Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corporation vs NLRC, National Labor Union TUCP and Eulogio Lerum

Facts:

On Feb. 10, 1986, Nationa Labor Union TUCP (TUCP) filed with the ministry of labor in behalf of its
local chapter Filipino Pipe Workers Union-National Labor Union (Union), a notice of strike signed by
nationa president Lerum against Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corporation (Compnay) alleging union
busting & non-implementation of CBA.

Initial conciliation conference was set on Feb. 24, but due to lack of copy to Company of said notice to
strike was moved to March 3. However without waiting for outcome of conference, Union staged a
strike.

Company filed to the LA a complaint to declare strike illegal against TUCP, Union and Lerum with
damages. The LA rendered TUCP in favor of Company, but stated that Lerum and TUCP are not
primarily responsible and therefore not liable for damages. Both sides appealed to the NLRC, which
rendered the same decision, hence, petition by the Company to this Court.

Issue:
1. WON strike was illegal
2. WON TUCP and Lerum is liable for damages for aiding the illegal strike

Held:

1. Yes. A thorough sifting of the records show that alleged union busting was not substantiated and
supposed non-implementation of CBA was baseless. It was found out that at the time notice of
strike was filed and Union struck, were subject of a pending application for writ of execution
which was granted on April 4 by the LA. Basically strike on March 3 was premature since it
was subject to a pending writ of execution.

Furthermore, failure of Union to serve copy of notice of strike to Company is clear violation of
Rules Implementing the Labor Code, that strike was held on March 3 from notice of strike on Feb 10
was in violation of 30-day cooling-off period, and the strike staged on the day of conciliation
proceedings wantonly violate the prohibition on acts which disrupt conciliation, which necessarily
concludes that the strike was illegal.

2. No, the relationship between TUCP and Union was merey that of agent and principal, although
the relationship be that of mother federation and local chapter respectively, thus being only an
agent of Union, TUCP is not liable.

Although Company claimed that Union is not a legitimate labor organization being a chapter of TUCP,
the requirement of legitimate labor organization is immaterial as it would not affect its status as
principal and basic unit of association. The requirement that union must be a legitimate labor
organization pertains to conditions before union may file petition for certification election and be
certified as sole and exclusive bargaining representative of employees of company. In the present case,
there is no dispute that Union is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of employees of
Company, hence the union's status as legitimate labor organization is irrelevant in the controversy.

Furthermore, the Company is now estopped from reneging on the recognition of Union as its
bargaining representative of its empoyees by attacking its status which said Company had recognized.
Facts show that TUCP did not form the Union for it had already been the bargaining representative of
Company before TUCP entered the picture. At most the entry of TUCP merely affirmeed status of
Union as recognized bargaining representative of employees of Company.