FACTS:

In the first case, the petitioner, Sukhothai Restaurant, filed a complaint for illegal strike against the private respondents, who staged a "wildcat strike" and other concerted actions. The petitioner had previously guaranteed that there would be no termination of the services of the private respondents during the pendency of the case. However, a union member was dismissed, prompting the Union to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. This led to the staging of a "wildcat strike," which later became an "actual strike." The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal, but the NLRC granted the appeal and vacated the decision.

In the second case, the private respondents, employees of Evergreen Lines, Inc., claimed to have been unjustly terminated without just cause and due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering their reinstatement and the payment of back wages and other benefits. The NLRC affirmed the decision. The petitioner argued that the dismissals were valid due to the closure of business operations, but the respondents asserted that the company continued to operate. The Supreme Court held that there was no valid closure and that the petitioner failed to comply with due process requirements, affirming the decision of the NLRC.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the strike staged by the private respondents is illegal for failing to exhaust all steps in the arbitration proceedings.

2. Whether the requirements for a valid strike may be dispensed with in case of union busting.

3. Whether the strike was attended by the widespread commission of prohibited acts.

4. Whether the individual respondents engaged in illegal acts during the strike.

5. Whether the strike conducted by the private respondents is considered illegal.

6. Whether the termination of the employment of the private respondents is valid.

RULING:

1. The strike staged by the private respondents is illegal for failing to exhaust all steps in the arbitration proceedings. The Supreme Court declared that strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are illegal, as these agreements must be strictly adhered to. The Court emphasized the importance of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, as modes of settling labor disputes. Private respondents should have raised and resolved their concerns regarding the alleged dismissals in the voluntary arbitration proceedings or availed themselves of other appropriate remedies instead of resorting to a wildcat strike.

2. The question of whether the requirements for a valid strike may be dispensed with in case of union busting was not discussed since the Court already declared the strike to be illegal. However, the Court noted that the language of the law leaves no room for doubt that the cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after the strike-vote report were intended to be mandatory. In case of union busting, it is only the 15-day cooling-off period that may be dispensed with. The implementing rules clarify that the union may strike immediately in case of alleged union busting, but the notice, strike vote, and seven-day report period requirements cannot be dispensed with.

3. The strike was attended by the widespread commission of prohibited acts.

4. • The Supreme Court held that even if the strike is declared valid because its purpose is lawful, it may still be declared invalid if the means employed are illegal. The prohibited activities under Article 264 of the Labor Code, particularly paragraph (e), include acts of violence, coercion, intimidation, obstruction of free ingress or egress from the employer's premises, and obstruction of public thoroughfares. The Court outlined several prohibited activities such as shouting slanderous words, using obscene language or epithets, circulating libelous statements, using abusive and threatening language, forming a human cordon, and threatening non-striking employees with bodily harm. The Court stated that obstruction of access of customers is not a permissible activity.

5. The individual respondents engaged in illegal acts during the strike.

6. • The Supreme Court found that the individual respondents participated in illegal acts during the strike, including intimidation and harassment of customers, spreading false statements to discredit the establishment, preventing the entry of customers, creating commotion affecting neighboring establishments, cursing and shouting at management and co-workers, physically preventing non-strikers from entering the premises, blocking their movements, openly threatening them with bodily harm, and causing panic among customers. The Court cited Article 264(a) of the Labor Code, which provides that 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 their employment status.

7. Yes, the strike conducted by the private respondents is considered illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondents committed illegal acts such as intimidating, harassing, preventing, and discouraging customers from entering the restaurant, using abusive language towards management, non-strikers, or customers, deliberately blocking the movements of management or non-strikers inside the restaurant, and threatening non-strikers with bodily harm. The Court found that these acts violated the right to life, liberty, and property of the restaurant owners.

8. The termination of the employment of the private respondents is valid. The Court declared that the private respondents, both union officers and union members, who participated in the illegal strike and in the commission of illegal acts during the strike have lost their employment status.

PRINCIPLES:

• Strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are illegal.

• The principles of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, should be promoted and emphasized in settling labor disputes.

• Allegations of unfair labor practices should be raised and resolved in voluntary arbitration proceedings or through appropriate remedies under the Labor Code.

• The requirements for a valid strike, including notice, strike vote, and seven-day report period, cannot be dispensed with, except in case of union busting where only the 15-day cooling-off period may be dispensed with.

• A strike may be declared invalid if the means employed are illegal, even if the strike's purpose is lawful.

• Prohibited activities under Article 264 of the Labor Code include acts of violence, coercion, intimidation, obstruction of free ingress or egress, and obstruction of public thoroughfares.

• Obstruction of access of customers is not a permissible activity during a strike.

• Liability for prohibited acts during a strike is determined on an individual basis.

• A union officer may be terminated from work for knowingly participating in an illegal strike or committing an illegal act during a strike.

• The striker must be identified, and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required to establish liability for prohibited acts. Substantial evidence available under the circumstances may suffice.

• Strikes conducted in violation of the law, such as striking workers committing illegal acts, may be considered illegal.

• Violation of the right to life, liberty, and property can be a ground for declaring a strike illegal.

• Termination of employment may be justified if employees participate in an illegal strike and/or commit illegal acts during the strike.