Case: Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Corp.

GR No. 1154591

Facts:
The Manila Hotel Employees Association (MHEA) conducted a strike despite the clear terms
of the Order issued by the SOLE, and despite the repeated reminders thereof. The Manila Hotel, on
the other hand, filed a complaint alleging that MHEA conducted an illegal strike, blocked all ingress
and egress of the hotel premises.

The NLRC issued an Order directing the striking workers to return to work immediately and
the hotel accept them back under the same conditions of employment. The NLRC received a copy that
only six striking employees complied the return-to-work Order and were reinstated. The other striking
employees had openly defied the said order.

The NLRC ruled that the strike held by MHEA was illegal for its defiance of the return-to-work
order. It determined that only the union officers were deemed to have lost their employment.

The Court of Appeal modified the decision in that both the incumbent officers and members
of the Union involved in the illegal strike are declared to have lost their employment status.

Issues:
1. Whether or not, the SOLE can assume jurisdiction over a dispute.
2. Whether or not, Union officers and employees who participated in an illegal strike loss
their employment status.

Ruling:

In an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor may assume
jurisdiction over dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for
compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically
enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification
order.

Return-to-work order is immediately 1xecutor notwithstanding the filing for a motion for
reconsideration. Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of
obligation. Defiance of the assumption order or a return-to-work order by a striking employee
whether union officer or a member, is an illegal act and, therefore, a valid ground for loss of
employment status.

Assumption of Jurisdiction/Compulsory Arbitration

5. Effect of assumption/certification order, Art. 278 (g)- (1) Enjoining of an impending strike or
lockouts/its lifting and (2) Return-to-work order
Case: YSS Employees Union-Philippine Transport & General Workers Organization vs. YSS Laboratories
Inc.
GR No. 155125

Facts:
YSS Laboratories implemented a retrenchment program which affected 11 employees
purportedly chosen in accordance with the reasonable standards established by the company.
Claiming that YSS was guilty of discrimination and union-busting in carrying the said retrenchment
program, YSSEU decided to hold a strike after necessary strike vote was taken under the supervision
of the National Conciliation Mediation Board.

A number of conciliation proceedings were conducted but efforts proved futile since the
parties’ stance was unbending. This prompted the Secretary of Labor to finally intervene in order to
put an end to a prolonged labor dispute. The Secretary of Labor certified the labor dispute to the NLRC
for compulsory arbitration. Accordingly, the striking workers were hereby directed to return to work
within 24 hours.

YSS Laboratories, however, refused to fully comply with the directive of the SOLE. It argued
that the validly retrenched employees should be excluded from the operation of the return-to-work
order.

The Court of Appeal reversed the assailed order. A motion for reconsideration was denied,
hence this petition.

Issues:
1. Whether or not, the SOLE is afforded with power to assume jurisdiction over a dispute.
2. Whether or not, the retrenched employees should be excluded from the coverage of the
return-to-work order.

Ruling:

The assumption or certification order shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the
intended or impending strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor is afforded plenary and broad powers,
and is granted great breadth of discretion to adopt the most reasonable and expeditious way of writing
finis to the labor dispute.

Assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied
with by the parties, even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity. The striking
workers should immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations
and readmit all workers under the same conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The return-

Assumption of Jurisdiction/Compulsory Arbitration

5. Effect of assumption/certification order, Art. 278 (g)- (1) Enjoining of an impending strike or
lockouts/its lifting and (2) Return-to-work order
to-work order does not interfere with the management’s prerogative, but merely regulates it when,
in the exercise of such right, national interests will be affected.

Assumption of Jurisdiction/Compulsory Arbitration

5. Effect of assumption/certification order, Art. 278 (g)- (1) Enjoining of an impending strike or
lockouts/its lifting and (2) Return-to-work order
Case: Philcom Employees Union vs. Philippine Global Communications
GR No. 144315

Facts:
Upon the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner Philcom
Employees Union (PEU) and respondent Philcom, the parties started negotiations for the renewal of
their CBA. While negotiations were ongoing, PEU filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike due to
perceived unfair labor practice. However, while the union officers and the company officers were
meeting, the remaining union officers and members staged a strike at the company premises,
barricading the entrance and egresses thereof and setting up a stationary picket at the main entrance
of the building.

The Acting Secretary of Labor issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the dispute, enjoining
any strike or lockout, whether threatened or actual, directing the parties to cease and desist from
committing any act that may exacerbate the situation, directing the workers to return to work within
24 hours and for management to resume normal operations, as well as accept the workers back under
the same terms and conditions prior to the strike.

The union filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailing, among others, the authority of the
Acting Secretary to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute. The company, on the other hand, raised
in its position paper the sole issue of the illegality of the strike staged by the union.

Issues:
1. Whether or not, the authority of the Secretary to assume jurisdiction over the labor
dispute is not proper.
2. Whether or not, defiance to a return-to work order of an illegal strike constitutes the loss
of an employment status.
Ruling:
In this case, the Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the dispute because it falls in an industry
indispensable to the national interest. The authority of the Secretary to assume jurisdiction over a
labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national
interest includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from such labor dispute. The
power is plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively dispose of the dispute.

A return-to-work order is immediately effective and executory despite the filing of a

The union officers who knowingly participate in the illegal strike are deemed to have lost their
employment status. The union members, including union officers, who commit specific illegal acts or
who knowingly defy a return-to-work order are also deemed to have lost their employment status.
Assumption of Jurisdiction/Compulsory Arbitration

5. Effect of assumption/certification order, Art. 278 (g)- (1) Enjoining of an impending strike or
lockouts/its lifting and (2) Return-to-work order
Case: San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-File Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc.
GR No. 200499

Facts:
The private respondent company issued notices of termination of twenty seven (27) rank-and-
file, regular employees and members of the San Fernando Rank-and-File Union (SACORU) on the
ground of redundancy due to the ceding out of two selling and distribution systems, the Conventional
Route system and Mini Bodega System to the Market Execution Partners better known as “Dealership
System”.

To SACORU, the new, reorganized selling and distribution systems adopted and implemented
by CCBPI would result in the diminution of the union membership amounting to union busting and to
violation of the CBA provision against contracting out of services or outsourcing of regular positions;
hence, they filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB on the ground of unfair labor practice.

The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute by certifying for
compulsory arbitration the issues raised in the notice of strike. He certifies that the labor dispute at
Coca-Cola to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. Accordingly, any intended strike or lockout or any
concerted action is automatically enjoined.

The NLRC dismissed the complaint for unfair labor practice and declared as valid ther dismissal
of the employees due to redundancy. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and found that the
NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:
Whether or not, CCBPI should have enjoined the effectivity of the termination of employment
of the 27 affected union members when the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor
dispute.

Ruling:
The effects of the assumption of jurisdiction are: (a) the enjoining of an impending strike or
lockout or its lifting, and; (b) an order for the workers to return to work immediately and for the
employer to readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout, or return-to-work order.

The parties have the obligation to maintain the status quo while the main issue is being
threshed out in the proper forum.

Since the union voted for the conduct of a strike on June 11, 2009, when the DOLE Secretary
issued the return-to-work order dated June 23, 2009, this means the status quo was the employment
status of the employees on June 10, 2009.
Assumption of Jurisdiction/Compulsory Arbitration

5. Effect of assumption/certification order, Art. 278 (g)- (1) Enjoining of an impending strike or
lockouts/its lifting and (2) Return-to-work order