PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW), Petitioner, vs. ETHELWOLDO R. OVEJERA, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA (CAC), COL. ROGELIO DEINLA, as Provincial Commander, 3311st P.C. Command, Negros Occidental, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

PLANA, J:

This is a petition for prohibition seeking to annul the decision dated February 20, 1982 of Labor Arbiter Ethelwoldo R. Ovejera of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) with station at the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI-A, Bacolod City, which, among others, declared illegal the ongoing strike of the National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) at the Central Azucarera de la Carlota (CAC), and to restrain the implementation thereof.chanrobles virtual law library

I. FACTS -

1. NFSW has been the bargaining agent of CAC rank and file employees (about 1200 of more than 2000 personnel) and has concluded with CAC a collective bargaining agreement effective February 16, 1981 - February 15, 1984. Under Art. VII, Sec. 5 of the said CBA -

Bonuses - The parties also agree to maintain the present practice on the grant of Christmas bonus, milling bonus, and amelioration bonus to the extent as the latter is required by law.

The Christmas and milling bonuses amount to 1-� months' salary.chanrobles virtual law library

2. On November 28, 1981, NFSW struck allegedly to compel the payment of the 13th month pay under PD 851, in addition to the Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses being enjoyed by CAC workers.chanrobles virtual law library

3. To settle the strike, a compromise agreement was concluded between CAC and NFSW on November 30,1981. Under paragraph 4 thereof -

The parties agree to abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in any case involving the 13th Month Pay Law if it is clearly held that the employer is liable to pay a 13th month pay separate and distinct from the bonuses already given.

4. As of November 30, 1981, G.R. No. 51254 (Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Blas Ople and Amado Inciong, Minister and Deputy Minister of Labor, respectively, and Marcopper Employees Labor Union, Petition for certiorari and Prohibition) was still pending in the Supreme Court. The Petition had been dismissed on June 11, 1981 on the vote of seven Justices. ¹ A motion for reconsideration thereafter filed was denied in a resolution dated December 15, 1981, with only five Justices voting for denial. (3 dissented; 2 reserved their votes: 4 did not take part.)

On December 18, 1981 - the decision of June 11, 1981 having become final and executory - entry of judgment was made.chanrobles virtual law library

5. After the Marcopper decision had become final, NFSW renewed its demand that CAC give the 13th month pay. CAC refused.chanrobles virtual law library

6. On January 22, 1982, NFSW filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) Regional Office in Bacolod City a notice to strike based on non-payment of the 13th month pay. Six days after, NFSW struck.chanrobles virtual law library

7. One day after the commencement of the strike, or on January 29, 1982, a report of the strike-vote was filed by NFSW with MOLE.chanrobles virtual law library

8. On February 8, 1982, CAC filed a petition (R.A.B. Case No. 0110-82) with the Regional Arbitration Branch VI-A, MOLE, at Bacolod City to declare the strike illegal, principally for being violative of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, that is, the strike was declared before the expiration of the 15-day cooling-off period for unfair labor practice (ULP) strikes, and the strike was staged before the lapse of seven days from the submission to MOLE of the result of the strike-vote.chanrobles virtual law library

9. After the submission of position papers and hearing, Labor Arbiter Ovejera declared the NFSW strike illegal. The dispositive part of his decision dated February 20, 1982 reads:

Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the strike commenced by NFSW on January 28, 1982, illegal,

2. Directing the Central to resume operations immediately upon receipt hereof;

3. Directing the Central to accept back to work all employees appearing in its payroll as of January 28, 1982 except those covered by the February 1, 1982 memorandum on preventive suspension but without prejudice to the said employees' instituting appropriate actions before this Ministry relative to whatever causes of action they may have obtained proceeding from said memorandum;

4. Directing the Central to pay effective from the date of resumption of operations the salaries of those to be placed on preventive suspension as per February 1, 1982 memorandum during their period of preventive suspension; and

5. Directing, in view of the finding that the subject strike is illegal, NFSW, its officers, members, as well as sympathizers to immediately desist from committing acts that may impair or impede the milling operations of the Central

The law enforcement authorities are hereby requested to assist in the peaceful enforcement and implementation of this Decision.chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

10. On February 26, 1982, the NFSW - by passing the NLRC - filed the instant Petition for prohibition alleging that Labor Arbiter Ovejera, CAC and the PC Provincial Commander of Negros Occidental were threatening to immediately enforce the February 20, 1982 decision which would violate fundamental rights of the petitioner, and praying that -

WHEREFORE, on the foregoing considerations, it is prayed of the Honorable Court that on the Petition for Preliminary Injunction, an order, after hearing, issue:

1. Restraining implementation or enforcement of the Decision of February 20, 1982;

2. Enjoining respondents to refrain from the threatened acts violative of the rights of strikers and peaceful picketers;

3. Requiring maintenance of the status quo as of February 20, 1982, until further orders of the Court;

and on the Main Petition, judgment be rendered after hearing.chanrobles virtual law library

1. Declaring the Decision of February 2O, l982 null and void;

2. Making the preliminary injunction permanent;

3. Awarding such other relief as may be just in the premises.

11. Hearing was held, after which the parties submitted their memoranda. No restraining order was issued.chanrobles virtual law library

II ISSUES -

The parties have raised a number of issues, including some procedural points. However, considering their relative importance and the impact of their resolution on ongoing labor disputes in a number of industry sectors, we have decided - in the interest of expediency and dispatch - to brush aside non-substantial items and reduce the remaining issues to but two fundamental ones:

1. Whether the strike declared by NFSW is illegal, the resolution of which mainly depends on the mandatory or directory character of the cooling-off period and the 7-day strike ban after report to MOLE of the result of a strike-vote, as prescribed in the Labor Code.chanrobles virtual law library

2. Whether under Presidential Decree 851 (13th Month Pay Law), CAC is obliged to give its workers a 13th month salary in addition to Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses, the aggregate of which admittedly exceeds by far the disputed 13th month pay. (See petitioner's memorandum of April 12, 1982, p. 2; CAC memorandum of April 2, 1982, pp. 3-4.) Resolution of this issue requires an examination of the thrusts and application of PD 851.chanrobles virtual law library

III. DISCUSSION -

1. Articles 264 and 265 of the Labor Code, insofar as pertinent, read:

Art. 264, Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - ...chanrobles virtual law library

(c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may file a notice of strike with the Ministry (of Labor and Employment) at least thirty (30) days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practices, the period of notice shall be shortened to fifteen (15) days; ...

(d) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the voluntary sttlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout.chanrobles virtual law library

(f) A decision to declae a strike must be approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerened by secret ballots in meetings or referenda. A decision to declae a lockout must be approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the board of direcotrs of the employer corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for the 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 Ministry, may at its own intitiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union of the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. (Emphasis supplied).chanrobles virtual law library

ART. 265. Prohibited activities. - It shall be unlawful for any labor organization or employer to declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first 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.

			FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

Search for www.chanrobles.com

QUICK SEARCH