SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232344. November 29, 2017.]
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG GOLDEN FORTUNE CONSTRUCTION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF WORKERS UNION, ROGELIO H. JUSTINIANE, SONNY BOY AGUINALDO, REMEGIO C. ENCEPTO, ROMULO M. LAGUNA, ALEXANDER G. ABION, ALLAN A. BACERRA, EDDIE B. TIPO, HARRIS G. JADIE, ALICIO B. ADIGUE, JR., ORLAND M. PIEGO, AND RONALD PARING, petitioners,vs. GOLDEN FORTUNE TECHNO BUILT, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2017which reads as follows: AcICHD
"G.R. No. 232344 (Samahang Manggagawa ng Golden Fortune Construction-National Federation of Workers Union, Rogelio H. Justiniane, Sonny Boy Aguinaldo, Remegio C. Encepto, Romulo M. Laguna, Alexander G. Abion, Allan A. Bacerra, Eddie B. Tipo, Harris G. Jadie, Alicio B. Adigue, Jr., Orland M. Piego, and Ronald Paring v. Golden Fortune Techno Built, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the December 8, 2016 Decision 1 and May 9, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141516 for failure of petitioners Samahang Manggagawa ng Golden Fortune Construction-National Federation of Workers Union, Rogelio H. Justiniane, Sonny Boy Aguinaldo, Remegio C. Encepto, Romulo M. Laguna, Alexander G. Abion, Allan A. Bacerra, Eddie B. Tipo, Harris G. Jadie, Alicio B. Adigue, Jr., Orland M. Piego, and Ronald Paring (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that they conducted illegal strikes on September 12, 2014 and October 17, 2014.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent Golden Fortune Techno Built, Inc. (respondent) had sufficiently established that petitioners committed illegal strikes on the respective dates, considering: (a) their failure to prove that their union is a legitimate labor organization or a duly certified bargaining agent of respondent; (b) that petitioners are merely project employees who did not belong to the rank-and-file employees of an appropriate bargaining unit; (c) their non-compliance with the procedural requirements of a valid strike; and (d) that they committed prohibited acts of violence and vandalism, among others, during the strikes at respondent's office. On the other hand, aside from bare denials, petitioners failed to substantiate that their fleeting protest actions were not considered strikes that did not result to work stoppage. It bears emphasizing that a strike staged without compliance with the requirements of Article 263 3 of the Labor Code is illegal, and may cause the termination of the employment of the participating union officers and members. 4 Besides, any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status, 5 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-43. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
2.Id. at 18-20.
3. Article 278 pursuant to DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015. (See Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016, 778 SCRA 17, 33)
4. However, the liability for the illegal strike is individual, not collective. To warrant the termination of an officer of the labor organization on that basis, the employer must show that the officer knowingly participated in the illegal strike. An ordinary striking employee cannot be terminated based solely on his participation in the illegal strike, for the employer must further show that the employee committed illegal acts during the strike. (See Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016, 778 SCRA 17, 42-43)
5.Piñero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 480 Phil. 534, 543 (2004).