Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, OSCAR FLORES, JULAN AGUSTN, FELCSMO LC!UCA, PO SUMAGT a"# N!EL$ER LA%ORATORES, LA%ORATORES, NC. a"# SSTER COMPANES EMPLO&EES UNON, petitioners, vs. COURT OF N$USTRAL RELATONS, N!EL$ER LA%ORATORES, NC., SAN RO'UE TRA$NG CORPORATON CORPORATON AN$(OR !ANS N!EL$ER, PRES$ENT AN$ GENERAL MANAGER, respondents. These are are two (! unfair unfair labor practice practice cases cases co""enced in in the C#R $R. No. %&') & was *led b+ the Manae"ent of #nhelder %aboratories, #nc. aainst the %abor -nion of e"plo+ees and so"e ocers and "e"bers of the -nion $R. No.%&'/& *led b+ the latter aainst the for"er. cases were 0ointl+ tried. Fa)*s+ •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
1on. Ansberto P. Paredes, the trial 0ude, rendered a decision dis"issin the co"plaints in both cases. 2n "otion for reconsideration reconsideration *led b+ the Manae"ent, the Court of #ndustrial Relations en banc, banc, dis"issed the co"plaint. 3ecreed that the ocers and "e"bers of the -nion who had participated in a peaceful stri4e stri4e staed b+ the latter fro" 5ul+ 6 to 5ul+ 67, 689, :be considered to have lost their status as e"plo+ees of the co"panies:. March /, 689 ; i""ediatel+ after an election, which the -nion obtained the re. 1owever, petitioners? representatives pressed for the inclusion of a union clause, an accu"ulated sic4 leave clause, and an accu"ulated vacation leave clause, apart fro" the increase of the hih cost of livin "onthl+ allowance fro" P@.@@ to P9@.@@, the creation of a rievance co""ittee and a eneral salar+ increase. hen the unions re
•
•
•
5une ', 689 & Petitioners *led an unfair labor practice chare aainst the Manae"ent, for the suspension or de"otion of union "e"bers due alleedl+ to union activities. 5une 7, 689 & -nion ave another notice of stri4e upon the round that the Manae"ent was enaed in unfair labor practices, b+ suspendin, de"otin, inti"idatin and coercin union "e"bers, on account of their union activities. 5ul+ 6 to 5ul+ 67, 689 ; in accordance with a stri4e vote, the -nion staed a stri4e.
ss+ ON */ s*0 as 5a. R"5+ RespondentsF Maintained that petitioner failed to ive a 9@&da+ notice of their intention to stri4e and the stri4e had alleedl+ been called in bad faith.
PetitionersF Dtri4e was leal because it was provo4ed b+ alleed unfair labor practices on the part of the respondents and because said petitioners had acted in ood faith in stain said stri4e.
C#R en banc The stri4e staed was not provo4ed b+ -%P on the part of the Manae"ent. Dince 9@ da+s had not elapsed since appellants had iven the correspondin notice, the stri4e was illeal and those who too4 part in it are dee"ed separated fro" the service. The trial 0ude held otherwise. Petitioners were reasonabl+ 0usti*ed in believin that the respondents? acts constituted -%P and that petitioners had to stri4e in order to arrest the evil eGects of said practices upon the -nion and its "e"bers. Dupre"e Court e are inclined to aree with the latter view. The fact that both parties aHed their initials to the :draft: does not necessaril+ prove that the sa"e was "ore :*nal: than the :*nal draft:. The drafts sined was no "ore than a draft of contract, not a contract in itself. #t is not true that petitioners had "ade new de"ands. The de"and for a union shop or union securit+ clause, which was the "ain bone of contention, had been included in the draft of aree"ent. hat happened, "erel+, was that the de"ands incorporated in said draft were discussed b+ both parties, one after the otherI that an aree"ent on the for"er did not connote an abandon"ent of t he latterI and that, after the settle"ent of one issue, it was understood that the others would be ta4en up thereafter. hen the -nion "e"bers learned that said docu"ent did not include the union shop or union securit+ clause, they withdrew from their representatives the authority to sign, on their behalf, the collective bargaining agreement with the Management . -nder these circu"stances, said representatives could not validl+ sin said aree"ent, and their refusal to do so is not and cannot be an act of bad faith. Neither "a+ the -nion "e"bers be held to have acted in bad faith in so withdrawin said authorit+ fro" their representatives, unless the clause afore"entioned were included in the aree"ent, since that clause was part of their oriinal de"ands and their representatives could not waive it without their consent. Althouh the Manae"ent "a+ have had the strict leal riht to ta4e aainst union "e"bers the disciplinar+ and other ad"inistrative "easures, there is no den+in the fact that the time chosen by the Management reasonabl+ 0usti*ed the belief of the -nion that its real or "ain purpose was to discourae "e"bership in the -nion, to discredit the ocers. The Court holds thatF the stri4e in
•
• •
Considerin that the latter have been absolved fro" the chare of unfair labor p ractice, the reinstate"ent of the stri4ers "ust be without bac4pa+. herefore, the resolution appealed fro" should be, as it is hereb+ "odi*ed accordinl+, without special pronounce"ent as to costs. #t is so ordered.
