Nissan Motors Philippines, Inc. v.
Secretary of Labor and Employment Union went on actual strike, picketed and blocked the company
and Bagong Nagkakaisang Lakas sa Nissan Motor Philippines, Inc.
(BANAL-NMPI-OLALIA-KMU)
G.R. Nos. 158190-91; June 21, 2006
TOPIC: Strike - Effect of Illegality
FACTS:
1. There was a labor dispute triggered by a collective bargaining
deadlock between Nissan Motor and the Union resulting in the
filing of 4 notices of strike with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB).
2. The first Notice of Strike- ground of alleged unfair labor practice,
stemmed from the suspension of about 140 company employees,
following the disruptive protest action arising from the
employees’ demand for payment of the 2nd half of their 13th
month pay; second strike- deadlock in collective bargaining
involving a mix of economic and non-economic issues.
3. DOLE, upon Nissan Motor’s petition, issued an order assuming
jurisdiction over the dispute. DOLE Secretary expressly enjoined
any strike or lockout and directed the parties to cease and desist
from committing any act that might exacerbate the situation, and
for the Union to refrain from any slowdown and other similar
activities that may disrupt company operations or bring its
production to below its normal and usual levels.
4. the Union filed a 3rd Notice of Strike on the ground of illegal
lockout, illegal suspension, union busting
5. DOLE ordered the 3rd Notice of Strike be consolidated with the
first two notice;
6. Union filed a reiterative Urgent Petition to Suspend the Effects of
Termination of union officers and members, now numbering 43
7. the Company filed its Position Paper.
8. Union filed a 4th Notice of Strike on grounds of alleged illegal
dismissal of 18 union officials, illegal lockout on account of the
forced leave, coercion/intimidation, union busting and non-
payment of salaries
9. Acting DOLE Secretary Arturo D. Brion ordered the 4th notice of
strike to be consolidate with the first 3 notices
10. Company filed a Motion to Deputize PNP Laguna to Secure,
Maintain and Preserve Free Ingress and Egress of NMPI, alleging
that despite the injunctions against any slowdown and strike, the
offices, and plant premises; unlawfully blocked and obstructed all
entrances and exits points.
11. Union filed a ‘Mosyon Laban sa Deputasyon [ng PNP]
12. Secretary of Labor issued an Order deputizing the [PNP]
13. The Union states that the:
a. Company realized P3.2 Billion in gross sale for the year
2000, and still some of their benefits were not paid
b. On the political issues, that 140 union officers and
members were placed under suspension from 3-6 days
without observing procedural due process. Company
abused its prerogative in imposing discipline
c. Company violated the assumption of jurisdiction order by
falsely accusing the Union of committing slowdown and
placing them on forced leave;
Union requested for grievance but the Company ignored
it.
d. charge against the employees of violation of the
assumption of jurisdiction order is just a union busting
ploy.
e. Company also violated the assumption order, therefore
the principle of pari delicto applies to both parties.
14. Company argued that:
a. The charge of illegal suspension of more or less 140 union
members ranging from 3 to 6 days is without merit as the
action was in the exercise of management’s prerogative to
instill discipline among its employees.
b. the suspension was a sanction for the employees’
misconduct; Anent the said 13th month-pay related issue,
the Company states that the statutory deadline for
payment of the 13th month-pay is Dec 24th of the
applicable year, thus the demand for early payment is not
in order;
c. On the 2nd Notice of Strike, it is incapable of meeting the
[capricious] economic demands of the Union … which are
being made despite the continued losses suffered by NMPI
over the last 4 years already
d. the slowdown carried out by the Union after the filing of
the 2nd strike notice, was in violation of the cooling off
period prescribed by law, therefore illegal.
e. the slowdown violates … the CBA.
 f.On the matter of the dismissal of 19 Union officers and 25 o xxx. Any union officer who knowingly participates in
members … after the issuance of the Assumption of illegal strike and any worker or union officer who
Jurisdiction Order, the subject employees defied the order knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts
by continuing to carry on the slowdown during a strike may be declared to have lost his
15. DOLE and CA: the dismissal of the union officers is valid but the employment status:
member-employees must be reinstated; the employees are  While the employer is authorized to declare a union officer who
engaged in work slowdown participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment,
his/its option is not as wide with respect to union members or
workers for the law itself draws a line and makes a distinction
ISSUE: Whether the strike was illegal (YES) between union officers and members/ordinary workers.
 An ordinary striking worker or union member cannot, as a rule,
HELD:
be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike; there
must be proof that he committed illegal acts during the strike.
 The strike was illegal but the member-employees must be
 Except for the most serious causes affecting the business of the
reinstated.
employer, our labor laws frown upon dismissal. Where a penalty
 As the Union itself alleges, there was normal, even high less punitive would suffice, an employee should not be sanctioned
production [95% – 100% of production plan in all lines] in the with a consequence so severe.
month of June 2001. In the month of July 2001, production at JIG
 The members must be reinstated is because they were merely
Line 2 was 100% of plan from July 2 to 23 (covering only 5
following the orders of their leaders and they did not abandon
working days), and at Metal Line, production was from 88% to
their work; no evidence was presented that they participated in
142% of plan, for the first 3 weeks of July. But production fell by
illegal acts
at least 50% in the 4th week, the time when the CBA deadlock
 the responsibility of union officers, as main players in an illegal
occurred and the 2nd strike notice was filed.
strike, is greater than that of the members and, therefore, limiting
 Neither is the Union’s claim that the forced leaves and suspension
the penalty of dismissal only for the former for participation in an
of workers were responsible for the disruption of production true.
illegal strike is in order.
On the contrary, it was the lack of work-in progress due to
slowdown and absenteeism which are responsible for the
declaration of forced leave.
 Thus, the Union’s excuses do not hold sway on this Office. To be
sure, the Union engaged in work slowdown which under the
circumstances in which they were undertaken constitutes illegal
strike. The Company is therefore right in dismissing the subject
Union officers in accordance with Article 264 (a) of the Labor
Code, for participating in illegal strike in defiance of the
assumption of jurisdiction order by the Labor Secretary
 The labor code provides that:
o Article 264. Prohibited Activities.
o (a) xxx
o No strike or lockout shall be declared after the assumption
of jurisdiction by the Secretary or during the pendency of
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.