FACTS:

Phimco Industries, Inc. (PHIMCO) filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in a labor dispute case involving PHIMCO and respondent Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA).

The last collective bargaining agreement between PHIMCO and PILA expired on December 31, 1994, resulting in a deadlock on economic issues. In response, PILA filed a Notice of Strike on March 9, 1995, and conducted a strike vote on March 16, 1995. On April 21, 1995, PILA staged a strike.

PHIMCO filed a petition for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the strikers from preventing non-striking employees from entering the company premises. The NLRC issued an ex-parte TRO effective until June 5, 1995.

PHIMCO later sent a letter to 36 union members, requiring them to explain their illegal acts during the strike. These union members were subsequently dismissed.

PILA filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with the NLRC, while PHIMCO filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. The cases were consolidated.

The NLRC found the strike to be legal, ruling that the picket conducted by the striking employees was peaceful and did not constitute an illegal blockade. It also ruled that the dismissal of the union members was illegal.

PHIMCO filed a motion for reconsideration, but before it was resolved, PHIMCO elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari.

The CA dismissed PHIMCO's petition, ruling that the NLRC's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

PHIMCO appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the strike was illegal based on the prohibited acts committed by the respondents.

The main issue is whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the strike was legal.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the strike in this case was valid, considering the procedural requirements under Article 263 of the Labor Code.

2. Whether the means employed in the strike were illegal, specifically whether the picketing violated Article 264(e) of the Labor Code.

3. Whether the picket conducted by the respondents effectively obstructed the entry and exit points of the company premises.

4. Whether a peaceful and moving picket that blocks ingress to and egress from the company premises is considered illegal.

5. Whether the picket conducted by the respondents constituted an obstruction to the company's points of ingress and egress.

6. Whether the picket was carried out with violence, coercion, or intimidation.

7. Whether the respondents committed acts during the strike that are prohibited under Article 264(e) of the Labor Code.

8. Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible errors in ignoring the evidence of illegal obstruction and violation of the law on strikes.

9. Whether PHIMCO violated the requirements of due process of the Labor Code when it dismissed the respondents.

10. Whether the union members were given ample opportunity to be heard and defend themselves.

11. Whether or not the error in spelling the name of the respondent affects the validity of the decision.

12. Whether or not the respondent is entitled to the cancellation of the Certificate of Title in favor of the petitioner.

RULING:

1. The strike in this case was valid. The union complied with the procedural requirements under Article 263 of the Labor Code, including filing a notice of strike, obtaining a strike vote approved by the majority of union members, and giving notice of the results of the voting to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) seven days before the intended strike.

2. The means employed in the strike were illegal. The picketing conducted by the union effectively blocked the free ingress to and egress from the employer's premises, preventing non-striking employees and company vehicles from entering. This violated Article 264(e) of the Labor Code, which prohibits acts of obstruction or intimidation during picketing.

3. The evidence presented, including pictures taken during the strike and testimonies of witnesses, showed that the picket conducted by the respondents effectively obstructed the entry and exit points of the company premises on various occasions.

4. While the right of employees to publicize their dispute is protected under freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble, this right does not extend to blocking ingress to and egress from the company premises. A picket, even if it is moving and peaceful, is considered illegal if it effectively blocks entry and exit from the company premises.

5. Yes. The testimonies of witnesses and photographs taken of the strike area demonstrated that the picket was maintained close to the company gates, virtually constituting an obstruction to the free ingress and egress of the company premises. The placement of benches and makeshift structures further aggravated the obstructive nature of the picket. Therefore, the picket was an obstruction and not a peaceful moving picket as characterized by the NLRC.

6. Yes. The union officers and members conducted the picket in a manner that created an intimidating atmosphere, preventing non-striking employees and even company vehicles from crossing the picket line. Testimonies during the compulsory arbitration hearings showed that the picketers did not allow managers and employees to enter the company premises, even with police intervention. This constituted unlawful intimidation, as picketing carried on with violence, coercion, or intimidation is prohibited under Article 264(e) of the Labor Code.

7. Yes, the respondents committed acts during the strike that are prohibited under Article 264(e) of the Labor Code. The evidence presented supports the company's submission that the respondents committed acts of obstruction by blocking the ingress to and egress from the company premises. The testimonies of non-striking employees and union officers, as well as the photographs of the strike scene, clearly depict the obstructive nature of the picket. The NLRC and the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by ignoring this evidence.

8. Yes, the NLRC and the CA committed reversible errors in ignoring the evidence of illegal obstruction and violation of the law on strikes. Despite clear pieces of evidence, they chose to disregard the violations committed by the union and its officers and members. The NLRC's failure to see and address the violations constitutes grave abuse of discretion, while the CA committed its own reversible error by supporting the NLRC's errors.

9. Yes, PHIMCO violated the requirements of due process of the Labor Code when it dismissed the respondents. The company failed to provide the respondents with two written notices, specifying the grounds for termination and giving the employees a reasonable opportunity to explain their side before deciding on dismissal.

10. No, the union members were not given ample opportunity to be heard and defend themselves. The short interval of time between the first notice and the termination notice, along with the lack of specific charges against the union officers, indicated the company's intent to dismiss the union members without meaningful resort to the guarantees accorded to them by law.

11. The Supreme Court held that the error in spelling the name of the respondent does not affect the validity of the decision. The Court ruled that a mere clerical error in the spelling of a party's name is not a ground for reversing a decision, as long as the identity of the party can still be ascertained.

12. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent is entitled to the cancellation of the Certificate of Title in favor of the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that he is the true and lawful owner of the subject property, and that the respondent has a better right to the said property.

PRINCIPLES:

• A strike must be exercised responsibly and based on rational grounds, focusing on legitimate union interests and not being antithetical to public welfare.

• Procedural requirements for a strike to be valid include filing a notice of strike, obtaining a strike vote approved by the majority of union members, and giving notice of the results of the voting to the DOLE.

• The seven-day strike ban allows the DOLE to verify the legitimacy of the strike.

• Despite compliance with procedural requirements, a strike may still be held illegal if the means employed are illegal.

• Picketing that obstructs free ingress or egress to the employer's premises for lawful purposes violates Article 264(e) of the Labor Code.

• The Court has the authority to intervene and rule on evidentiary and factual issues if the lower tribunals misread the evidence.

• The evidence of pictures and affidavits can establish the illegality of the means employed in a strike.

• Striking is the withholding or stopping of work by employees due to an industrial or labor dispute, while picketing is the act of marching outside the employer's premises to publicize the labor dispute.

• Picketing is a separate activity from the actual stoppage of work.

• Employees have the right to publicize their dispute and to peaceably assemble to air grievances.

• However, these rights are not absolute and do not extend to blocking entry and exit from the company premises.

• A picket, even if it is moving and peaceful, may be considered illegal if it effectively obstructs the ingress to and egress from the company premises.

• Pickets may not aggressively interfere with the right of peaceful ingress to and egress from the employer's shop or obstruct public thoroughfares.

• Unlawful intimidation can be present even without direct threats or overt acts of violence. Words or acts calculated and intended to cause fear of injury to a person, business, or property are equivalent to threats.

• Article 264(a) of the Labor Code provides for the penalties for participating workers and union officers in illegal strikes. Ordinary striking workers cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike, but proof of illegal acts committed during the strike is required. Participating union officers may be terminated if they actually commit illegal acts during a strike or knowingly participate in an illegal strike.

• Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required to impose the penalty of dismissal on participating workers and union officers. Substantial evidence available under the attendant circumstances is sufficient to justify the imposition of the penalty.

• The law protects the rights of the laborer but does not authorize oppression or destruction of the employer. The rights of both the employer and the employee must be balanced and respected.

• Under Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, an employer must provide an employee who is about to be terminated with written notice stating the cause/s for termination and the opportunity to be heard and defend oneself.

• To meet the requirements of due process in the dismissal of an employee, an employer must furnish the employee with two written notices: one specifying the grounds for termination and providing an opportunity to explain one's side, and another indicating that grounds have been established to justify dismissal.

• Even if there is just cause for dismissal, if an employer fails to afford the employee due process, the employer must pay nominal damages as indemnity for the violation of the worker's right to statutory due process.

• A mere clerical error in the spelling of a party's name is not a ground for reversing a decision, as long as the identity of the party can still be ascertained.

• To be entitled to the cancellation of a Certificate of Title, the claimant must establish that he or she is the true and lawful owner of the subject property and that the registered owner's title is null and void.