Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA SULPICIO LINES v. SULPICIO LINES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178409 2011-06-08	YOLITO FADRIQUELAN v. MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION ABAD, J.
Second. A distinction exists, however, between the ordinary workers' liability for illegal strike and that of the union officers who participated in it. The ordinary worker cannot be terminated for merely participating in the strike. There must be proof that he committedillegal acts during its conduct. On the other hand, a union officer can be terminated upon mere proof that he knowingly participated in the illegal strike.[2]
	GR No. 170830 2010-08-11	PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION BRION, J.
We explained in Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.[71] that the effects of illegal strikes, outlined in Article 264 of the Labor Code, make a distinction between participating workers and union officers. The services of an ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike; proof must be adduced showing that he or she committed illegal acts during the strike. The services of a participating union officer, on the other hand, may be terminated, not only when he actually commits an illegal act during a strike, but also if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike.[72]
	GR NOS. 158786 & 158789 2007-10-19	TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NLRC VELASCO, JR., J.
A painstaking review of case law renders obtuse the Union's claim for separation pay. In a slew of cases, this Court refrained from awarding separation pay or financial assistance to union officers and members who were separated from service due to their participation in or commission of illegal acts during strikes. In the recent case of Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. Pilipino Telephone Employees Association (PILTEA),[74] this Court upheld the dismissal of union officers who participated and openly defied the return-to-work order issued by the DOLE Secretary. No separation pay or financial assistance was granted. In Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v. Court of Appeals,[75] this Court declared that the union officers who participated in and the union members who committed illegal acts during the illegal strike have lost their employment status. In this case, the strike was held illegal because it violated agreements providing for arbitration. Again, there was no award of separation pay nor financial assistance. In Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union,[76] the strike was declared illegal because the means employed was illegal. We upheld the validity of dismissing union members who committed illegal acts during the strike, but again, without awarding separation pay or financial assistance to the erring employees. In Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines,[77] this Court upheld the dismissal of union officers who participated in an illegal strike sans any award of separation pay. Earlier, in Grand Boulevard Hotel v. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries,[78] we affirmed the dismissal of the Union's officers who participated in an illegal strike without awarding separation pay, despite the NLRC's declaration urging the company to give financial assistance to the dismissed employees.[79] In Interphil Laboratories Union-FFW, et al. v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc.,[80] this Court affirmed the dismissal of the union officers who led the concerted action in refusing to render overtime work and causing "work slowdowns." However, no separation pay or financial assistance was allowed. In CCBPI Postmix Workers Union v. NLRC,[81] this Court affirmed the dismissal of union officers who participated in the strike and the union members who committed illegal acts while on strike, without awarding them separation pay or financial assistance. In 1996, in Allied Banking Corporation v. NLRC,[82] this Court affirmed the dismissal of Union officers and members, who staged a strike despite the DOLE Secretary's issuance of a return to work order but did not award separation pay. In the earlier but more relevant case of Chua v. NLRC,[83] this Court deleted the NLRC's award of separation benefits to an employee who participated in an unlawful and violent strike, which strike resulted in multiple deaths and extensive property damage. In Chua, we viewed the infractions committed by the union officers and members as a serious misconduct which resulted in the deletion of the award of separation pay in conformance to the ruling in PLDT. Based on existing jurisprudence, the award of separation pay to the Union officials and members in the instant petitions cannot be sustained.
	GR NO. 160058 2007-06-22	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PUNO, C.J.
Nowhere in Panay Electric Company and PNOC Dockyard and Engineering Corporation did the Court rule that the procedural requirements for a valid strike may be dispensed with if the striking workers believed in good faith that the company was committing acts of unfair labor practice. In both cases, the striking union members complied with the procedural requirements for a valid strike. It is correct that this Court, in Bacus, held that "a strike staged by the workers inspired by good faith does not automatically make the same illegal," but said case was decided before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6715 on March 21, 1989. We have ruled that with the enactment of R.A. No. 6715, the requirements as to the filing of a notice of strike, strike vote, and notice given to the DOLE are mandatory in nature.[31]
	GR NO. 150437 2006-07-17	SUKHOTHAI CUISINE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
with in case of union busting,[20] the Court finds it unnecessary to discuss the question at length, especially in view of the foregoing declaration that the strike is illegal, as well as the considerations of established doctrine: the language of the law leaves no room for doubt that the cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after the strike-vote report were intended to be mandatory,[21] and in case of union busting where the existence of the union is threatened, it is only the 15-day cooling-off period that may be dispensed with.
	GR NO. 147080 2005-04-26	CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Conformably to Article 264 of the Labor Code of the Philippines[30] and Section 7, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code,[31] no labor organization shall declare a strike unless supported by a majority vote of the members of the union obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The requirement is mandatory and the failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal.[32] The union is thus mandated to allege and prove compliance with the requirements of the law.