G.R. No. 150166 - FILCON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, VS. LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA FILCON-LAKAS MANGGAGAWA LABOR CENTER (LMF-LMLC).

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the strike staged by respondent LMF-LMLC is hereby declared illegal and as a consequence of which its Officers and members are hereby declared, to have legally lost their employment status, namely: Nicolas Chavez Alfredo Jungco Pablito Nava Florentino Alejandro Jonathan Josef Emmanuel Fabiola Rogelio dela Cruz Pedro Ege Restituto de Leon Orsie Renales Joel Bautista Ferdinand Santo Maria Teresa Notado Ricardo Templo Florendo Sereno Maria Elena Presno Renato Hermoso Rodrigo Renales Luis Villa* William Inocencio* Lourdes Martin* Josefina de Leon * Ranilo Mayordomo* Maximo Bathan* Joselito Cortez* Joel Floria* Edwin de Guzman* Noel Liwag * Natividad Taquic* Asuncion Dolot* Andres Namoro* Rene Ciego* Gemma Barcelon Nicolas Leonardo* [24] The Labor Arbiter ruled that based on the records, the SWAT was the certified exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. Furthermore, the CBA expired on January 15, 1990 and was not renewed due to the filing by three unions, including the LMF-LMLC, of their respective petitions for certification election. However, since the CBA provided that it would continue to be in effect until a new one had been entered into, the no-strike-no-lockout clause was still in effect; as such, the contract bar rule was still applicable, and, consequently, the strike was illegal. [25] The Labor Arbiter, likewise, pointed out that the strike was based on a non-strikable ground, more specifically, an intra-union and inter-union conflict. It was, likewise, held that the evidence submitted by the petitioner showed that the respondent union blocked the ingress and egress of the company in the course of their strike. Such actuations constituted prohibited acts under Article 264 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended; hence, the strike staged by the respondent union was illegal. The Labor Arbiter also declared that the officers of the respondent, as well as the members who participated in the commission of the illegal acts, were deemed to have lost their employment status. [26] He further ruled that the compromise agreement entered into by the parties on the maintenance of the status quo ante litem did not amount to a condonation or waiver by the petitioner of its right to ventilate and litigate the charge of illegal strike against the respondent union and its members. Dissatisfied, the respondent union appealed the decision to the NLRC where it alleged that: I. THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER JOVENCIO Ll. MAYOR, JR., COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE RULED THAT THE SHOE WORKERS ASSOCIATION AND TECHNOLOGY (SWAT) IS THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT OF ALL THE RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES OF APPELLEE FILCON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. II. THE HONORABLE ARBITER JOVENCIO Ll. MAYOR, JR. COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE RULED THAT THE NO-STRIKE PROVISION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEME