Topic: Strikes and Lockouts

C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc vs. CA

G.R. 155109, September 29, 2010
Facts:
The Company and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
that bound them to hold no strike and no lockout in the course of its life. At some
point the parties began negotiating the economic provisions of their CBA but this
ended in a deadlock, prompting the Union to file a notice of strike. After efforts at
conciliation by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) failed,
the Union conducted a strike vote that resulted in an overwhelming majority of its
members favoring it. The Union reported the strike vote to the DOLE and, after the
observance of the mandatory cooling-off period, went on strike. During the strike,
the Company filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction with
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) Ex Parte with the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to enjoin the strikers from intimidating,
threatening, molesting, and impeding by barricade the entry of non-striking
employees at the Companys premises. On June 29, 1999 the Labor Arbiter rendered
a decision, declaring the Unions strike illegal for violating the CBAs no strike, no
lockout, provision. As a consequence, the Labor Arbiter held that the Union officers
should be deemed to have forfeited their employment with the Company and that
they should pay actual damages. With respect to the striking Union members,
finding no proof that they actually committed illegal acts during the strike, the Labor
Arbiter ordered their reinstatement without backwages.
Issues:
1. Whether or the strike conducted is illegal?
2. Whether or not the union members should also be terminated?
Held:
1. Yes, a strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor union has
complied with the strict requirements for staging one as provided in Article
263 of the Labor Code when the same is held contrary to an existing
agreement, such as a no strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. Here,
the CBA between the parties contained a no strike, no lockout provision that
enjoined both the Union and the Company from resorting to the use of
economic weapons available to them under the law and to instead take
recourse to voluntary arbitration in settling their disputes. No law or public
policy prohibits the Union and the Company from mutually waiving the strike
and lockout maces available to them to give way to voluntary arbitration. The
Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the findings of the Labor
Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA regarding the illegality of the strike. Social
justice is not one-sided. It cannot be used as a badge for not complying with
a lawful agreement.
2. Yes, given that their illegal acts of threatening, coercing and intimidating nonstrikers, obstructing the free ingress and egress from the company premises
and resisted and defied the implementation of the writ of preliminary

injunction issued against the strikers, their employment can no longer

reinstated. However, the records also fail to disclose any past infractions
committed by the dismissed Union members. Taking these circumstances in
consideration, the Court regards the award of financial assistance to these
Union members in the form of one-half month salary for every year of service
to the company up to the date of their termination as equitable and
reasonable.
Topic: Employee-Employer Relationship
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. vs. ALAN M. AGITO, et al
GR No. 179546, February 13, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioner (Coke) is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing, bottling and
distributing soft drink beverages and other allied products. Respondents were
salesmen assigned at Coke Lagro Sales Office for years but were not regularized.
Coke averred that respondents were employees of Interserve who were tasked to
perform contracted services in accordance with the provisions of the Contract of
Services executed between Coke and Interserve on 23 March 2002. Said Contract
constituted legitimate job contracting, given that the latter was a bona fide
independent contractor with substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, and machinery necessary in the conduct of its business.
To prove the status of Interserve as an independent contractor, petitioner presented
the following pieces of evidence: (1) the Articles of Incorporation of Interserve; (2)
the Certificate of Registration of Interserve with the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (3)
the Income Tax Return, with Audited Financial Statements, of Interserve for 2001;
and (4) the Certificate of Registration of Interserve as an independent job
contractor, issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
As a result, petitioner asserted that respondents were employees of Interserve,
since it was the latter which hired them, paid their wages, and supervised their
work, as proven by: (1) respondents Personal Data Files in the records of Interserve;
(2) respondents Contract of Temporary Employment with Interserve; and (3) the
payroll records of Interserve.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Inteserve is a labor-only contractor;
2. Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. and respondents.
RULING:
1. Yes. In sum, Interserve did not have substantial capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, and work premises; and respondents,
its supposed employees, performed work which was directly related to the
principal business of petitioner. It is, thus, evident that Interserve falls under

the definition of a labor-only contractor, under Article 106 of the Labor

Code; as well as Section 5(i) of the Rules Implementing Articles 106-109 of
the Labor Code, as amended. It is also apparent that Interserve is a laboronly contractor under Section 5(ii) of the Rules Implementing Articles 106-109
of the Labor Code, as amended, since it did not exercise the right to control
the performance of the work of respondents.
2. Yes. With the finding that Interserve was engaged in prohibited labor-only
contracting, petitioner shall be deemed the true employer of respondents. As
regular employees of petitioner, respondents cannot be dismissed except for
just or authorized causes, none of which were alleged or proven to exist in
this case, the only defense of petitioner against the charge of illegal dismissal
being that respondents were not its employees.