GR 155306; (August, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155306 ; August 28, 2013
Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc., Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Stayfast Philippines, Inc./ Maria Almeida, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. (MMSPI) and another union, NLMS-Olalia, vied to be the exclusive bargaining agent at Stayfast Philippines, Inc. NLMS-Olalia won the certification election and was duly certified. MMSPI’s subsequent appeals, culminating in a petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 125957), were dismissed. While the certification issue was pending, NLMS-Olalia staged a strike. Separately, MMSPI filed its own notice of strike on June 5, 1997, but later withdrew it during conciliation, leading the NCMB to issue a certification on July 31, 1997, that the notice was “dropped/withdrawn.” Despite this withdrawal, MMSPI’s members engaged in a “sit-down strike” on July 21, 1997, leading to their termination for unauthorized work stoppage. MMSPI then launched a full strike on July 23, 1997, and filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal lockout.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed MMSPI’s petition for certiorari, thereby affirming the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC that the strike staged by MMSPI was illegal.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court denied MMSPI’s petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic is anchored on procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, MMSPI failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ decision before elevating the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This failure constitutes a fatal procedural defect, as a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to allow the lower court to correct its own errors, barring recognized exceptions which MMSPI did not sufficiently establish.
Substantively, the strike was declared illegal. First, MMSPI, as a minority union not certified as the sole bargaining agent, lacked the legal personality to declare a strike based on bargaining deadlock or unfair labor practices affecting the entire bargaining unit. Second, the strike violated mandatory procedural requirements. MMSPI had withdrawn its notice of strike, and the NCMB certification confirmed this withdrawal. The subsequent work stoppage was therefore a “wildcat strike” conducted without the requisite notice and cooling-off period, making it illegal from inception. Third, the Labor Arbiter and NLRC found that strikers committed prohibited acts, such as obstruction of free ingress and egress to the company premises, which further rendered the strike illegal under Article 264(e) of the Labor Code. The findings of fact by the labor tribunals, being supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding.