8/18/2019 SMC v NLRC (2003)

1/2

SMC v. NLRC (2003)Petitioner: San Miguel CorporationRespondent: Ilaw at u!lod ng Manggagawa (IM)" NLRCPonente: #$C%N#" &.:

'CRIN*: Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collectivebargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly adhered

to and respected if their ends have to be achieved.

+#CS:1. San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and law at !uklod ng Manggagawa

(!M)" e#clusive bargaining agent of SMC$s daily%paid rank and fileemployees" e#ecuted a Collective !argaining &greement (C!&) under which they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance (friendlynegotiation) and arbitration proceedings.a. The C!& also included a no%strike no%lockout agreement.

'. !M" through its " &lfredo Colomeda" filed with *ational Conciliationand Mediation !oard (*CM!) a notice of strike against SMC for allegedly committing+ (1) illegal dismissal of union members" (') illegal

transfer" (,) violation of C!&" (-) contracting out of obs beingperformed by union members" (/) labor%only contracting" (0)harassment of union officers and members" () non%recognition of duly%elected union officers" and (2) other acts of unfair labor practice.

,. The ne#t day" !M filed another notice of strike" this time through itspresident 3dilberto 4alve5" raising similar grounds.

-. SMC filed a Motion for Severance of *otices of Strike with Motion to6ismiss" on the grounds that the notices raised non%strikeable issuesand that they affected - corporations" which are separate and distinctfrom each other (Magnolia%*estle" San Miguel 7oods" San Miguel 8uices).a. *CM! 6irector+ real issues involved are non%strikeable.b. Thus" he issued separate letter%orders to both union groups"

converting their notices of strike into preventive mediation./. ending the separate preventive mediation conferences" the Colomeda

group filed with the *CM! a notice of holding a strike vote.a. SMC opposed by filing a Manifestation and Motion to 6eclare

*otice of Strike ote llegal" invoking the case of &9 v. 6rilon"which held that no strike could be legally declared during thependency of preventive mediation.

b. *CM! 6irector+ grounds raised are intra%union conflict and thusnon%strikeable.

0. The 4alve5 group filed its second notice of strike against SMC" settingforth additional grounds including discrimination" coercion of employees" illegal lockout and illegal closure.

a. The *CM!+ consolidate 'nd

 notice with 1st

notice: same grounds

b. The group likewise notified the *CM! of its intention to hold astrike vote. ;esult of strike vote < to hold strike: notified *CM!

. *CM! issued a letter again advising !M that their notice of strike isdeemed not to have been filed" invalidating any subse=uent strike for lack of compliance with the notice re=uirement (&9 v. 6rilon).

2. 'espite t,is and pending t,e preventive -ediation proeedings"IM went on stri!e resulting to SMC$s losses allegedly '>.>2 M.

>. SMC filed with *9;C an amended etition for nunction with prayer for 

T;?" 7ree ngress and 3gress ?rder and 6eputi5ation ?rder.a. T;? was granted" without preudice to the unions right to peacefulpicketing and continuous hearings on the inunction case.

1@. To minimi5e further damage to itself" SMC entered into a Memorandumof &greement (M?&) with !M" calling for a lifting of the picket lines andresumption of work in e#change of good faith talks between themanagement and the labor management committees.a. M?&+ cases filed in relation to their dispute will continue and will

not be affected in any manner whatsoever by the agreement. Thepicket lines ended" work resumed.

11. !M M; the issuance of T;? and sought to dismiss the inunction casea. Since picketing activities have ended as a result of the signed

M?&" case becomes moot and academic: no more prohibitedactivities to restrain" be they actual or threatened.

b. SMC opposed and submitted flyers being circulated by !M" asproof of the unions alleged threat to revive the strike.

c. *9;C denied the petition for inunction for lack of factual basis. tfound that the circumstances at the time did not constitute or nolonger constituted an actual or threatened commission of unlawfulacts. t likewise denied SMC$s motion for reconsideration.

ISS%*S: A?* SMC$s petition for inunction against !M should prosper 

R%LIN/ R#I: 1*S

1. 4;+ &rticle '/- of the 9abor Code provides that no temporary or permanent inunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity3B+ as otherwise provided in &rticles '12 and '0- of the 9abor Code.

a. &rticle '12 (e) e#pressly confers upon the *9;C the power toenoin or restrain actual and threatened commission of any or allprohibited or unlawful acts" or to re=uire the performance of aparticular act in any labor dispute which" if not restrained or performed forthwith" may cause grave or irreparable damage toany party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party.

b. &rt. '0- on the other hand" enumerates the prohibited activities

performed by employers or labor organi5ations.

8/18/2019 SMC v NLRC (2003)

2/2

'. ursuant to &rticle '12 (e)" SMC was orret w,en it used t,eoerive -easure o inuntion to restrain an atual or t,reatenedunlawul stri!e 45 t,e IM. & strike is considered as the most effectiveweapon in protecting the rights of the employees to improve the termsand conditions of their employment. owever" to be valid" a strike mustbe pursued within legal bounds.

9934&9 ST;D3 E ;33*T?* ?7 4;&3 6&M&43 F 8GST7H

*8G*CT3 ;3937

,. ?ne of the procedural re=uisites that &rticle '0, of the 9abor Code andits mplementing ;ules prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strikewith the *CM!. mposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntarysettlement of disputes" this re=uirement has been held to be-andator5" the lack of which shall render a strike illegal.

-. n the present case" *CM! converted !Ms notices into preventivemediation as it found that the real issues raised are non%strikeable.

a. Such order is in pursuance of the *CM!s duty to e#ert all effortsat mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to settle thedispute amicably" and in line with the state policy of favoringvoluntary modes of settling labor disputes.

b. n accordance with the mplementing ;ules of the 9abor Code"the said conversion (of notices to strike to preventive mediation)has the effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed by !M.

/. Thus" w,en t,e NCM ordered t,e preventive -ediation" IM ,adlost t,e noties o stri!e it ,ad iled. owever" it still defiantlyproceeded with the strike while mediation was ongoing" andnotwithstanding the letter%advisories of *CM! warning it of its lack of notice of strike.

6. Su, disregard o t,e -ediation proeedings was a 4latantviolation o t,e I-ple-enting Rules" w,i, e7pliitl5 o4lige t,eparties to 4argain olletivel5 in good ait, and pro,i4it t,e- ro-i-peding or disrupting t,e proeedings.

. &t the time the inunction was being sought" t,ere e7isted a t,reat torevive t,e unlawul stri!e  as evidened 45 t,e l5ers  then beingcirculated by the !M%*C; Council which led the union.

a. 7lyers+ paalala nyo sa management na hindi iniaatras ang ating*otice of Strike (*?S) at anumang oras ay pwede nating mulingitirik ang picket line.

2. Moreover" according to &rticle '0-(a)" a declaration of strike withoutfirst having filed the re=uired notice is a prohibited activity" which maybe prevented through an inunction in accordance with &rticle '/-.*9;C should have granted the inunctive relief to prevent the gravedamage brought about by the unlawful strike.

C!& ;?S?*S ?* 4;3&*C3 &*6 &;!T;&T?* < M&*6&T?;H

>. &lso" *9;C disregarded SMC$s argument pointing out the union$sfailure to observe C!& provisions on grievance and arbitration" whichare considered as mandatory.

a. SMC was willing to negotiate with the union by seeking for anorder from the *9;C to compel observance of the grievance andarbitration proceedings.

b. !M however resorted to force without e#hausting all availablemeans within its reach.

c. Such infringement of the C!& provisions constitutes further  ustification for the issuance of an inunction against the strike.

80. Stri!es ,eld in violation o t,e ter-s ontained in a olletive4argaining agree-ent are illegal espeiall5 w,en t,e5 provide or onlusive ar4itration lauses. ,ese agree-ents -ust 4e stritl5ad,ered to and respeted i t,eir ends ,ave to 4e a,ieved.

ISMC alleged also a violation of the no%strike provision in the C!& by !M.

• 8urisprudence has enunciated that such clauses only bar strikes which are

economic in nature" but not strikes grounded on unfair labor practices.

• The notices filed in the case at bar alleged unfair labor practices" the initial

determination of which would entail fact%finding that is best left for the labor arbiters.

• *evertheless" our finding herein of the invalidity of the notices of strike

dispenses with the need to discuss this issue.

'ISPSIIN: A3;37?;3" the instant petition is hereby 4;&*T36.The decision and resolution of the *9;C in nunction Case *o. @@-02%>-are ;33;S36 and S3T &S63. etitioner and private respondent arehereby directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration proceedings asprescribed in their C!&" if necessary. *o pronouncement as to costs.