The NCMB played a role in receiving the notice of strike filed by the union due to the bargaining deadlock. Meanwhile, the NLRC supported the company's stance by initially ruling in its favor, declaring the strike illegal. However, this decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeals, signaling a lack of definitive support for the initial rulings from higher judicial authorities. The Supreme Court's affirmation of the Court of Appeals' decision further invalidated the NLRC’s initial endorsement of the company's claim, highlighting the nuanced role these bodies play in labor dispute resolution, where their decisions can be subject to further judicial scrutiny and reversal .

The company argued that the strike was illegal because the union failed to attach the company's counterproposal to the notice of strike, a requirement under the IRR. However, this argument did not succeed in front of the Supreme Court because the court acknowledged that it was not practicable for the union to attach the counterproposal as it did not exist at the time the notice was filed. This justification aligned with the IRR's provision that proposals should be attached "as far as practicable," resulting in the court's decision to rule the strike as legal .

The Supreme Court's affirmation emphasizes the critical role of good faith in negotiations, suggesting that procedural violations due to impractical circumstances—particularly those arising from an employer's action or inaction—will not necessarily invalidate a union's recourse to strike. This could strengthen the role of good faith by reinforcing the notion that all parties must engage genuinely in negotiations. Employers might be compelled to avoid delays in providing responses to negotiation proposals, adhering more strictly to timelines to prevent claims of bargaining deadlock and the resultant legal challenges .

The delayed submission of the company's counterproposal significantly impacted the negotiation process by creating prolonged uncertainty and hindering the union's ability to negotiate effectively. This delay extended the negotiation period almost a year from the expiration of the CBA, contributing to the bargaining deadlock. The absence of a timely counterproposal made it impossible for the union to attach it to its notice of strike, which became a pivotal point in legal proceedings. The court ruled in favor of the union, recognizing the impracticality of compliance due to the company's delay, thus influencing the final judgment that validated the union's strike actions .

This judgment could encourage labor unions to pursue strike actions with more confidence, even if procedural compliance is not entirely feasible, provided they have reasonable justification for non-compliance. For companies, it might incentivize more timely negotiation responses and counterproposal submissions to avoid similar legal outcomes. The ruling underscores the importance of good faith bargaining, suggesting that companies could face unsuccessful legal challenges if they contribute to procedural non-compliance through delays. This could lead to more proactive and timely engagement from companies in future negotiations .

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals by determining that the strike was valid. It recognized that the union couldn't attach the company's counterproposal because it wasn't feasible at the time of filing. The decision sets a precedent that emphasizes the practical aspects and timing in adhering to procedural requirements during labor disputes. This upholds the principle that procedural formalities should not preclude legitimate strikes when it is not feasible to comply strictly due to circumstances beyond the union's control .

The ruling illustrates the balance by showing how the Supreme Court prioritized practical realities over rigid adherence to procedural requirements. Despite the procedural rule requiring the attachment of proposals and counterproposals, the court ruled the union's failure to attach as justified due to impracticability, given the company's delayed submission of counterproposals. This decision highlights that legal interpretations in labor disputes may adapt to accommodate practical circumstances, ensuring unions are not unduly penalized for compliance issues stemming from the employer's delays .

The court interpreted the requirement for a union to attach proposals and counterproposals to the notice of strike as being conditional to practicability. It emphasized that the Industrial Relations Rules mandate attachment "as far as practicable." The significance of this interpretation in the ruling was crucial, as the court concluded that the union's failure to attach the company's counterproposal at the time of filing the notice of strike was justified. At that time, no counterproposal existed from the company due to delays in negotiations. This interpretation upheld the legality of the union's strike despite the technical absence of the attachment .

Faced with a deadlock, the Club Filipino Employees Association filed a notice of strike and conducted a strike vote amongst its members, which are typical tactics used by labor unions when negotiations break down. These actions are intended to put pressure on the employer to resume constructive negotiations or meet the union's demands. Such strategies align with common practices in labor union conflicts to demonstrate collective dissatisfaction and leverage to achieve favorable outcomes .

The primary factors that led to a stalemate were the failure of Club Filipino Inc. to timely meet and negotiate on the collective bargaining agreement with the union before it expired. The union's repeated demands for negotiation were not met, leading to a declared deadlock. In response, the union filed a notice of strike due to the bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain, and conducted a strike vote among its members. The company later submitted counter proposals, but they were refused by the union, prompting it to strike, leading to the company's filing for a declaration of illegal strike against the respondents .