Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Moldex Products, Inc. vs. NLRC

A strike is illegal under Article 264 of the Labor Code when the results of the required strike vote are not submitted or reported to the NCMB/Ministry; remand for further reception of evidence is improper where the facts are already clear and complete and additional evidence would not alter the outcome.

Petitioners are a labor union and its members employed by Moldex Products, Inc.; private respondents Moldex and Jacinto Uy are the employer and its representative. Their Collective Bargaining Agreement was due for renewal, and Article 264 of the Labor Code governed the procedural prerequisites for any strike, including the strike-vote requirement and its submission to the NCMB.

Petitioners Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Moldex Products, Inc., Alegria Aquino, and 62 others were a labor union and its members at Moldex Products, Inc., while private respondents Moldex Products, Inc. and Jacinto Uy were the employer and its representative. In the earlier part of 1993, the union and the company negotiated for the renewal of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Because of economic differences, the negotiations ended in a deadlock.

On April 2, 1993, petitioners filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The series of conferences proved unavailing. On April 24, 1993, the union conducted a strike vote among its members, and the results were thereafter conveyed to the Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization (ANGLO) for submission to the NCMB, but for some unknown reason the same was not made. On May 5, 1993, petitioners went on strike without the report of the strike vote submitted to the NCMB.

On June 17, 1993, private respondents filed a Petition to Declare Strike Illegal and Authorize Dismissal of the Officers and Other Employees for Illegal Acts with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The petition alleged that petitioners barricaded the three gates of Moldex and committed acts of violence, threats, and coercion. Docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-06-04019-93, the petition was raffled to Labor Arbiter Edgardo M. Madriaga, and a Temporary Restraining Order was later issued.

After efforts to reach an amicable settlement failed, trial on the merits was conducted. Private respondents presented their own witnesses and evidence. Petitioners did not present any witness and instead relied on their Memorandum, contending that private respondents’ evidence was inadmissible for being hearsay and that the pictures presented were neither identified nor authenticated by the photographer or an eyewitness.

Labor Arbiter Madriaga found that petitioners totally blocked free ingress to and egress from the company premises and committed illegal acts of violence, threats, coercion, and intimidation during the strike. The findings rested on affidavits of witnesses and photographs. Edwin Bayan averred that A. Mararac held a Molotov and that several strikers threw stones at company vehicles, and he identified employees who formed a human barricade on June 11 and 14, 1993. Libio B. Cruz, Jr. alleged that on June 15, 1993, several strikers threw stones at the Injection and Films & Sheets Building, breaking window panes, and that Engineering Supervisor Fidel Santiago was threatened. Guillermo Tadeo Banag averred that Union President Pedro Nudalo coerced him to stop working and that Jaime Mansion switched off the circuit breaker. Oliver Salamera and Juancho Sacro alleged that union officers coerced them to stop working, barricaded the gates, and prohibited them from returning to work. Nicolas Bauto and Joselito Custodio alleged threats of bodily harm by union officers and members. The photographs showed wooden planks and tents obstructing the company gate and Maysan Road, hollow blocks stacked and tents built across the gate, security guards dismantling obstructions pursuant to the TRO, a human blockade barring a bus carrying employees who wanted to report for work, a flat tire and broken windows of the bus, and big stones, rocks, wooden materials, and GI sheets along Maysan Road leading to the company gates.

• Procedural Due Process: Petitioners argued that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding the case to the labor arbiter of origin because the requirements of procedural due process had been complied with; a full-blown trial had already been conducted and a remand would only delay the case.
• Conflicting Factual Matters: Petitioners argued that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding for further proceedings based on conflicting versions of factual matters.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Petitioners contended before the Labor Arbiter that private respondents’ evidence was inadmissible for being hearsay and that the pictures presented were neither identified nor authenticated by the photographer or an eyewitness.
• Strike Vote Conducted: Petitioners maintained before the NLRC that a strike vote had been conducted and that its results were in the custody of the federation, ANGLO.

• Illegal Strike and Prohibited Acts: Private respondents alleged in their petition before the NLRC that petitioners barricaded the three gates of Moldex and committed acts of violence, threats, and coercion; they sought a declaration that the strike was illegal and authority to dismiss the officers and other employees for illegal acts.
• Illegality of Strike: The Solicitor General raised the additional issue of whether the strike conducted by petitioners was illegal.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Remand: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in remanding the case to the labor arbiter of origin for further reception of evidence.
• Procedural Due Process: Whether the requirements of procedural due process had been complied with.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether private respondents’ evidence was inadmissible for being hearsay and because the pictures were neither identified nor authenticated by the photographer or an eyewitness.
• Illegality of Strike: Whether the strike conducted by petitioners was illegal.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Remand: Yes. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding the case; reception of further evidence would be futile because the facts were already clear and complete and would not alter the outcome.
• Procedural Due Process: Yes. The requirements of procedural due process were complied with; a party need only be given an opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence.
• Admissibility of Evidence: No. The objections of hearsay and lack of authentication are without merit; technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases and may be relaxed to serve substantial justice.
• Illegality of Strike: Yes. The strike was illegal under Article 264 of the Labor Code because the results of the strike vote were never submitted to the NCMB; petitioners also committed prohibited acts of violence, threats, coercion, and intimidation. The forfeiture of employment status was upheld.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Remand: Reception of evidence would be a futile exercise because the facts were already clear and complete and would not alter the outcome. The results of the strike vote were never forwarded to the NCMB, as admitted by petitioners themselves and attested to by a Certification of Non-Submission of Strike Vote issued by the NCMB. There was thus no need for additional evidence on the matter. Neither was there any need to remand to determine whether petitioners were sent notices or copies of the petition and whether service of a copy of private respondents’ formal offer of evidence with ANGLO instead of petitioners’ counsel was valid, because petitioners denied making such a claim and, if ever made, were waiving the irregularity. The NLRC therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding the case.
• Procedural Due Process: Petitioners and private respondents were allowed to present their witnesses and evidence. Private respondents presented their witnesses, while petitioners did not, opting instead to file a Memorandum challenging the admissibility of private respondents’ evidence. So long as a party is given an opportunity to be heard and to submit his evidence, the requirements of procedural due process are complied with. The Court thus found no due process violation.
• Admissibility of Evidence: The claim that the testimonies of private respondents’ witnesses were hearsay and that the pictures were not authenticated or identified was without merit. Technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases, and their application may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice. The labor arbiter’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
• Illegality of Strike: Article 264 of the Labor Code prohibits a strike without the necessary strike vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. Because the results of the strike vote were not submitted to the NCMB, the strike was illegal. The records and proceedings before Labor Arbiter Madriaga also confirmed that petitioners committed acts of violence, threats, coercion, and intimidation during the strike. The labor arbiter found that petitioners totally blocked free ingress to and egress from the company premises and committed illegal acts, as shown by affidavits and photographs. Factual findings of labor officials are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence. The Court discerned no ground to disturb the labor arbiter’s findings, which were basically supported by substantial evidence and accorded with law. The decision of Labor Arbiter Madriaga was therefore supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

• Strike Vote Submission Requirement — Article 264 of the Labor Code prohibits a strike without the necessary strike vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry/NCMB. The Court applied this rule strictly: because the results of the April 24, 1993 strike vote were never forwarded to the NCMB, the May 5, 1993 strike was illegal, regardless of any claim that the vote had been conducted.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Remand — A remand for further reception of evidence is improper where the facts are already clear and complete and the additional evidence would not alter the outcome. The NLRC’s remand was set aside because the non-submission of the strike-vote results was already established and the labor arbiter’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.
• Procedural Due Process in Labor Proceedings — Due process requires only that a party be given an opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence. The Court found compliance because both parties were allowed to present witnesses and evidence; petitioners chose not to present witnesses and instead filed a Memorandum.
• Non-Binding Nature of Technical Rules in Labor Cases — Technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases and may be relaxed to serve substantial justice. This disposed of petitioners’ objections that private respondents’ evidence was hearsay and that the photographs were unauthenticated.
• Conclusiveness of Labor Officials’ Factual Findings — Factual findings of labor officials, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court. The Court declined to disturb the labor arbiter’s findings of violence, threats, coercion, obstruction, and intimidation.
• Forfeiture of Employment for Illegal Strike and Prohibited Acts — Under Article 264, a union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost employment status; mere participation in a lawful strike is not sufficient. The Court upheld the forfeiture of employment status of the named petitioners.

• "Reception of evidence would be a futile exercise considering that the facts are already clear and complete, and would not alter the outcome of the case." — This states the ratio for setting aside the NLRC’s remand order; it establishes that remand is improper when the record already permits a decision.
• "Without the submission of the results of the strike-vote, the strike was illegal, pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code" — This is the core ruling on the illegality of the strike, tying the failure to submit the strike-vote results to the statutory requirement.
• "So long as a party is given an opportunity to be heard and to submit his evidence, the requirements of procedural due process are complied with." — This defines the due process standard applied to the labor proceedings.
• "Technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases." — This supports the rejection of petitioners’ hearsay and authentication objections and the relaxation of procedural rules in labor cases.

• Midas Touch Food Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 259 SCRA 652, 658 — Cited to support the rule that procedural due process is satisfied when a party is given an opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence.
• Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization vs. Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565 — Cited alongside Midas Touch for the same due process standard.
• Conti vs. National Bar Labor Relations Commission, 271 SCRA 144 — Cited for the rule that factual findings of labor officials supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court.
• Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation vs. NLRC, 183 SCRA 451 — Cited for the rule that technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases.
• El Toro Security Agency, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 256 SCRA 363 — Cited for the principle that the application of technical rules may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice.

• Article 264, Labor Code of the Philippines — Prohibited activities. No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively, filed the required notice, or obtained and reported the necessary strike or lockout vote to the Ministry. The Court applied it to hold the strike illegal because the strike-vote results were not submitted to the NCMB. It also provides that a union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost employment status, while mere participation in a lawful strike is not sufficient ground for termination. The forfeiture of employment status was upheld under this provision.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The petition was filed as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the NLRC resolutions. The Court granted it upon finding grave abuse of discretion.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.