 30, 1987. Petitioners signed the CBA as the duly-
effective implementation of this Order." (p. 384, Rollo) elected officers of the Union.
404
UFE defied the Minister and continued with their strike. Nestlé filed 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
criminal charges against those involved.
On March 13, 1986, the new Minister of Labor and Employment, ANNOTATED
Augusto B. Sanchez, issued a Resolution, the relevant portions of Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé
which stated thus:
"This Office hereby enjoins all striking workers to return-to-work Philippines, Inc.
immediately and management to accept them under the same terms and On January 19, 1985, the union officers, together with other members
conditions prevailing previous to the work stoppage except as qualified in this of the union sent a letter to Workers Alliance Trade Unions (WATU),
resolution. The management of Nestlé Philippines is further directed to grant a advising them "that henceforth we shall administer the CBA by
special assistance as suggested by this Ministry in an order dated 30 January ourselves and with the help of the Union of Filipro Employees (UFE)
1986 to all striking employees covered by the bargaining units at Makati,
to where we have allied ourselves." WATU disregarded the unions's
Alabang, Cabuyao and Cagayan de Oro City in an amount equivalent to their
weighted average monthly basic salary, plus the cash conversion value of the advice, claiming to be the contracting party of the CBA. UFE filed a
vacation leave credits for the year 1986, payable not later than five (5) days petition (Case No. CRD-M-88-326-85) for administration of the
from the date of the actual return to work by the striking workers." (p. existing CBAs at Cebu, Davao and Cagayan de Oro bargaining units
385, Rollo) against TUPAS and WATU.
From January 22, 1986 to March 14, 1986, the rank and file
On March 17, 1986, the strikers returned to work. employees of the company staged a strike at the instigation of the
On March 31, 1986, We granted UFE's Motion to Withdraw its UFE officers, who had represented themselves as officers.
Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 73129) (p. 385, Rollo). Nestlé filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. The strikers
On April 23, 1986, Minister Sanchez rendered a Decision, the countered that their strike was legal because the same was staged
dispositive portion of which reads: pursuant to the notice of strike filed by UFE on November 14, 1985
"WHEREFORE, the Union charge for unfair labor practices is hereby (BLR-NS-11-344-85), of which they claim to be members, having
dismissed for want of merit. Nestlé Philippines is hereby di-
disaffiliated themselves from CDO-FWUWATU.
403 On November 24, 1987, Executive Labor Arbiter Zosimo
Vasallo issued his decision, disposing as follows:
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 403 "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1990
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé 1. "1.Declaring the strike illegal;
2. "2.Declaring respondent union guilty of unfair labor practice; and
Philippines, Inc. 3. "3.Declaring the following individual respondent Union officers
rected to make good its promise to grant an additional benefit in the form of namely: Roy Y. Baconguis, Jerome T. Fiel, Efren P. Dinsay,
bonus equivalent to one (1) month's gross compensation to all employees Anastacio G. Caballero, Susan E. Berro, Jose T. Isidto, Wilson
entitled to the same in addition to the one-month weighted average pay C. Barros, Rogelio E. Raiz, Manuel A. Lavin and Cipriano P.
granted by this office in the return-to-work Order." (p. 786, Rollo) Lupeba to have lost their employment status." (p. 388, Rollo)

On June 6, 1986, Minister Sanchez modified the foregoing decision

as follows: 1. 3.In NCR-00-09-03285-87
"WHEREFORE, our 23 April 1986 Decision is hereby modified as follows:
"1. Nestlé Philippines is directed to pay the Anniversary bonus equivalent 1. (a)On August 13, 1986, UFE, its officers and members
to one month basic salary to all its employees in lieu of the one month gross staged a walkout from their jobs, and participated in the
compensation previously ordered by this office." (p. 787, Rollo) Welga ng Bayan. Nestlé filed a petition to declare the
On November 13, 1987, after trial on the merits, Labor walkout illegal (NLRC Case No. SRB-IV-1831-87) (p.
Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno issued his decision, disposing as follows: 392, Rollo);
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: 2. (b)On September 21,1986, complainants (UFE) again did
not proceed to their work, but joined the picket line in
sympathy
1. "1.Declaring the strike illegal.
2. "2.Declaring all the respondent union officers, namely: M.L.
Sarmiento, R.M. Alterejos, R.D. Paglinawan, C.G. Nuqui, C.Y. 405
Sazon, R. Lucas, R. Armas, E. Abella, A.A. Cañete, J.T. Capili, VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 405
A.S. Castillo, Jr., P.C. Caringal, E. Leonardo, E.B. Mira, E.C.
Nuñez, P.D. San Jose, V. Solis, E. Villena, A. Ricafrente, M. 1990
Lantin, A. Mortojo, R. Munsod, R. Diaz, R. Urgelles, C. San
Jose, E. Bunyi, N. Centeno, R. Gacutan, G. de Borja, N. Nipales, Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé
 Cabuyao factories became the subject of two separate
Philippines, Inc.
petitions to declare the strike illegal (NCR-Case No. 00-
09-03168-87 and SRB-IB-9-1903-87, respectively) (p.
1. with the striking workers of Southern Textile Mills, which 408, Rollo);
became the subject of an Illegal Strike Petition (NLRC 4. (1)On September 8, 1987, Hon. F. Drilon issued the
Case SRB-IV-11831-87) (p. 392, Rollo); following order:
2. (c)On November 12, 1986, UFE its officers and members
just left their work premises and marched towards "All the workers are hereby directed to return to work immediately, refrain
Calamba in a demonstration over the slaying of a labor from resorting to any further slowdown, sitdown strike, walkout and any other
leader, x x x hence a complaint for Illegal Walkout kind of activities that may tend to disrupt the normal operations of the
(NLRC Case No. SRB-IV-183387) was filed by Nestlé company. The company is directed to accept all employees and to resume
(p. 392, Rollo); normal operations.
3. (d)On December 4,1986, UFE filed a Notice of Strike with Parties are likewise directed to cease and desist from committing any and
the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR-NS-12-531-86) (to all acts that would aggravate the situation." (p. 394, Rollo)
protest the unfair labor practices of Nestlé, such as hiring
of contractual workers to perform regular jobs and wage 1. (m)Despite the order, UFE staged a strike on September 11,
discrimination) (p. 392, Rollo); 1987, without notice of strike, strike vote and in blatant
4. (e)On December 23, 1986, then Minister Augusto S. defiance of then Labor Minister Sanchez's certification
Sanchez certified the labor dispute to the Commission for order dated November 23, 1986 and Secretary Drilon's
compulsory arbitration, strictly enjoining any intended or return-to-work order dated September 8, 1987." (p.
actual strike or lockout (p. 392, Rollo); 409, Rollo);
5. (f)On August 18, 1987, UFE union officers and members at 2. (n)Nestlé sent individual letter of termination dated
the Cabuyao factory again abandoned their jobs and just September 14, 1987 dismissing them from the service
walked out, leaving unfinished products on line and raw effective immediately for knowingly instigating and
materials leading to their spoilage. The walk-out resulted participating in an illegal strike, defying the order of the
in economic losses to the company. Nestlé filed a Petition Secretary of Labor, dated September 8, 1987, and other
to Declare the Walkout Illegal. (NLRC Case No. SRB- illegal acts (pp. 394-395, Rollo).
IV-3-1898-87) (p. 407, Rollo);
6. (g)On August 21, 1987, UFE union officers and members On September 22, 1987, UFE filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal,
at the Alabang factory also left their jobs in sympathy ULP and damages (NLRC NCR-00-03285-87). Labor Arbiter
with the walkout staged by their Cabuyao counterparts. Evangeline Lubaton ruled on both issues of dismissal
Nestlé filed again a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal 407
(NLRC-NCR-Case No. 00-08-03003-87) (p. 407, Rollo);
7. (h)On August 27, 1987, UFE union members at the VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 407
Alabang and Cabuyao factories, in disregard of the 1990
Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the Union Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé
and Management on August 21, 1987, (to exert their best
efforts for the normalization of production targets and Philippines, Inc.
standards and to consult each other on any matter that and strike legality, upon the premise that the issue on validity of the
may tend to disrupt production to attain industrial peace) dismissal of the individual complainants from employment "depends
participated in an indignation rally in Cabuyao because of on the resolution of the issue on whether or not the strike declared by
the death of two (2) members of PAMANTIC, and in complainants was illegal."
Alabang because one of their members was allegedly The decision dated January 12,1988, disposed as follows:
mauled by a policeman during the nationwide strike on "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
August 26, 1987 (p. 408, Rollo);
1. 1.Dismissing the instant complaint for lack of merit; and
406 2. 2.Confirming the dismissal of all individual complainants herein as
valid and legally justified." (p. 376, Rollo)
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED UFE appealed, assailing the three decisions, except that rendered in
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé Case No. NLRC-NCR-12-4007-85 (Complaint for Unfair Labor
Practice Against UFE) "because it was already rendered moot and
Philippines, Inc. academic by the return to work agreement and order dated March 10
and 13, 1986, respectively." (p. 49, Rollo) Upon UFE's subsequent
1. (i)On September 4, 1987, around 6:00 P.M. all sections at motion, the three appeals were ordered consolidated and elevated to
the Alabang factory went on a 20-minute mealbreak the NLRC en banc (p, 95, Rollo).
simultaneously, contrary to the agreement and despite The NLRC affirmed the unanimous decisions of the three labor
admonition of supervisors, resulting in complete stoppage arbiters which declared the strikes illegal, premised on the view that
of their production lines. Responsible officials namely: "the core of the controversy rests upon the legality of the strikes."
Eugenio San Pedro, Carlos Jose, and Cesar Ponce, were In the petition before Us, UFE assigns several errors (pp.
suspended from work for six (6) days without pay (p. 63321, Rollo), which We have summarized as follows:
408, Rollo);
2. (j)From September 5 to 8, 1987, at the instigation of UFE 1. 1.that Articles 263 and 264 are no longer good laws, since
union officers, all workers staged a sitdown strike; and compulsory arbitration has been curtailed under the
3. (k)On September 7, 1987, Cabuyao's culinary section's present Constitution.
union members sympathized with the sitdown strike at 2. 2.that the question on the legality of the strike was rendered
Alabang, followed at 12:30 P.M. by the whole personnel moot and academic when Nestlé management accepted
of the production line and certain areas in the Engineering the striking workers in compliance with the return-to-
Department. These sitdown strikes at the Alabang and work order of then Minister of Labor Augusto Sanchez
 dated March 13, 1986, (citing the case of Bisayan Land said Constitution. Moreover, no court has ever declared that the said articles
Transportation Co. v. CIR (102 Phil. 439) and affirmed in are inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.
the case of Feati University Faculty Club (PAFLU) v. "On the contrary, the continued validity and operation of Articles 263 and
264 of the Labor Code has been recognized by no less than the Congress of
Feati University, G.R. No. L-31503, August 15, 1974, 58
the Philippines when the latter enacted into law R.A. 6715, otherwise known
SCRA 395). as Herrera Law, Section 27 of which amended paragraphs (g) and (i) of
3. 3.that the union did not violate the no-strike/no lockout Article 263 of the Labor Code.
clause, considering that the prohibition applies to eco "At any rate, it must be noted that Articles 263 (g) and 264 of the Labor
Code have been enacted pursuant to the police power of the State, which has
408 been defined as the power inherent in a Government to enact laws, within
constitutional limits, to promote the order, safety, health, morals and general
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS welfare of society (People vs. Vera Reyes, 67 Phil. 190). The police power,
ANNOTATED together with the power of eminent domain and the power of taxation, is an
inherent power of government and does not need to be expressly conferred by
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé the Constitution. Thus, it is submitted that the argument of petitioners that
Articles 263 (g) and 264 of the Labor Code do not have any constitutional
Philippines, Inc. foundation is legally inconsequential." (pp. 801-803, Rollo)

1. nomic strikes, pursuant to Philippine Metal Foundries v. On the issue of the legality of the strike committed, UFE seeks to
CIR, G.R. No. L-34948-49, May 15, 1979, 90 SCRA 135. absolve itself by pointing out qualifying factors such as motives,
UFE, it is claimed, premised their strike on a violation of good faith, absence of findings on specific participation and/or
the labor standard laws or non-payment of holiday pay, liability, and limiting the no-strike provision to economic strikes.
which is, in effect, a violation of the CBA. UFE completely misses the underlying principle embodied in
2. 4.on the commission of illegal and prohibited acts which Art. 264(g) on the settlement of labor disputes and this is, that
automatically rendered the strike illegal, UFE claimed assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are
that there were no findings of specific acts and identities to be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency
of those participating as to render them liable (ESSO of any petition questioning their validity. This extraordinary authority
Phils. v. Malayang Manggagawa sa ESSO, G.R. No. L- given to the Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and
36545, January 26, 1977, 75 SCRA 72; Shell Oil Workers speedy solution to labor
410
Union v. CIR, G.R. No. L-28607, February 12, 1972, 43
SCRA 224). By holding the officers liable for the illegal 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
acts of coercion, or denial of free ingress and egress, ANNOTATED
without specifying and finding out their specific
participation therein, the Labor Arbiter resorted to Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé
the principle of vicarious liability which has since been Philippines, Inc.
discarded in the case of Benguet Consolidated v. disputes, without jeopardizing national interests.
CIR, G.R. No. L-24711, April 30, 1968, 23 SCRA 465. Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their
claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all
We agree with the Solicitor General that the petition failed to show acts that tend to, or undermine this authority of the Secretary of
that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its affirmance Labor, once an assumption and/or certification order is issued. They
of the decisions of the Labor Arbiters a quo. cannot, for instance, ignore return-towork orders, citing unfair labor
At the outset, UFE questions the power of the Secretary of Labor practices on the part of the company, to justify their actions. Thus, the
under Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code to assume jurisdiction over a NLRC in its decision, re-emphasized the nature of a return-to-work
labor dispute tainted with national interests, or to certify the same for order within the context of Art. 264(g) as amended by BP Nos. 130
compulsory arbitration. UFE contends that Arts. 263 and 264 are and 227:
based on the 1973 Constitution, specifically Sec. 9 of Art. II thereof, "x x x
the pertinent portion of which reads: "One other point that must be underscored is that the return-towork order
is issued pending the determination of the legality or illegality of the strike. It
"Sec. 9. x x x. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration." (p. 801,
is not correct to say that it may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may
Rollo)
be disregarded if the strike is illegal, for the purpose precisely is to maintain
UFE argues that since the aforecited provision of Sec. 9 is no longer the status quo while the determination is being made. Otherwise, the workers
who contend that their strike is legal can refuse to return to work to their work
found in the 1987 Constitution, Arts. 263(g) and 264 of the Labor and cause a standstill on the company operations while retaining the positions
Code are now "unconstitutional and must be ignored." they refuse to discharge or allow the management to fill. Worse, they will also
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Solicitor General that claim payment for work not done, on the ground that they are still legally
on the contrary, both provisions are still applicable. employed although actually engaged in the activities inimical to their
We quote: employer's interest. (Italics supplied)
409 "This is like eating one's cake and having it too, and at the expense of the
management. Such an unfair situation surely was not contemplated by our
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 409 labor laws and cannot be justified under the social justice policy, which is a
1990 policy of fairness to both labor and management. Neither can this unseemly
arrangement be sustained under the due process clause as the order, if thus
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé interpreted, would be plainly oppressive and arbitrary.
Philippines, Inc. "x x x" (p. 415, Rollo)
"Article 7 of the New Civil Code declares that:
'Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non- Also, in the cases of Sarmiento v. Judge Tuico, (G.R. No. 75271-
observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary. 73; Asian Transmission Corporation v. National Labor Relations
x x x.' Commission, G.R. 77567, 27 June 88,162 SCRA 676). We stated:
"The return to work order does not so much confer a right as it imposes a
"In the case at bar, no law has ever been passed by Congress expressly duty; and while as a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a duty
repealing Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. Neither may the 1987 even against the worker's will. Returning to work in this situation is not a
Constitution be considered to have impliedly repealed the said Articles matter of option or voluntariness but of
considering that there is no showing that said articles are inconsistent with the
411
 VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 411 committed by the respondent officials and members of
either UFE or WATU. It is well-settled that a strike
1990 conducted in this manner is illegal (United Seamen's
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé Union vs. Davao Shipowners Association, 20 SCRA
1226). In fact, criminal cases were filed with the Makati
Philippines, Inc. Fiscal's Office (p. 402, Rollo).
obligation. The worker must return to his job together with his coworkers so
the operations of the company can be resumed and it can continue serving the
public and promoting its interest." Thus, the NLRC correctly upheld the illegality of the strikes and the
corresponding dismissal of the individual complainants because of
We also wish to point out that an assumption and/or certification their "brazen disregard of successive lawful orders of then Labor
order of the Secretary of Labor automatically results in a return-to- Ministers Blas F. Ople, Augusto Sanchez and Labor Secretary
work of all striking workers, whether or not a corresponding order Franklin Drilon dated December 11, 1985, January 30, 1986 and
has been issued by the Secretary of Labor. Thus, the striking workers February 4, 1986, respectively, and the cavalier treatment of the
erred when they continued with their strike alleging absence of a provisions of the Labor Code and the return-towork orders of the
return-to-work order. Article 264(g) is clear. Once an Minister (now Secretary) of Labor and Employment, or Articles 264
assumption/certification order is issued, strikes are enjoined, or if one and 265 (now renumbered Arts. 263 and 264), providing in part as
has already taken place, all strikers shall immediately return to work. follows:
A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary "ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts.—
of Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited xxx      xxx      xxx
activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Art. 264 "(g) When in his opinion there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause
strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest, such as may occur in but not
of the Labor Code as amended (Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. v. limited to public utilities, companies engaged in the generation or distribution of energy,
NLRC, G.R. 82088, October 13, 1989; 178 SCRA 482). The Union banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries including those within export processing
officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their zones, the Minister of Labor and Employment shall assume jurisdiction over the dispute
and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory
employment status for having knowingly participated in an illegal
act. 413
The NLRC also gave the following reasons:
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 19, 413
1. 1.The strike was staged in violation of the existing CBA
1990
provisions on "No Strike/No Lockout Clause" stating that Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé
a strike, which is in violation of the terms of the collective Philippines, Inc.
bargaining statement, is illegal, especially when such arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically
terms provide for conclusive arbitration clause (Liberal enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or
Labor Union vs. Phil. Can Co., 91 Phil. 72; Phil. Airlines certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or
certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and
vs. PAL Employees Association, L-8197, October 31, the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the
1958). The main purpose of such an agreement is to same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Minister may seek
prevent a strike and it must, therefore, be adhered to the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as
strictly and respected if their ends are to be achieved (pp. well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same. (Italics supplied)
"The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not be
397-398, Rollo). precluded from determining the industries wherein (sic) his opinion labor disputes may
2. 2.Instead of exhausting all the steps provided for in the adversely affect the national interest, and from intervening at any time and assuming
grievance machinery provided for in the collective jurisdiction over any labor dispute adversely affecting the national interest in order to
settle or terminate the same.
bargaining agreement to resolve the dispute amicably and xxx      xxx      xxx
harmoniously within the plant level, UFE went on strike
(p. 398, Rollo). ART. 264. Prohibited activities.—
3. 3.The prescribed mandatory cooling-off period and then 7- (a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first
having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first
day strike and after submission of the report of having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or
lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
412 No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the
President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for
the strike or lockout. " ([pp. 399-401, Rollo]) (Italics supplied)
ANNOTATED
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestlé On the alleged lack of jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter Lubaton, NLRC
has clarified that the question on the legality of strike was properly
Philippines, Inc. resolved by the Labor Arbiter, not only because the question is
perfectly within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
1. strike vote at Nestlé's Makati Offices and Muntinlupa and Arbiter to adjudicate, but also because the issue was not subsumed by
Cabuyao Plants were not complied with (NLRC-NCR- the Order of Labor Minister Sanchez, dated December 23, 1986,
124007-85 & NCR-1-295-86), while no notice of strike certifying the Notice of Strike dated December 4, 1986 for
was filed by respondents when they staged the strike at compulsory arbitration, further clarifying that the issue of whether or
Nestlé's Cagayan de Oro Plant (RABX-2-0047-86) not the strike staged on September 11, 1987 by UFE and its officials
contrary to the pertinent provision of Articles 263 and 264 and members was illegal is a prejudicial question to the issue of
of the Labor Code, emphasizing that "the mandatory whether or not the
character of these cooling-off periods has already been 414
categorically ruled upon by the Supreme Court" (National 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. Ovejera, et al., ANNOTATED
114 SCRA 354) (p. 402, Rollo).
2. 4.In carrying out the strike, coercion, force, intimidation, Union of Filipro Employees vs. NLRC
violence with physical injuries, sabotage, and the use of complainants were illegally dismissed. We shall not belabor the issue
unnecessary and obscene language or epithets were any further.
 ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED, and the decision
of public respondent NLRC, dated November 2,1988, and its
Resolution, dated March 7, 1989, are both AFFIRMED in their
entirety. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
     Narvasa (Chairman), Gancayco and Griño-Aquino,
JJ., concur.
     Cruz, J., No part. Related to one of the counsel.

Petition dismissed. Decision and resolution affirmed.

Note.—A strike which continued despite its certification for
arbitration violates PD 823. (Arica vs. Ministry of Labor, 137 SCRA
267.)

——o0o——