G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1999 ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES (AIUP , !

OEL DENSING, HENEDINO MIRAFUENTES, CHRISTOPHER PATENTES, AND ANDRES TE!ANA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LA"OR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC , CENAPRO CHEMICAL CORPORATION a#$%or GO SING CHAN &# h&' ca(ac&)* a' Ma#a+&#+ D&r,c)or, respondents. Fac)'Densing, et al were casual EEs of CENAPRO Chemicals (CENAPRO . !n CENAPRO, the C"A representative of all ran#$and$file EEs was CENAPRO Emplo%ee&s Association (CCEA , with which CENAPRO had a C"A. 'his C"A e(cluded casual EEs from mem)ership in the union. 'he casual EEs who have rendered at least *$+ %ears of service sought regulari,ation of their emplo%ment with CENAPRO. -hen this was denied, the% formed themselves into an organi,ation and affiliated with A!.P. Afterwards, A!.P filed a petition for certification election, which was opposed )% CENAPRO and CCEA, on the )asis of the contract )ar rule. On /a% 0 and 1ul% 2, *334, the A!.P$sponsored union (.nion filed a notice of stri#e and other necessar% documentation with the DO5E, citing as grounds the acts of CENAPRO as constituting .5P, specificall% the coercion of EEs and s%stematic union$)usting. 'he .nion proceeded to stage a stri#e on 1ul% 62, *334, in the course of which, the .nion perpetrated illegal acts such as padloc#ing the compan% gates, as well as preventing7coercing other non$stri#ing EEs from reporting for wor#. "ecause of the illegal acts, CENAPRO filed a petition for in8unction with the N5RC, which then granted a 'RO to en8oin the .nion from conducting further illegal acts. On 1ul% 60, *334, the .nion filed a complaint for .5P and illegal loc#out and in response, CENAPRO filed an illegal stri#e complaint the da% after. 'he 5A consolidated the complaints and decided that the stri#e conducted )% the .nion was illegal, and dismissed the charge for illegal loc#out and .5P. 9 .nion officers were declared to have lost their emplo%ment status, while *9 union mem)ers were not reinstated )ecause of e(ecution of :uitclaims in favor of CENAPRO. + wor#ers, some of which composed

the group of Densing et al, were ordered reinstated, )ut on a later order, 6 EEs were e(cluded from reinstatement and )ac#wage pa%ment. "oth parties appealed to the 5A decision, and pending resolution of the appeals, A!.P moved for e(ecution of the 5A&s decision regarding reinstatement of some of its mem)ers. 'his was granted )% an issued order, with CENAPRO later moving that the% pa% separation pa% on the premise of strained relations )etween the parties. 'his opposition was overruled )% the 5A, which issued a 6 nd writ of e(ecution directing actual, if not pa%roll, reinstatement. .pon appeal to the N5RC, the Commission affirmed the 5A in toto and reiterated the 5A&s Order for reinstatement of the Densing group. .pon an /R from CENAPRO, the N5RC later modified its decision, ordering pa%ment of separation pa% (* mo7%ear of service without )ac#wages. /eanwhile, Densing was declared to have lost his emplo%ment status. 'herefore, A!.P filed a petition for review on certiorari to reinstate the 5A decision ordering reinstatement and pa%ment of )ac#wages. I''.,' -ON the A!.P$sponsored .nion committed an illegal stri#e. /ES. ;owever, petition is granted. N5RC decision set aside, 5A decision ordering separation pa% and full )ac#wages reinstated. H,0$'he Court first pointed out that the complaints of the Densing group on the grounds of .5P were ad8udged as )aseless )% the 5A, and approved )% the <C, as the =acts of harassment and insults> were found to actuall% )e scolding for little mista#es and memoranda for tardiness. ?urthermore, it was found that the allegations of overwor#ing were actuall% uncorro)orated )% testimon% as the petitioners were not a)le to enumerate when and how the% were made to overwor#. 'he Court also affirmed the N5RC ruling that the stri#e staged )% the A!.P was in the nature of a .#&o#1r,co+#&)&o# ')r&2,, defined as =a calculated move to compel the emplo%er to recogni,e one@s union, and not the other contending group, as the emplo%ees@ )argaining representative to wor# out a collective )argaining agreement despite the stri#ing union@s dou)tful ma8orit% status to merit voluntar% recognition and lac# of formal certification as the e(clusive representative in the )argaining unit>.

!t was noted that when the petition for certification election was filed )% A.!P, there was an e(isting C"A )etween the respondent compan% and CCEA, the incum)ent C"A representative of all ran#$and$file EEs. 'he argument that the petition should have not )een entertained )ecause of the contract )ar rule. -hen a C"A has )een dul% registered in accordance with Article 62* of the 5a)or Code, a petition for certification election or motion for intervention ma% )e entertained onl% 3&)h&# '&4)* (50 $a*' (r&or )o )h, ,4(&r* $a), o6 )h, 'a&$ a+r,,7,#) . Outside the period, as in the present case, the petition for certification election or motion for intervention cannot )e allowed. 'herefore, there was no clear act of union )usting found. ?rom the evidence at hand, the Court found that the stri#e was indeed illegal, sinceA 1. 'he stri#ers did commit illegal acts such as )arricading to prevent passage of CENAPRO&s truc#, as well as padloc#ing the gate and preventing ingress and egress of wor#ers, 2. 'he stri#ers violated the 'RO. 'he Court noted thatA
=A stri#e is a legitimate weapon in the universal struggle for e(istence. !t is considered as )h, 7o') ,66,c)&8, 3,a(o# &# (ro),c)&#+ )h, r&+h)' o6 )h, ,7(0o*,,' )o &7(ro8, )h, ),r7' a#$ co#$&)&o#' o6 )h,&r ,7(0o*7,#). "ut to )e valid, a stri#e must )e pursued within legal )ounds. 'he right to stri#e as a means for the attainment of social 8ustice is never meant to oppress or destro% the emplo%er. 'he law provides limits for its e(ercise. Among such limits are the prohi)ited activities under Article 6+0 of the 5a)or Code, particularl% paragraph (e , which states that no person engaged in pic#eting shallA a Commit an% act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or ) O)struct the free ingress to or egress from the emplo%er@s premises for lawful purposes or c O)struct pu)lic thoroughfares. Even if the stri#e is valid )ecause its o)8ective or purpose is lawful, the stri#e ma% still )e declared invalid where the means emplo%ed are illegal.>

administrative penalt% of dismissal to attach, the erring stri#ers must )e dul% identified. <impl% referring to them as Bstri#ersB, BA!. stri#ersB Bcomplainants in this caseB is not enough to 8ustif% their dismissal.

!t follows, therefore, that the dismissal of the union officers was 8ustified and valid, as their dismissal was a conse:uence of the illegalit% of the stri#e staged )% them. 'he Court also found that there was no loc#out, as the wor#ers themselves did stop wor#ing )ecause of the stri#e. ?inall%, on the matter of the fate of the 0 wor#ers, the Court found that the% are indeed entitled to reinstatement, as it was found that the erring stri#ers were not dul% identified )% the testimon%. ?or the severest