Case Name: A. SORIANO AVIATION, petitioner, vs.

EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION OF A. SORIANO AVIATION
G.R. Number: 166879
Topic: Strikes Author: Byron Yao Issue:
1. Whether or not the strike staged by employees is illegal due to alleged commission of
Doctrine: While the strike is the most preeminent economic weapon of workers to illegal acts and violation of No-Strike, No Lock-out clause – YES
force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and 2. Whether or not they have lost their employment status -- Remanded
capital, it exerts some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor Held/Ratio:
and management, but also on the general peace and progress of society and Issue #1:
economic well-being of the State. If such weapon has to be used at all, it must be It cannot be gainsaid that by the above-enumerated undisputed acts, the Union
used sparingly and within the bounds of law in the interest of industrial peace and committed illegal acts during the strike. The Union members’ repeated name-
public welfare. calling, harassment and threats of bodily harm directed against company officers
Facts: and non-striking employees and, more significantly, the putting up of placards,
 A. Soriano Aviation, engaged in providing transportation of guests to and from banners and streamers with vulgar statements imputing criminal negligence to the
Amanpulo and El Nido Resorts in Palawan, and the Union entered into a CBA company, which put to doubt reliability of its operations, come within the purview
which included a “no-strike, no lock-out clause”.
of illegal acts under Art. 264 and jurisprudence.
 8 members of the Union refused to render overtime work on May 1 & 12, and June
12, 1997 (legal holidays and peak season).
That the alleged acts of violence were committed in nine non-consecutive days
 A. Soriano Aviation treated the refusal to work as a concerted action which is a during the almost eight months that the strike was on-going does not render
violation of the No Strike, No Lock-out Clause in the CBA and thus suspended the the violence less pervasive or widespread to be excusable. Nowhere in Art. 264
workers for 30 days, and filed a complaint for illegal strike against them. does it require that violence must be continuous or that it should be for the entire
 Said complaint was dismissed to give way for settlement but it turned out futile so duration of the strike.
the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation The appellate court took against petitioner its filing of its complaint to have the
Board attributing to the company – union busting, illegal dismissal of union officer, strike declared illegal almost eight months from the time it commenced. Art. 264
harassment through systematic fault-finding, to name a few. does not, however, state for purposes of having a strike declared as illegal that the
 No amicable settlement was arrived at so the Union went on strike. A. Soriano employer should immediately report the same. It only lists what acts are prohibited.
Aviation filed a motion to re-open the case for illegal strike. It is thus absurd to expect an employer to file a complaint at the first instance that
 Labor Arbiter- that the newly implemented work-shift schedule was a valid an act of violence is alleged to be committed, especially, as in the present case,
exercise of management prerogative and the refusal of the workers to work on 3
when an earlier complaint to have the refusal of the individual respondents to work
consecutive holidays was a form of concerted action; as Union failed to comply
with formal requirements in holding a strike, said strike was illegal. overtime declared as an illegal strike was still pending — an issue resolved in its
 NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. favor only on September 25, 1998.
 8 months into second strike, A. Soriano Aviation filed a complaint to declare the The records show that the Union went on strike on October 22, 1997, and the first
strike illegal on account of pervasive use of violence such as publicly shouting foul reported harassment incident occurred on October 29, 1997, while the last occurred
words to company officers and non-striking employees, before LA. in January, 1998. Those instances may have been sporadic, but as found by the
 Labor Arbiter- 2nd trike was deemed illegal for use of violent acts. Union went on Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the display of placards, streamers and banners
first strike on strikeable issue, it violated the CBA clause. even up to the time the appeal was being resolved by the NLRC works against
 NLRC affirmed the LA. Even if strike were legal, commission of unlawful acts the Union’s favor.
rendered it illegal. The acts complained of including the display of placards and banners imputing
 CA- reversed, acts of violence were not as pervasive to call for loss of employment criminal negligence on the part of the company and its officers, apparently with the
of striking employees end in view of intimidating the company’s clientele, are, given the nature of its
 A. Soriano Aviation argues that questioned acts of the strikers were of a serious
business, that serious as to make the “second strike” illegal. Specifically with
character, widespread and pervasive, and prolonged strike resulted in termination
of lease and air service contract with Amanpulo and decision of El Nido to put up
respect to the putting up of those banners and placards, coupled with the name-
own aviation company. calling and harassment, the same indicates that it was resorted to to coerce the
 Strike should be declared illegal on the violation of the No-Strike-No-Lockout resolution of the dispute – the very evil which Art. 264 seeks to prevent.
clause in the CBA as it arose from non-strikeable issues
Issue #2:
The liability for prohibited acts has thus to be determined on an individual basis.
A perusal of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, which was affirmed in toto by the NLRC,
shows that on account of the staging of the illegal strike, individual respon dents
were all deemed to have lost their employment, without distinction as to their
respective participation.
Of the participants in the illegal strike, whether they knowingly participated
in the illegal strike in the case of union officers or knowingly participated in
the commission of violent acts during the illegal strike in the case of union
members, the records do not indicate. While respondent Julius Vargas was
identified to be a union officer, there is no indication if he knowingly participated
in the illegal strike. The Court not being a trier of facts, the remand of the case to
the NLRC is in order only for the purpose of determining the status in the Union of
individual respondents and their respective liability, if any.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of