206 Chuayuco Steel v. Buklod

UP Law F2021 206 Chuayuco Steel v.
Buklod
Labor 2:
Arts 216, 219, 264 2007 Carpio-Morales
Effect on Work Relationship
SUMMARY
The union staged a strike following the corporation’s refusal to heed the CBA proposal and to recognize the newly-
elected officers of the union. The company argues that it could not enter into negotiations with the union in light of
the intra-union disputes between factions therein. The company also petitioned that the strike be deemed illegal for
employing unlawful means. The SC found the strike illegal. The officers who knowingly participated therein, and the
members who committed the unlawful acts during the strike are deemed to have lost their employment status, and
are not entitled to reinstatement.
FACTS
 Buklod ng Manggagawa was the recognized bargaining agent of the rank-and file employees of
Chuayuco Steel.
 In a special election of officers conducted by the union, Lenizo emerged as the president.
 However, the corporation refused to acknowledge the newly-elected officers in light of the intra-
union disputes between the group of Lenizo and that of Ibanez, the former acting president.
 DOLE issued an order directing the corporation to recognize the new set of officers.
 Upon the expiration of the CBA, Lenizo’s group submitted CBA proposals which the company did not
heed.
 The union filed a Notice of Strike grounded on unfair labor practice, union interference, refusal t o
bargain, discrimination and non-remittance of funds held in trust.
 The corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing it could not enter into negotiations with the
union because of the intra-union conflict between the Lenizo and Ibanez factions.
 The union staged a strike.
 The corporation filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal, and argued, aside from the intra-union
dispute, that the union employed unlawful means in staging the strike such as padlocking and
putting up structural barriers before the gate, thus preventing ingress and egress.
 The NLRC issued a TRO in favour of the corporation. The LA declared the strike illegal, and that the
officers and members who committed unlawful acts during the strike are deemed to have lost their
employment status.
 The CA modified the decision and ordered the reinstatement of some union members.
ISSUE & RATIO

Whether the employees who were terminated as a result of the illegal strike are entitled to
reinstatement?
No. The officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike, and the union members who
knowingly committed illegal acts during the strike, and who were subsequently terminated are
NOT entitled to reinstatement.
The CA, NLRC and LA were unanimous in declaring the strike illegal because of commission of
acts proscribed under Art 216 (e) which provides:
No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or
obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes , or
obstruct public thoroughfare.
Based on the evidence, some union members employed verbal threats and physical acts of
violence. Thus, even assuming that the strike was for a lawful purpose, the means employed were
far from legitimate, rendering it illegal. Nevertheless, the responsibility for these illegal acts must
be on an individual and not on a collective basis.
Under Art 264, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he
knowingly participates in an illegal strike, whereas a union member may be similarly faulted if he
knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.
Substantial evidence, which is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, suffices to prove participation in the commission of
illegal acts.
In the case at bar, the records are replete with evidence identifying the members who committed
the prohibited acts. Clearly, the following members of respondent who were shown to have
participated in the commission of illegal acts are deemed to have lost their employment status.
As to those who did not join the strike and have remained employed with the corporation, the
order for their reinstatement is improper, hence, must be deleted.
FALLO
Wherefore, the petition is in part granted.
The strike is deemed illegal; and the officers involved are deemed to have lost their employment status.
Petitioner Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation is ordered to immediately reinstate only Adia,
Fabillar , Marinas, Jr . , and Penillos to their respective positions without loss of seniority rights.

206 Chuayuco Steel v. Buklod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

206 Chuayuco Steel v. Buklod

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

206 Chuayuco Steel v. Buklod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UP Law F2021 206 Chuayuco Steel v.

ISSUE & RATIO

You might also like