FACTS:

This case involves the labor dispute between Nestle Philippines, Inc. (Nestle) and the Union of Filipro Employees (UFE). The dispute led to several incidents, resulting in legal actions.

In the first incident, UFE members staged a strike against Nestle on November 19, 1985. Nestle filed a petition to declare the strike illegal, while the strikers claimed that it was legal based on the notice of strike filed by UFE.

In the second incident, on August 13, 1986, UFE officers and members participated in the "Welga ng Bayan" and walked out from their jobs. Nestle once again filed a petition to declare the walkout illegal.

In the third incident, on September 21, 1986, UFE members joined a picket line in sympathy with the striking workers of Southern Textile Mills. Nestle filed another petition to declare this action an illegal strike.

In the fourth incident, on November 12, 1986, UFE officers and members marched in a demonstration over the slaying of a labor leader. Nestle filed a complaint for an illegal walkout.

In the fifth incident, on August 18, 1987, UFE officers and members walked out at the Cabuyao factory, causing economic losses to Nestle. Nestle filed a petition to declare the walkout illegal.

In the sixth incident, on August 21, 1987, UFE officers and members at the Alabang factory also walked out in sympathy with the Cabuyao counterparts. Nestle filed another petition to declare the strike illegal.

On August 21, 1987, a memorandum of agreement was executed between UFE and Nestle, aiming to normalize production and maintain industrial peace. However, on August 27, 1987, UFE members ignored the agreement and participated in an indignation rally in Cabuyao.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Article 263 and 264 are still valid laws under the present Constitution.

2. Whether the question on the legality of the strike was rendered moot and academic when Nestle management accepted the striking workers in compliance with the return-to-work order of the Minister of Labor.

3. Whether Arts. 263(g) and 264 of the Labor Code are still applicable despite the absence of a provision in the 1987 Constitution similar to Sec. 9 of Art. II of the 1973 Constitution.

4. Whether the strike conducted by the union is illegal.

5. Whether the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor imposes a duty on striking workers to go back to their jobs.

6. Whether the assumption or certification order of the Secretary of Labor automatically results in a return-to-work of all striking workers.

7. Whether a strike staged in violation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement is illegal.

8. Whether the failure to comply with the prescribed mandatory cooling-off period and strike notice requirements renders a strike illegal.

9. Whether a strike conducted using coercion, force, intimidation, violence, sabotage, and obscene language is illegal.

10. Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction to resolve the question on the legality of the strike.

11. Whether the strike staged by the United Filipino Employees Union (UFE) was illegal.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule on the issue of whether Article 263 and 264 are still valid laws under the present Constitution. The Court focused on the legality of the strikes and the validity of the dismissals of the individual complainants.

2. The Court found that the question on the legality of the strike was not rendered moot and academic. Even if the management accepted the striking workers in compliance with the return-to-work order, the legality of the strike still needed to be determined.

3. Arts. 263(g) and 264 of the Labor Code are still applicable even without a provision in the 1987 Constitution similar to Sec. 9 of Art. II of the 1973 Constitution. There has been no law expressly repealing the said articles and there is no showing that they are inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution. The continued validity and operation of Arts. 263 and 264 have also been recognized by the Philippine Congress through the enactment of R.A. 6715.

4. The strike conducted by the union is illegal. Regardless of their motives or the validity of their claims, the striking workers must cease and desist from any acts that undermine the authority of the Secretary of Labor once an assumption and/or certification order is issued. The return-to-work order is issued to maintain the status quo while the legality of the strike is being determined.

5. The return-to-work order imposes a duty on striking workers to go back to their jobs, regardless of their will or preference.

6. The assumption or certification order of the Secretary of Labor automatically results in a return-to-work of all striking workers, regardless of whether a specific return-to-work order has been issued.

7. A strike staged in violation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, particularly the "No Strike/No Lockout Clause," is illegal.

8. The failure to comply with the prescribed mandatory cooling-off period and strike notice requirements renders a strike illegal.

9. A strike conducted using coercion, force, intimidation, violence, sabotage, and obscene language is illegal.

10. The Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction to resolve the question on the legality of the strike. The question falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Additionally, the issue was not subsumed by the Order of the Labor Minister, certifying the Notice of Strike for compulsory arbitration.

11. The strike staged by UFE was found to be illegal. This is a prejudicial question to the issue of whether or not the complainants were illegally dismissed. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) holding that the strike was illegal was affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

• The legality of strikes is a core issue that needs to be determined.

• The acceptance of striking workers by management does not make the question on the legality of the strike moot and academic.

• Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.

• Articles 263(g) and 264 of the Labor Code are still applicable even without a provision in the 1987 Constitution similar to Sec. 9 of Art. II of the 1973 Constitution.

• The continued validity and operation of Arts. 263 and 264 of the Labor Code have been recognized by the Philippine Congress through the enactment of R.A. 6715.

• The police power of the State allows the government to enact laws to promote the order, safety, health, morals, and general welfare of society.

• Assumption and certification orders in labor disputes are executory in character and must be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity.

• The purpose of a return-to-work order is to maintain the status quo while determining the legality or illegality of a strike. It is not enforceable only if the strike is legal and can be disregarded if the strike is illegal.

• The return-to-work order imposes a duty on striking workers and must be discharged as an obligation, even against the worker's will.

• Strikes are enjoined and all strikers shall immediately return to work upon the issuance of an assumption or certification order by the Secretary of Labor.

• A strike staged in violation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, particularly the "No Strike/No Lockout Clause," is illegal.

• The prescribed mandatory cooling-off period and strike notice requirements must be complied with for a strike to be considered legal.

• Strikes conducted using coercion, force, intimidation, violence, sabotage, and obscene language are illegal.

• The Labor Arbiter has the original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve questions on the legality of strikes.

• A strike can be declared illegal if it is found to be in violation of the necessary procedures and requirements under labor laws.

• Issues on the legality of a strike can be considered as prejudicial questions in relation to other labor disputes, such as illegal dismissal.