PHIMCO Industries Inc., v PHIMCO Industries Labor Association (PILA) et al.

GR No. 1!"#!$ Au%ust 11, &!1!$ 'rion (,

)*ort +acts,-octrine. Due to deadlock on economic provisions during the negotiation for the renewal of their
CBA, PILA staged a strike. The strike actuall complied with procedural re!uirements laid down in the la"or
code and the strike, which was accompanied " a picket, was not attended " actual violence. B#T, strikers
prevented entr into P$I%C&'s premises through the moving picket and human "lockade.
$(LD) Despite the validit of purpose of strike and compliance with procedural re!uirements, a stri/e 0a1 be
*eld ille%al i+ M2AN) 2MPLO32- are ILL2GAL. *trike though seemingl peaceful, is still tainted with
illegalit if it prevents ingress to or egress from the compan premises.
4acts.
P$I%C& is a corporation engaged in the production of matches. P$I%C& Industries La"or Association
+PILA, is the *(BA of P$I%C&'s dail-paid workers. The ./ individuall named respondents are PILA's
officers and mem"ers.
The CBA "etween P$I%C& and PILA was a"out to e0pire so "oth negotiated for its renewal. $owever,
it resulted in a deadlock on economic issues +salar increases, "enefits,
%arch 1, 2113) PILA filed with the 4C%B a Notice o+ )tri/e on %rounds o+ bar%ainin% deadloc/.
da1s later, it conducted a stri/e vote where ma5orit of PILA mem"ers voted for strike. After a da, t*e
results 5ere +iled with 4C%B. 6"asicall, procedure was followed7
April 82, 2113 +93 das later, : PILA sta%ed a stri/e.
P$I%C& filed with 4L;C a petition for preliminar in5uction and T;& to en5oin PILA from preventing
ingress and egress of non-striking ((s, which was granted. +T;& effective for 8< das) %a 23-=une 3,
2113,
=une 89, 2113) P$I%C& sent a letter to 9> union mem"ers to e0plain wh the should not "e
dismissed for committing illegal acts during the strike. Then, 9 das later, the were dismissed.
=ul >) PILA then filed a complaint for #LP and Illegal dismissal with 4L;C +raffled to LA (spiritu,
+#LP?Dismissal CA*(,
=ul /) Acting *&L( Brillantes assu0ed 6urisdiction and issued a return to work order. PILA on t*e
sa0e da1, ended its stri/e.
PHIMCO +iled a 7etition to declare t*e stri/e ille%al, plus dismissal of officers and mem"ers who
knowingl participated therein. +*T;I@( CA*(,
o *trikers prevented ingress to and egress from P$I%C& compound paralAing P$I%C&'s ops.
)8RI92 CA)2 LA.
o +LA %aor who decided, )tri/e 5as ILL2GAL.
*trikers "locked ingress to and egress fromB PILA officers and mem"ers L&*T their
emploment status.
o NLRC. ;elied on PILA's evidence and set aside LA's decision. PILA picketed peacefull and did
not o"struct points of entr and e0it to P$I%C&'s compound.
:LP,-is0issal case.
o LA (spiritu) dismissal ILL(CAL, workers reinstated D "ackwages.
o NLRC) affirmed. (('s were not given ample opportunit to e0plain themselves.
CA. +on petition for certiorari ;.>3 " P$I%C&, Affirmed 4L;C.
Issues.
E&4 the strike was L(CAL : 4&.
Ratio.
Despite validit of purpose of strike and compliance with procedural re!uirements a stri/e 0a1 be *eld ille%al
i+ M2AN) 2MPLO32- are ILL2GAL.
A strike is the most powerful weapon of workers in their struggle to set the terms and conditions of their
emploment with management. A strike must "e e0ercised responsi"l and alwas rest on rational "asis. *ince
a strike affects not onl the relationship "etween la"or and management "ut also general peace and progress
of societ, law provided limitations on right to strike.
Procedurall, a strike must compl with Art 8>1 of LC to "e valid) 2, 4otice of strike to D&L( 9< das
"efore strike +23 if #LP, - Cooling off period to amica"l resolve the disputeB 8, *trike vote +ma5orit of
total union mem"ership in Bargaining unit,B and 9, 4otice of results to D&L( at least / das "efore
strike +/ da strike "an, - To give D&L( opportunit to verif is strike carries imprimatur of the ma5orit
of union mem"ers
*aid re!uirements are MAN-A8OR3, and union;s 4AIL:R2 to COMPL3 renders t*e stri/e
ILL2GAL.
In t*e 7resent case, PILA 4:LL3 )A8I)4I2- t*e le%al 7rocedure re<uire0ents. HO=2>2R AR8 &!(e)
provides that no person picketing shall commit an act of violence coercion, or inti0idation or obstruct t*e
+ree in%ress to or e%ress +ro0 2R;s 7re0ises +or la5+ul 7ur7oses or obstruct 7ublic t*orou%*+ares.
O')8R:C8ION O4 4R22 INGR2)) 8O OR 2GR2)) 4ROM COMPAN3 PR2MI)2)
)C e?a0ined t*e evidence given 4L;C and CA's gross misreading of the evidence leading them to
incorrect conclusions "oth factual and legal. It found that under the evidence presented, strikers did
effectivel o"struct entr?e0it points of the compan premises on various occasions.
o Ehile the strike was not marred " actual violence and patent intimidation t*e 7ic/etin% PILA
undertoo/ as 7art o+ t*eir stri/e 'LOC92- t*e +ree in%ress and e%ress +ro0 PHIMCO;s
7re0ises 7reventin% non@stri/in% 22;s and co07an1 ve*icles +ro0 enterin% t*e
co07ound.
Ehile the right of ((s to pu"liciAe their dispute falls within the protection of freedom of e0pression and
the right to peacea"l assem"le to air grievances, these rights are " no means a"solute. Protected
picketing does not e0tend to "locking ingress to?egress from compan premises.
That the picket was moving, was peaceful and was not attended " violence 0a1 not +ree it +ro0
taints o+ ille%alit1 i+ it e++ectivel1 bloc/ed t*e entr1,e?it o+ t*e 7re0ises.
o Testimon during the ar"itration hearings showed that a coaster or "us attempted to enter
P$I%C& premises "ut was refused entr " the moving picket. (ven when 4L;C issued a
T;&, still entr was not allowed. Picketers held hands and moved to "lock the entr.
o Photos taken during the strike?picket showed that the picket was moving and was maintained
)O CLO)2 to t*e co07an1 %ates I8 >IR8:ALL3 CON)8I8:82- O')8R:C8ION,
especiall when the strikers held hands, 0oved in circles, hand-to-shoulder. It was a FI;T#AL
$#%A4 BL&C@AD(, with real phsical o"structions +"enches, makeshift structures "oth
I4*ID( A4D &#T*ID( T$( CAT(*.
o Blockade went to the point of causing traffic in the vicinit of strike area.
IN8IMI-A8ION
Picketing carried on with violence, coercion or intimidation is unlawful. Ehat constitute intimidation
depends on 8O8ALI83 O4 8H2 CIRC:M)8ANC2).
There ma "e unlawful intimidation w?o direct threats or overt acts of violence. =ords,acts calculated
or intended to cause ordinar1 7erson to +ear an in6ur1 to *is 7erson, business or 7ro7ert1 are
e<uivalent to t*reats.
In the present case, the wa the strike was conducted created such an I4TI%IDATI4C AT%&*P$(;(
to the non-strikers, and even compan vehicles are not cross the picket line w?o police intervention.
o ;() police, general rule is that the are not allowed to "e there B#T, this intervention is solel to
show how far union have gone to "lock the entr?e0it points. : even if police asked them to give
wa, the still refused to do so.
LIA'ILI8I2) A LO)8 o+ 2MPLO3M2N8 )8A8:)
&fficers) who knowingl participates in illegal strike.
%em"ers) who knowingl participates in commission f illegal acts during strike.
Individually, not collectively.
PHIMCO 4AIL2- 8O O')2R>2 -:2 PROC2))
Despite the acts "eing illegal, P$I%C& violated due process re!uirements when it dismissed
respondent union officers and mem"ers. +Twin notice,
o As to union o++icers. it does not appear from evidence that the were specificall informed of
the charges and given a chance to e0plain and present their side.
o As to t*e 0e0bers . Ehen P$I%C& sent the letters to the 9> mem"ers, the were informed of
the charges "ut where not given ample chance to e0plain "ecause 9 das later, the were fired.
Appling Aga"on v 4L;C, (; must pa nominal damages at P9<,<<< for violation of (('s right to
statutor due process.