FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016
THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, MA. DALISAY P. DELA CHICA, MARVILON B. MILITANTE, DAVID Z. ATANACIO, JR., CARMINA C. RIVERA, MARIO T. FERMIN(T), ISABELO E. MOLO, RUSSEL M. PALMA, IMELDA G. HERNANDEZ, VICENTE M. LLACUNA, JOSEFINA A. ORTIGUERRO, MA. ASUNCION G. KIMSENG, MIGUEL R. SISON, RAUL P. GERONIMO, MARILOU E. CADENA, ANA N. TAMONTE, AVELINO Q. RELUCIO, JORALYN R. GONGORA, CORAZON E. ALBOS, ANABELLA J. GONZALES, MA. CORAZON Q. BALTAZAR, MARIA LUZ I. JIMENEZ, ELVIRA A. ORLINA, SAMUEL B. ELLARMA, ROSARIO A. FLORES, EDITHA L. BROQUEZA, REBECCA T. FAJARDO, MA. VICTORIA C. LUNA, MA. THERESA G. GALANG, BENIGNO V. AMION, GERARDO J. DE LEON, ROWENA T. OCAMPO, MALOU P. DIZON, RUBEN DE C. ATIENZA, MELO E. GABA, HERNAN B. CAMPOSANTO, NELIA D. M. DERIADA, LOLITO L. HILIS, GRACE C. MABUNAY, FE ESPERANZA C. GERONG, MANUEL E. HERRERA, JOSELITO J. GONZAGA, ULDARTCO D. PEDIDA, ROSALINA JULIET B. LOQUELLANO, MARCIAL F. GONZAGA, MERCEDES R. PAULE, JOSE TEODORO A. MOTUS, BLANCHE D. MOTUS, DAISY M. FAGUTAO, ANTONIO A. DEL ROSARIO, EMMANUEL JUSTIN S. GREY, FRANCISCA DEL MUNDO, JULIETA A. CRUZ, RODRIGO J. DURANO, CATALINA R. YEE, MENANDRO CALIGAGAN, MAIDA M. SACRO MILITANTE, LEONILA M. PEREZ, AND EMMA MATEO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, LTD., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
A strike staged without compliance with the requirements of Article 2631 of the Labor Code is illegal, and may cause the termination of the employment of the participating union officers and members. 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.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED and the questioned decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Private respondent Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation is ordered to pay each of the following: Isabelo Molo, Elvira Orlina, Samuel Ellarma, Rosario Flores, Rebecca Fajardo, Ma. Victoria Luna, Malou Dizon, Ruben Atienza, Melo Gaba, Nelia Deriada, Fe Esperanza Gerong, Manuel Herrera, Rosalina Juliet Loquellano, Mercedes Paule, Binche Motus, Antonio del Rosario, Francisca del Mundo and Maida Militante:(a) full backwages from the time of their dismissal in 1993 up to the time this decision becomes final; andSO ORDERED.3
(b) separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service up to 1993.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1. The 22 December 1993 strike conducted by the union is hereby declared illegal;All the other claims for moral and exemplary damages are denied for lack of merit.
2. The following Union officers and members who participated in the 22 December 1993 strike are hereby deemed to have lost their employment status as of that date, namely: Dalisay Dela Chica, Isabelo Molo, Danilo Alonso, Alvar Rosales, Russel Palma, Imelda Hernandez, Vicente Llacuna, Josefina Ortiguero, Agustin Iligan, Ma. Asuncion Kimseng, Miguel Sison, Raul Geronimo, Marilou Cadena, Ana Tamonte, Yolanda Enciso, Avelino Relucio, Joralyn Gongora, Corazon Albos, Anabella Gozales, Ma. Corazon Baltazar, Maria Luz Jimenez, Concordio Madayag, Elvira Orlina, Ma. Lourdes Austria, Josephine Landas, Samuel Ellarma, Rosario Flores, Editha Broqueza, Marina Sal vac ion, Ma. Cecilia Ocampo, Rebecca Fajardo, Ma. Victoria Luna, Ma. Theresa Ofelia Galang, Benigno Amion, Mercedes Castro, Gerardo de Leon, Rowena Ocampo, Malou Dizon, Juliet Dacumos, Blandina dela Pena, Ruben Atienza, Ma. Fe Temporal, Mcllo Gaba, Herman Camposanto, Nelia Deriada, Lolito Hilis, Ma. Dulce Abellar, Grace Mabunay, Fe Esperanza Gerong, Romeo Tumlos, Sonia Argos, Manuel Herrera, Joselito Gonzaga, Uldarico Pedida, Cynthia Calangi, Rosalina Loquellano, Marcial Gonzaga, Mercedes Paule, Jess Nicolas, Teodoro Motus, Blanche Motus, Daisy Martinez Fagutao, Antonio del Rosario, Emmanuel Justin Grey, Francisca del Mundo, Juliet Cruz, Rodrigo Durano, Carmina Rivera, David Atanacio, Jr., Ofelia Rabuco, Alfred Tan Jr., Catalina Yee, Menandro Caligaga, Melorio Maida Militante, Antonio Marilon, and Leonila Peres, Emma Mateo, Felipe Vital, Jr., Mario Fermin, and Virgilio Reli;
3. The Union, its officers and members are hereby held jointly and severally liable to pay the Bank the amount of P45,000.00 as actual damages.
SO ORDERED.24ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxx [W]e note, however, that as per the submission of the parties, not all the respondents (members) have been identified by complainant as having violated the law on free ingress and egress (i.e., Article 264[e]). A meticulous review of the testimonies given during trial and a comparison of the same show that 25 respondents were not named by complainant's witnesses.
Of the 25, 6 of them (Rabuco, Salvacion, Castro, Dacumos, Calangi and Nicolas) have already settled with the complainant during the pendency of the appeal. Of the remaining 19, one respondent is a union officer (Rivera) while the remaining 18 respondents (Molo, Orlina, Ellarma, Flores, Fajardo, Luna, Dizon, Atienza, Gaba, Deriada, Gerong, Herrera, Loquellano, Paule, Motus, Del Rosario, Mundo and Militante) are neither officers nor members who have been pinpointed as having committed illegal act[s]. We, therefore, disagree with the Labor Arbiter's generalization that these 18 respondents have similarly lost their employment status simply because they participated in or acquiesced to the holding of the strike.
x x x x
Only insofar as the xxx 18 respondents are concerned, We rule that complainant did fail to give them sufficient opportunity to present their side and adequate opportunity to answer the charges against them. More was expected from complainant and its observance of due process may not be dispensed with no matter how brazen and blatant the violation or its rules and regulations may have perceived. The twin requirement of notice and hearing in termination cases are as much indispensable and mandatory as the procedural requirements enumerated in Article 262 of the Labor Code. In this case, We cannot construe complainant's notice to return-to-work as substantial compliance with due process requirement.
Contrary however to respondents' insistence that complainant failed to observe due process in the case of the 18 respondents does not mean that they are automatically entitled to backwages or reinstatement. Consistent with decided cases, these respondents are entitled only to indemnity for complainant's omission, specifically to the amount of P5,000.00 each, xxx
As a final word, and only as regard these 18 respondents, We take note of the fact that they have remained silent spectators, if not mere bystanders, in the illegal strike and illegal acts committed by the other individual respondents, and since the grounds for which they have been terminated do not involve moral turpitude, the consequences for their acts must nevertheless be tempered with some sense of compassion. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence and in the interest of social justice, We find the award of separation pay to each of the 18 respondents equivalent to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service as equitable and proper.
X X X X
WHEREFORE, the decision dated 26 August 1998 is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that complainant is ordered to pay (a) P5,000.00 and (b) one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service up to December 1993 to each of the following respondents: Isabelo Molo, Elvira Orlina, Samuel Ellarma, Rosario Flores, Rebecca Fajardo, Ma. Victoria Luna, Malou Dizon, Ruben Atienza, Melo Gaba, Nelia Deriada, Fe Esperanza Gerong, Manuel Herrera, Rosalina Juliet Loquellano, Mercedes Paule. Binche Motus, Antonio del Rosario, Francisca del Mundo and Maida Militante.
SO ORDERED.25ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In Ruben Serrano v. NLRC and Isetcmn Department Store xxx, the Court ruled that an employee who is dismissed, whether or not for just or authorized cause but without prior notice of his termination, is entitled to full baekwages from the time he was terminated until the decision in his case becomes final, when the dismissal was for cause; and in case the dismissal was without just or valid cause, the backwages shall be computed from the time of his dismissal until his actual reinstatement. In the case at bar, where the requirement of notice and hearing was not complied with, the aforecited doctrine laid down in the Serrano case applies.29
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT ALL THE PETITIONERS WERE VALIDLY DISMISSEDA The Court of Appeals cannot selectively apply the right to due process in determining the validity of the dismissal of the employeeB The refusal to lift the strike upon orders of the HSBC is not just cause for the dismissal of the employeesC The HSBC is liable for damages for having acted in utter bad faith by dismissing the petitioners after having previously submitted the dispute to the NLRCD Union officers who did not knowingly participate in the strike do not lose their employment statusE The responsibility for illegal acts committed in the course of a strike is individual and not collectiveF The January 5, 1994 incident does not warrant the dismissal of the petitioners involved thereatG The penalty, if any, imposable on union officers should be suspension and not dismissalII
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE STRIKE WAS ILLEGALA The test of good faith laid down by this Honorable Court is whether the union is of the reasonable belief that the management was committing an unfair labor practiceB The decision as to when to declare the strike is wholly dependent on the union, and the same cannot negate good faithC The Court of Appeals committed grave error in concluding that this Court had already ruled on the validity of the implementation of the Job Evaluation Program and no longer considered the evidence presented by petitioners to establish unfair labor practice on the part of the HSBCD The doctrine automatically making a strike illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements needs to be revisited
Article 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts, x x x
x x x x
(c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employers may file a notice of lockout with the [Department] at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practices, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately.
(d) The notice must be in accordance with such implementing rules and regulations as the [Secretary] of Labor and Employment may promulgate.
(e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the [Department] to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of clays from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout.
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The [Department] may, at its own initiative or upon request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the [Department] the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided.
x x x x
Art. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the [Department], (emphasis supplied)
x x x x
[I]t must be pointed out that the Bank has shown by clear and indubitable evidence that most of the respondents have actually violated the prescription provided for in paragraph (b) of Article 264 on free ingress and egress. The incident depicted in the video footage of 05 January 1994, which has been viewed several times during the trial and even privately, demonstrates beyond doubt that the picket was a non-moving, stationary one - nothing less but a barricade. This office is more than convinced that the respondents, at least on that day, have demonstrated an abnormally high degree of hatred and anger at the Bank and its officers (including the Bank's chief executive officer who fell to the ground as a result of the pushing and shoving) leading them to do anything to carry out their resolve not to let anymore inside the Bank. Additionally, as observed by this Labor Arbiter, the tensed and disquieting relation between the parties became all the more apparent during the actual hearings as clearly evident from the demeanor and actuations of the respondents.51 (Emphasis supplied)
[W]e do not find any reason to deviate from our rulings in Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. and Nissan Motors Philippines, Inc. It bears emphasis that the strike staged by the Union in the instant case was illegal for its procedural infirmities and for defiance of the Secretary's assumption order. The CA, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter were unanimous in finding that bad faith existed in the conduct of the subject strike. The relevant portion of the CA Decision states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryxxx We cannot go to the extent of ascribing good faith to the means taken in conducting the strike. The requirement of the law is simple, that is — 1. Give a Notice of Strike; 2. Observe the cooling period; 3. Observe the mandatory seven day strike ban; 3. If the act is union busting, then the union may strike doing away with the cooling-off period, subject only to the seven-day strike ban. To be lawful, a strike must simply have a lawful purpose and should be executed through lawful means. Here, the union cannot claim good faith in the conduct of the strike because, as can be gleaned from the findings of the Labor Arbiter, this was an extensively coordinated strike having been conducted all throughout the offices of PILTEL all over the country. Evidently, the strike was planned. Verily, they cannot now come to court hiding behind the shield of "good faith." Be that as it may, petitioners claim good faith only in so far as their grounds for the strike but not on the conduct of the strike. Consequently, they still had to comply with the procedural requirements for a strike, which, in this case, they failed to do so.58ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Article 264. Prohibited Activities -xxx
x x x x
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. 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: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike, (emphasis supplied)
Note that the verb "participates" is preceded by the adverb "knowingly." This reflects the intent of the legislature to require "knowledge" as a condition sine qua non before a union officer can be dismissed from employment for participating in an illegal strike. The provision is worded in such a way as to make it very difficult for employers to circumvent the law by arbitrarily dismissing employees in the guise of exercising management prerogative. This is but one aspect of the State's constitutional and statutory mandate to protect the rights of employees to self-organization.62
We here note that all of the herein named respondents were terminated by complainant for reasons other than their holding of an participation in the illegal strike. Specifically, the grounds for their termination were enumerated in the notices of termination sent out by complainant as follows: abandonment, insubordination and seriously hampering operations. To Our mind, the complainant in the exercise of its management prerogative, had every reason to discipline these respondents for their disregard of the complainant's return-to-work order and for the damage sustained by reason thereof. Although these 18 respondents did not commit any illegal act during the strike, We can not simply ignore the fact that they nonetheless breached complainant's rules and regulations and which acts serve as valid causes to terminate their employment. These respondents took a risk when they refused to heed complainant's lawful order and knowingly caused damage and prejudice to complainant's operations; they should be prepared to take the consequences and be held accountable for their actions. Whether or not complainant observed due process prior to the termination of these respondents is however a totally different matter.74ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Art. 277(b) in relation to Art. 264(a) and (e) recognizes the right to due process of all workers, without distinction as to the cause of their termination. Where no distinction is given, none is construed. Hence, the foregoing standards of due process apply to the termination of employment of Suico, et al. even if the cause therefor was their supposed involvement in strike-related violence prohibited under Art. 264 (a) and (e).82
Article 277. Miscellaneous Provisions. -
x x x x
(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires, in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment, x x x (Emphasis supplied)
(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. "Reasonable opportunity" under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against the employees.
x x x x
(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.85 (Emphasis supplied)
Re: NOTICE OF RETURN TO WORK
__________________________________________________
On ___________________ at ________ o'clock in the morning/afternoon, you "walked-out" by leaving your assigned work station without prior permission/leave during work hours.
You arc hereby directed to report back for work at the start of banking hours on the day immediately following knowledge or receipt of this notice. Should you report for work no disciplinary action shall be imposed on you. Ibis is without prejudice to any action the Bank may take against the Union.
Should you fail to report back for work within the period abovestated, the Bank shall be forced to terminate your employment and take all appropriate measures to continue serving its clients.86
Re: NOTICE OF TERMINATION
__________________________________________________________
On_________ , 1993, you and a majority of the rank-and-file staff "walked out" by leaving your respective work stations without prior leave and failed to return.
You were directed to report back for work when a copy of the Bank's Memorandum/Notice to Return to Work dated________________ 1993 was:
1. [ ] Posted on the Bank's premises on_______________
2. [ ] served on your (sic) personally on____________________.
3. [ ] delivered to your last known address on file with the Bank and received by you (your representative) on
Despite being directed to return to work, you have failed to comply.
Your "walk-out" is an illegal act amounting to abandonment, insubordination, and seriously hampering and damaging the bank's operations. Consequently, your employment with the Bank is terminated effective ____________________, 1993.87
Endnotes:
1 Now Article 278 pursuant to DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015.
2Rollo, pp. 77-89; penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurred by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador (retired) and Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawncr (later Presiding Justice/retircd/deceased)..
3 Id. at 88-89.
4 Id. at 93-94.
5 Id. at 1178-1218.
6 Id. at 138-143.
7 Id. at 79.
8 Id. at 150.
9 Id. at 18.
10 Id. at 1117.
11 Supra note 8.
12 Supra note 9.
13 Supra note 8.
14Rollo, p. 443.
15 G.R. No. 125038, November 6, 1997, 281 SCRA 509.
16Rollo, p. 20.
17 Id. at 444.
18 Id. at 445.
19 Id. at 446.
20 Id. at 20.
21 Id. at 447.
22 G.R. No. 113541, November 20, 2001, 370 SCRA 193.
23Rollo, p. 446.
24 Id. at 1139-1141.cralawred
25 Id. at 1154-1158.
26 Records, Vol. VIII, pp. 640-642.cralawred
27 Supra note 1.
28 G.R. No. 117040, January 27, 2000, 323 SCRA 445.
29Rollo, p. 88.
30 Id. at 93-94.
31 Id. at 270, 285-288, 1344-1362.
32 Id. at 272, 305 and 1363.
33 Id. at 28-29.
34 Id. al 254-258.
35 Now Art. 279 pursuant to DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015.
36 Id. at 519-520.
37 Id. at 523-533.
38 G.R. No. 158693. November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573.
39Rollo, pp. 545-548.cralawred
40 Steel Corpora/ion of the Philippines v. SCP Employees Union-National Federation of Labor Unions, G.R. Nos. 169829-30, April 18, 2008, 551 SCRA 594, 607; Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines (AUIP) v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 120505, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 219, 229.
41Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. (HEPl) v. Sumahan ng mga Manggagawa set Hyatt-National Union of Workers in the Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN), G.R. No. 165756, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 497, 515; First City Interlink Transportation Co., Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 106316, May 5, 1997. 272 SCRA 124,130-131.
42Rollo, p. 84,
43 Section 10. Strike or lockout vote. A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in meetings of referenda called for the purpose, x x x.
44Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations Commission, GR. Nos. 158786 and 158789, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 171, 203.
45National Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission (5th Division), G..R. No. 127718, March 2, 2000, 327 SCRA 158, 165.
46Rollo, pp. 634-730.
47 CA rollo, Volume II, pp. 638-1764 (Annexes "11" to "22").
48 Records, Volume III, p. 232 (Exhibits "K" - "K-240").
49 Records, Volume IX.
50Rollo, pp. 657-658: Arturo Sule, HSBC's Assistant Manager of the Technical Services Division, attested that he entered and exited from the Ayala Branch on December 22, 1993 through a ladder from the rear parking compound of the adjacent building of Security Bank; that on December 23, 1993, he and other bank officers went to the parking area looking for ropes and ladders to use to gain entry, but they were foiled by the strikers who had meanwhile discovered their attempt to enter; and that the threats of harm from the strikers who had gathered outside the building forced him and his fellow bank officers to seek refuge in the guardhouse in the basement of Security Bank, whose guards allowed them do so
51 Id. at 1136-1137.
52 Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 3. x x x53 See Appendix 4, Guidelines Governing Labor Relations, Primer on Strike, Picketing and Lockout (Second Edition), http://ncmb.ph/Publications/Manual%20on520Strike/MOS.HTM (last visited February 8, 2016).
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. x x x. (bold emphasis supplied)
54 A. Soriano Aviation v. Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation, G.R. No. 166879, August 14, 2009, 596SCRA 189, 196.
55PHIMCO Industries, Inc. v. PHIMCO Industries Labor Association (PILA), G.R. No. 170830, August 11,2010, 628 SCRA 119, 135.
56National Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission, G..R. No. 113466, December 15, 1997, 283 SCRA 275, 287-288 citing First City Interlink Transportation Co. v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 106316, May 5, 1997,272 SCRA 124, 132.
57 G.R. No. 160058, June 22, 2007, 525 SCRA 361.
58 Id. at 380.
59Bacus v. Ople, G.R. No. L-56856, October 23, 1984, 132 SCRA 690, 703.
60Shell Oil Workers' Union v. Shell Company of the Phil., G.R. No. L-28607, February 12 1972 43 SCRA 224, 228.
61 G.R. No. 168406, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 471.
62 Id. at 478-479.
63 Records Vol. XVIII, TSN dated August 21, 1996, pp. 18-19.
64 Rollo, pp. 218-219.
65 Id. at 224.
66 Records Vol. XVIII, TSN dated July 19, 1996, pp. 37-41.
67 Records Vol. I, p. 189; HSBC's witness, Stephen So, declared in his affidavit that on December 22, 1993, he met with Dela Chica at the rear entrance of the bank's premise, and she urged him not to make any attempt to enter the bank.
68 See Affidavits of Amelia Garcia (Records Vol. I, p. 207), David Hodgkinson (Records Vol. I, pp. 126- 127), Mark Ivan Boyne (Records Vol. I, pp. 231-232), Stuart Paterson Milne (Records Vol. I, p. 233-234), Elaine Dichupa (Records Vol. II, pp. 142-143), Anna Marie Andres (Records Vol. I, pp. 235-237), Alejandro Custodio (Records Vol. 1, pp. 238-239), Stephen Charles Banner (Records Vol. 1, pp. 240-241), Rafael Laurel. Jr. (Records Vol. I, pp. 250-251) identified Militante to be actively participating and engaging in prohibited acts on several occasions.
69 Supra note 55, at 381.
70Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines (AUIP) v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120505, March 25, 1999,305 SCRA219, 230.
71Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 103560, July 6, 1995,245 SCRA 627, 641.
72Solidbank Corporation v. Gamier, G.R. No. 159460, November 1 5, 2010, 634 SCRA 554, 580.
73Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines (AIUP) v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 120505, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 219, 231.
74Rollo, pp. 1155-1156.
75Batangus Lagima Tayabas Bus Company v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101858 August 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 792 800.
76 Strike-breaker is defined as "any person who obstructs, impedes, or interferes with by force, violence, coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or collective bargaining. (Art. 219[r], Labor Code)
77Pharmacia and Upjohn Inc. v. Albayda Jr., G.R. No. 172724, August 23, 2010, 628 SCRA 544, 567.
78About Haulers, Inc. Dimapatoi, G. R. No. 148619, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 271, 291.
79 F.R.F Enterprises, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 105998, April 21, 1995, 243 SCRA 593,597.
80 Id.
81 G.R. No. 146762, January 30, 2007, 513 SCRA 325.
82 Id. at 342.
83 Now Article 292 pursuant to DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015.
84 G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 116.
85 Id. at 125-126.
86Rollo, p. 594.
87 Id. at 596.
88 Now Article 294 pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 01, Series of 2015.
89 Philippine Diamond Hotel & Resort, Inc. (Manila Diamond Hotel) v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, G..R. No. 158075, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 195, 214.
90 G&S Transport Corporation v. Infante, G. R. No. 160303, September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 288, 302.
91Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA), G.R. No. 170830, August 11, 2010,628 SCRA 119, 152.