Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC

LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION v.
NLRC
G.R. 95494-97; Sept. 7, 1995; Puno, J.
Facts:
1.) CADECO Agro Development Phils, Inc. and Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation are sister
companies engaged in the production of bananas in Davao City. Lapanday Workers' Union (Union) is the
duly certified bargaining agent of the r&f employees of private respondents. The Union is affiliated with the
KMU-ANGLO.
2.) The Union had a CBA with the private respondents from Dec. 5 1985 to Nov. 30 1988. Shortly before its
expiration, the companies initiated management policies that disrupted the relationship of the parties.
a. First, they contracted Phil. Eagle Protectors and Security Agency, Inc. to provide security services for
their business premises in Lapanday, Davao City and Guising, Davao del Sur
i. The Union branded the security guards as the “goons” and “special forces” of the
respondents. It also accused the said guards of intimidating and harassing Union members.
b. Second, they conducted seminars on Human Development and Industrial Relations (HDIR) and among
the topics discussed was the Philippine political spectrum.
i. The Union claimed that the module on the Phil. political spectrum lumped the ANGLO
(Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other outlawed labor
organizations such as the National Democratic Front or other leftist groups.
3.) These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting but the Union directed its members not to
attend the seminars on Aug. 19 and 20, 1988.
4.) On Aug. 6, the Union picketed the premises of the Phil. Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring
of the guards.
5.) The Union then filed on Aug. 25, 1988 a Notice of Strike with the NCMB accusing the company of ULPs
consisting of coercion of employees, intimidation of union members and union-busting.
a. The NCMB called a conciliation conference yielding the agreement that the Union officers would
attend the HDIR seminar on Sept. 5, and that a committee would convene to establish guidelines
governing the guards.
6.) The Union officials did attend the seminar but still reiterated their demand for the deletion of the discussion
pertaining to the KMU-ANGLO.
7.) With the apparent settlement of differences, private respondents notified the NCMB that there were no more
bases for the notice of strike.
8.) However Danilo Martinez, a member of the Board of Directors of the Union was gunned down in his house in
the presence of his wife and children on Sept. 8, 1988. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson, an
alleged member of the new security forces of the respondents.
9.) The day after the killing, most of the Union members refused to report for work. They returned to work the
following day but did not comply with the “quota system” of the production.
10.) The Union allegedly instructed the workers to reduce their production to 30%.
11.) Respondents then charged the Union with economic sabotage through slowdown.
12.) Respondents then filed separate charges against the Union and its members for illegal strike, ULP and
damages, with prayer for injunction before LA Antonio Villanueva. [Case 1]
13.) Sept. 17, 1988 – petitioners skipped work to pay their last respect to Danilo Martinez who was laid to rest. On
Sept. 23, they again did not report for work and instead proceeded to the respondents’ office carrying placards
and posters which called for the removal of the security guards, the ouster of certain management officials,
and the approval of their mass leave application.
14.) City Mayor Rodrigo Duerte intervened and dialogues were held but such proved futile
15.) Oct. 3, 1988 - A strike vote was conducted among the Union members and those in favor of the strike won.
The result of the vote was then submitted to the NCMB on Oct. 10 and two days later (Oct. 12), the Union
struck.
16.) Based on the said facts, LA Antonio Villanueva ruled on Dec. 12 that the strike was illegal and the petitioners
appealed to the NLRC.
17.) It also appears that on Dec. 6, before the promulgation of the LA Decision, the Union, together with Tomas
Basco and 25 workers, filed a complaint for ULP and illegal suspension against LADECO [Case 2]. On the same
date, another complaint was for ULP and illegal dismissal was filed by the Union, together with Arquilao
Bacolod and 58 other complainants [Case 3]. These two cases were heard by LA Newton Sancho.
18.) Before the NLRC could resolve the appeal in Case 1, LA Sancho rendered a decision in the two cases filed by
the Union against respondents LADECO and CADECO declaring them guilty of ULPs and illegal dismissal.
a. LA Sancho found the refusal to report work justified by the circumstance of Danilo Martinez’s killing.
19.) Private respondents appealed the Sancho decision claiming that LA Sancho erred in passing upon the legality of
the strike was the said issue was still on appeal before the NLRC.
20.) As the said cases arose from the same set of facts and involved substantially the same issues, the NLRC
rendered a consolidated decision upholding the Villanueva decision declaring the strike illegal and the union-
officers had thereby lost their employment while the union members were reinstated without backwages.
Issue: Whether the Oct. 12, 1988 strike was illegal.

Held: YES
Ratio:
 Art. 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by EO 111 provides in part:
o In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
strike or the employer may file, notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 days before the intended
date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days xxx”
o A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the
bargaining unit concerned xxx. In every case, the union or 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.
 And Art. 264 provides in part that “No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout xxx
without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having obtained and reported to the Ministry.
 A strike is “any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial
or labor dispute.” It is the most preeminent of the economic weapons of workers which they unsheathe to
force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of capital and labor.
 Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor and
management but also on the general peace and progress of society. Thus, our laws regulate their exercise
within reasons by balancing the interests of management and labor together with overarching public interest.
 Art. 263 (c) and (f) provide some of the limitations on the right to strike which are the procedural steps to be
followed before staging a strike – filing of note, taking of strike vote, and reporting of the strike vote result to
the DOLE.
 The Seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify if the projected strike
really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members as strike is usually the last weapon of labor
to compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or to defend itself against ULPs of management.
o It can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its members in their struggle with management
for a more equitable due of their labors.
 The decision to strike must therefore rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism, unswayed by the
tempers and tantrums of a few hotheads, and firmly focused on the legitimate interest of the union which
should not be antithetical to the public welfare.
 Thus, our laws require the consensus of the majority or while the majority is not infallible, still, it is the best
hedge against haste and error. Also, a majority vote assured the union it will go to war against management
with the strength derived from unity and hence, with better chance to succeed.
 As held in Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. NLRC:
“The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But precisely because of this, it must be
handled carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers’ own hands. Thus, it must be
declared only after the most thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way allowed,
that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal
requirements and strictures will render the strike illegal, to the detriment of the workers it is supposed to
protect.”
 Applying the law, the strike conducted on Oct. 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held within the seven day
waiting period provided for by Art. 163 (f) of the Labor Code. The haste in holding the strike prevented the
DOLE from verifying whether it carried the approval of the majority of the union members.
 Considering this finding, the Court saw no need to rule on the legality of the work stoppage conducted by the
Union.
o The penalty of dismissal as regards the union officers was affirmed – they cannot claim good
faith as they admitted knowledge of the strike as well as its procedure.
o The reinstated r&f workers who were misled in supporting the illegal strike shall not be
entitled to backwages.

Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION v.

Issue: Whether the Oct. 12, 1988 strike was illegal.

You might also like