University of the Philippines

College of Law
MNL | D2021

Topic UNION CONCERTED ACTIVITIES

Case Name Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC

1. Private respondents are sister companies engaged in the production of bananas. Petitioner Lapanday
Workers' Union (Union) is the duly certified bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private
respondents. The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. The other petitioners are all members of
the Union.
2. A few months before the expiration of their CBA, private respondents initiated certain management
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties.
1. respondents contracted security services. Union branded the security guards posted within the
company premises as "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of intimidating
and harassing their members.
2. R conducted seminars on Human Development and Industrial Relations (HDIR) for their
employees to promote their social education and economic growth. The Union claimed that
the module on the Philippine political spectrum lumped the ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and
Genuine Labor Organization), with other outlawed labor organizations such as the National
Democratic Front or other leftist groups.
3. These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting. Union agreed to allow its members
to attend the HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers. Nevertheless, the Union directed its members not
to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates. Earlier on, Union picketed the premises of the
Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards.
4. Union filed on August 25, 1988, a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. It accused the company of ULP
consisting of coercion of employees, intimidation of union members and union-busting.
5. NCMB called a conciliation conference. While issues were being discussed before NCMB, Martinez,
a member of the Board of Directors of the Union, was gunned down in his house. The gunman was
later identified as an alleged member of the new security forces of private respondents. The day after
the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report for work. They returned to work the
following day but they did not comply with the “quota system” adopted by the management to bolster
production output.
6. Allegedly, the Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to 30%. Private respondents
charged the Union with economic sabotage through slowdown. They filed separate charges against
the Union and its members for illegal strike, unfair labor practice and damages, with prayer for
injunction.
7. Petitioners skipped work to pay their last respect to Martinez. Again, petitioners did not report for work.
Instead, they proceeded to private respondents’ office at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which
called for the removal of the security guards, the ouster of certain management officials, and the
approval of their mass leave application. Their mass action did not succeed.
8. In a last ditch effort to settle the deteriorating dispute between the parties, Mayor Rodrigo Duterte
intervened. Again, the dialogues proved fruitless as private respondents refused to withdraw the cases
they earlier filed with public respondent.
9. A strike vote was conducted among the members of the Union and those in favor of the strike won
overwhelming support from the workers. The result of the strike vote was then submitted to the
NCMB.Two days later, the Union struck.
10. LA ruled that the Union staged an illegal strike.
11. Before the promulgation of the decision of LA, the Union, together with Basco and 25 other workers,
filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal suspension against LADECO. Also, another
complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal was filed by the Union, together with Arquilao
Bacolod and 58 other complainants.
12. NLRC ruled against the Union. MR did not prosper. Hence this petition.

Issue Ratio
WON strike NO
was legal 1. LOOK AT ART 263 (c ), (f), and Art. 264.
2. Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided for in
paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code. They provide for the
procedural steps to be followed before staging a strike — filing of notice of strike,
taking of strike vote, and reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of
Labor and Employment. These steps are mandatory in character, thus: if only the
filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be deemed mandatory,
but not the waiting periods so specifically and emphatically prescribed by law, the
purposes far which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required
cannot be achieved.
3. The 7-day strike-vote report is not without a purpose.The seven day waiting
period is intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected
strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members. Our laws
require the decision to strike to be the consensus of the majority for while the
majority is not infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste and error.

“Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no less observance of the
rules, for the benefit of all concerned.”

IN THIS CASE:
THe strike conducted by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph (f), Article 263. The
haste in holding the strike prevented the DOLE from verifying whether it carried the
approval of the majority of the union members. It set to naught an important policy
consideration of our law on strike.

SC affirm the decision of the public respondent limiting the penalty of dismissal only to
the leaders of the illegal strike. especially the officers of the union who served as its
major players. They cannot claim good faith to exculpate themselves. They admitted
knowledge of the law on strike, including its procedure. They cannot violate the law which
ironically was cast to promote their interest.

SC, likewise, agree with the public respondent that the union members who were merely
instigated to participate in the illegal strike should be treated differently from their leaders.
 Nonetheless, these reinstated workers shall not be entitled to backwages as they should
not be compensated for services skipped during the illegal strike.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
public respondent. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.