G.R. No. 158158. January 17, 2005.

* PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA CLOTHMAN Court of Appeals.
KNITTING CORPORATION-SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND   H. O. Victoria and Associates Law Offices for
REFORMS (BMC-SUPER) AND RAYMOND TOMAROY, petitioners.644
ROEL SARDONIDOS, JOSEPH SEDERIO, MARITCHU
JAVELLANA, ENRIQUE OMADTO, EFREN MOGAR, 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
FRANCISCO BERTULFO, JUDY ROQUERO, PATERNO ANNOTATED
SILVESTRE, CAYETANO PALMON, TEODORO OCOP
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
AND JOSEPH ESTIFANO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS (Former Fifteenth Division), NATIONAL LABOR Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division), and Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
CLOTHMAN KNITTING CORPORATION, respondents. and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
Remedial Law; Certiorari; Petition for certiorari shall contain   Kho, Bustos, Malcontento, Argosino Law Offices for
the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and the private respondent.
respondents, and that the failure of the petitioners to comply with the
said requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the CALLEJO, SR., J.:
petition.—Under Section 3 of Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, the petition for certiorari shall contain the This is a petition for review of the Resolutions 1 of the
full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 73353 filed by the
respondents, and that the failure of the petitioners to comply with the
said requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of their
Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation
petition. —Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment
Same; Actions; Forum Shopping; The rule is that the and Reforms (the petitioner union) and Raymond Tomaroy,
certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the Roel Sardonidos, Joseph Sederio, Maritchu Javellana, Enrique
petitioners and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient.— Omadto, Efren Mogar, Francisco Bertulfo, Judy Roquero,
As gleaned from the petition for certiorari in the CA, only the Paterno Silvestre, Cayetano Palmon, Teodoro Ocop and
petitioner Raymond P. Tomaroy signed the certification of non-forum Joseph Estifano. 
shopping in his capacity as the president of the petitioner union. The Respondent Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC) is a
officers and members of the Board of Directors, who were, likewise,
domestic corporation engaged in knitting/textiles. 2 It has
principal petitioners, did not execute any certification of non-forum
shopping as mandated by the said Rule. The rule is that the approximately one hundred forty-four (144) rank-and-file
certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the employees. The petitioner union is a legitimate labor
petitioners and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient. organization of rank-and-file employees therein. The
Although petitioner Tomaroy was petitioners were rank-and-file employees of the respondent
_______________ and were also members and officers of the petitioner union.
In the year 2001, the rank-and-file employees at the CKC
* SECOND DIVISION. banded together and formed the petitioner union. It was
registered with the Department of Labor and Employment
643
(DOLE) on February 23, 2001. In reaction thereto, the
respondent, headed by its President, Paul U. Lee, gathered the
VOL. 448, JANUARY 643
employees and advised them not to listen to outsiders.3
17, 2005 Meanwhile, another group of rank-and-file employees
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa banded together and formed the Nagkakaisang Lakas ng
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of Manggagawa sa Clothman Corporation—Katipunan (NLM-
Katipunan). The NLM-Katipunan was issued a certificate of
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment _______________
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
authorized by virtue of his position as president of the
petitioner union to execute the certification for and in its behalf, he 1 Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with Associate Justices
had no authority to do so for and in behalf of its petitioners-officers, Renato C. Dacudao and Mario L. Guariña III, concurring; Rollo, pp. 51-53.
2 Rollo, p. 112.
as well as the members of the Board of Directors thereof. The 3 Id., at p. 125.
execution by the individual petitioners of a special power of attorney
subsequent to the dismissal of the petition by the CA authorizing 645
petitioner Tomaroy to execute the requisite certification does not cure
VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 645
the fatal defect in their petition.
Labor Law; Strikes; A strike is any temporary stoppage of Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
work by the concerted actions of employees as a result of an Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
industrial or labor dispute; What Includes a Labor Dispute.—A
strike is any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of registration on April 23, 2001 by the DOLE. 4 A petition
employment or the association or representation of persons in for certification election was later filed by the petitioner union
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and
conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand
with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
in the proximate relation of employer and employee. Pending the resolution of the petition for certification
Same; Same; Requisites in Order for a Strike to be Valid; election, the respondent issued a Memorandum5 dated March
These requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance 2, 2001, informing the employees of the change in the
therewith makes the strike illegal.—The petitioner union, its officers, schedule brought about by the decrease in the orders from the
members and supporters staged a strike. In order for a strike to be customers.
valid, the following requirements laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) On March 10, 2001, another Memorandum 6 was issued by
of Article 263 of the Labor Code must be complied with: (a) a notice the respondent informing its employees at the Dyeing and
of strike must be filed; (b) a strike-vote must be taken; and (c) the
Finishing Division that a temporary shutdown of the
results of the strike-vote must be reported to the DOLE. It bears
stressing that these requirements are mandatory, meaning, non- operations therein would be effected for one week, from
compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The evident intention March 12 to 17, 2001. The employees were advised to go on
of the law in requiring the strike notice and strike-vote report is to vacation leave, and were asked to verify any changes in the
reasonably regulate the right to strike, which is essential to the schedule from the Human Resources Division on March 17,
attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law. 2001.
 Unable to solve its financial problems, the respondent a) The strikers/picketers did not conduct a strike vote and no
decided to temporarily shutdown its operations at the Dyeing cooling-off period was observed;
and Finishing Division effective the next day, scheduled to b) The strikers/picketers did not file a notice of strike;
c) The reasons for the strike/picket involve a non-strikeable
resume until further notice. It notified the DOLE of the said
issue;
shutdown on May 26, 2001.7 The operations of the other d) The work slowdown/picket caused damages to the petitioner
divisions of the CKC remained normal. in the sum of FIVE MILLION PESOS (P5,000,000.00);
For its reduced dyeing and finishing needs, the respondent e) The illegal acts of respondents constrained petitioner to seek
brought the textiles to Crayons, Inc., a sister company. On the services of undersigned counsel for an attorney’s fee of
June 11, 2001, while the respondent’s service truck with plate P50,000.00 and P2,000.00 per appearance. 13

number TBK-158 was to deliver fabrics in Bulacan, the group

of petitioner Raymond Tomaroy and some companions In a Decision dated October 18, 2001, the Labor Arbiter
approached the truck as it made its way towards Don Pedro granted the petition, declared the strike illegal and the
Street and blocked its way. As a result, the driver of the employment status of the union officers who participated
service truck decided to return to the respondent’s compound. therein as terminated:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition filed by
Later that day, petitioner Tomaroy, with sixteen (16) members
the petitioner is hereby GRANTED.
of the petitioner union, staged a picket in front of the The strike conducted by the respondents is hereby declared as
_______________
illegal.
Consequently, due to their illegal activities, the respondents
namely: RAYMOND TOMAROY, President, ROEL
4 Id., at p. 131.
5 Id., at p. 126. SARDONIDOS, Vice-President, JOSEPH SEDERIO, Secretary,
6 Id., at p. 130. MARITCHU JAVELLANA, Treasurer, ENRIQUE OMADTO,
7 Id., at p. 132. Auditor, EFREN MOGAR, P.R.O., and FRANCISCO BERTULFO,
P.R.O. and Board of Directors: JUDY ROQUERO, PATERNO
646 SILVESTRE, CAYETANO PALMON, TEODORO OCOP and
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS JOSEPH ESTIFANO are hereby declared to have lost their
employment status with the petitioner.”14

ANNOTATED
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa The Labor Arbiter found that the continued decline in job
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of prompted the respondent to implement a reduced working day
from the original six (6) days to three (3) days per week
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment because of the continued decrease of job orders, which further
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals led to its decision to temporarily stop the operation in its
respondent’s compound, carrying placards with slogans Dyeing and Finishing Division for one (1) week—March 12 to
that read: _______________
1. Itigil ang sabwatan ng KATIPUNAN (FABIAN GROUP) at
management BMC-SUPER.
2. Mr. Paul Lee—Huwag mong ipitin ang mid-year, 13th 13 Id., at pp. 144-145.
month pay ng mga manggagawa sa CKC. BMC-SUPER. 14 Id., at p. 100.
3. Ibalik ang pasok sa Finishing Department. 648
4. Mr. Paul Lee—Magagara ang sasakyan mo, Montero, BMW,
Pajero pero kaunting benepisyo ng manggagawa ay di mo maibigay. 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
BMC-SUPER. ANNOTATED
5. Kilalanin ang karapatan ng manggagawa na magtatag ng
unyon. BMC-SUPER. 8
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
On June 14, 2001, twenty-three (23) members of the Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
petitioner union gathered in front of the respondent’s
compound carrying the same placards. Later that day, and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
petitioner Tomaroy agreed to talk to the management with the 17, 2001. The affected employees were then requested to
following priority demands: (a) resumption of work; and (b) utilize their vacation leaves and were, thereafter, admitted
13th month pay.9 The next day, members of the petitioner back to work. However, Tomaroy and members of the union
union and their supporters gathered in front of the staged a strike, and the labor unrest resulted in the cancellation
respondent’s compound.10 From June 16, 2001 up to June 18, of job orders amounting to P6,380,817.50. The aforestated
2001, the members, as well as supporters of the union, losses prompted the petitioner to close and stop the business
gathered again in front of the company’s compound.11 operations of its Dyeing and Finishing Division.
On June 25, 2001, the respondent filed a petition to declare It is worthy to note that the whole company did not cease
the strike illegal before the arbitration branch of the National to operate and that it was only the workers in the Dyeing and
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed as NLRC- Finishing Division who were affected by the temporary lay-
NCR 06-03332-2001.12 The respondent alleged that the picket off. Thus, when the respondents conducted a picket in front of
of the members of the union from June 11, 2001 to June 18, the company’s premises, the whole business operations of the
2001 in front of the company’s compound constituted an respondent was affected. As borne out by the records, the
illegal strike. It cited the following reasons: Labor Arbiter found that the petitioners therein failed to
_______________ comply with the requirements for a valid strike, to wit:
1. It was not based on a valid factual ground, either based on
Collective Bargaining Deadlock and/or Unfair Labor Practice;
8  Id., at p. 154. 2. No notice of strike was filed with the National Conciliation
9  Id., at p. 156. and Mediation Board of the DOLE;
10 Id., at p. 157. 3. There was no strike-vote taken by the majority members of
11 Id., at pp. 158-159. the union;
12 Id., at pp. 142-159.
4. There was no strike-vote report submitted to the DOLE at
647 least seven (7) days before the intended date of the strike;
5. The cooling-off period prescribed by law was not observed;
VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 647 and
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa 6. The 7-day visiting period after submission of the strike vote
report was not fully observed.
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
15

Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment Thus, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the strike staged by the
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals petitioner union was illegal; hence, the union officers who
knowingly participated in an illegal strike, already lost their In addition, the petition was signed by petitioner Raymond
employment status.16 P. Tomaroy in his capacity as union president/authorized
  representative, assisted by Enrique T. Belarmino, Legal Head
_______________ of Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment
and Reforms, neither of whom was a duly authorized member
15 Id., at p. 99. of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Hence, according to
16 Id., at pp. 91-100.
the appellate court, neither of them had authority to conduct
649 litigation before the CA.21 A motion for reconsideration was
VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 649 filed by the petitioner union which was similarly denied in a
Resolution22 dated April 21, 2003. The CA reasoned that,
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
contrary to the petitioners’ insistence that the verification was
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of signed by Raymond P. Tomaroy, page 16 of the petition filed
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment before it did not bear such signature. Moreover, the special
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals power of attorney attached to the motion for reconsideration
Aggrieved, the petitioner union interposed an appeal was subscribed and sworn to by the signatories therein before
before the NLRC, docketed as NLRC-CA-030216-01. In a Notary Public Orlando C. Dy only on November 20, 2002, i.e.,
Resolution promulgated on May 10, 2002, the NLRC more than one (1) month after the filing of the petition on
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Labor October 15, 2002. Consequently, the special power of attorney
Arbiter: did not cure the defect in the certification against forum
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and finding no shopping signed by Raymond Tomaroy, which was, likewise,
cogent reason to disturb the finding of the Labor Arbiter a not accompanied by proof that he was authorized to file the
quo, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.”17 petition on behalf of the petitioner union.
_______________
The NLRC reasoned that it found no instances and/or
21 Id., at pp. 83-84.
situation befitting grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
22 Id., at pp. 55-57.
Labor Arbiter.
Dissatisfied, the petitioner union filed a motion for 651
reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution 18 dated July VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 651
24, 2002.
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
The petitioner union filed a petition for certiorari before
the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 73353, raising the Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
following error: Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
I. PUBLIC RESPONDENTS, THE HONORABLE and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
LABOR ARBITER AND THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE The CA clarified that the authority of non-lawyers to
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION represent the labor organization or members thereof applies
COMMITTED PATENT GRAVE ABUSED (SIC) OF only to proceedings before the NLRC or Labor Arbiters, as
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF provided for in Article 222 of the Labor Code. On the other
JURISDICTION WHEN THEY FAILED TO APPRECIATE hand, a non-lawyer may appear before it only if he is a party-
FACTS AND EVIDENCES, APPLICABLE LAWS AND litigant. However, Raymond P. Tomaroy did not appear to be
EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE AND, IF NOT a party in the case before the CA as his name was not
CORRECTED, WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE mentioned in the caption nor in the body of the petition.23
DAMAGE TO HEREIN RESPONDENTS.19 Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the instant petition
In a Resolution20 dated October 25, 2002, the CA contending that:
I
dismissed the petition. The CA found that, contrary to Section PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT
3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition DISMISSED THE PETITIONERS’ APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF
for certiorari filed by the petitioner union did not contain the TECHNICALITIES.
full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and the II
respon- PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
_______________ COMMISSION ERRED [WHEN] IT AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS
OF THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER THAT PETITIONERS
17 Id., at pp. 107. COMMITTED ILLEGAL STRIKE. 24

18 Id., at p. 109.
19 Id., at p. 205. On the first ground, the petitioners allege that they
20 Id., at pp. 82-84. complied with Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 7, Rule 3 of the
650 Rules of Court. They contend that the petition filed before the
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS CA by the petitioner union’s president was sanctioned by
Article 242 of the Labor Code, and the cases of Liberty
ANNOTATED Manufacturing Workers Union v. CFI of Bulacan,25 Davao
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa Free Workers Front v. CIR,26 and La Carlota Sugar Central v.
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of CIR.27 The petitioner union insists that it would be illogical for
the union, as an entity, to require all its members to sign
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment _______________
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
dents, as the petition merely mentioned “BMC-SUPER, et al.” 23 Id., at pp. 56-57.
as the petitioners. Further, the petition and the certification on 24 Id., at p. 19.
25 48 SCRA 273 (1972).
non-forum shopping were signed by Raymond P. Tomaroy, 26 60 SCRA 408 (1974).
who claimed to be the union president/authorized 27 64 SCRA 78 (1975).
representative of petitioners without, however, any such
652
authorization from the labor union and the other petitioners
covered by the abbreviation et al. Moreover, the petition was 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
not verified as required by Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 ANNOTATED
Rules of Civil Procedure; hence, did not produce legal effect Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
as provided for in Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
 and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals contain the full names and actual addresses of all the
the said petition and the certificate of non-forum shopping. petitioners and the respondents, and that the failure of the
It avers that a labor union is a judicial entity which functions petitioners to
_______________
thru its officers. Thus, the president, as an officer of the union,
needed no special power of attorney to sign for the union. It 28 CA Rollo, pp. 89-90.
stresses that it did not violate Section 34, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. 654
The petitioner union further invokes the policy that the 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
“rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of ANNOTATED
substantial justice;” when the rules strictly applied resulting in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
this Court is empowered to support the rules. Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
The petitioners argue that they did not stage a strike, much Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
more an illegal strike. They explain that a strike means work and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
stoppage. Considering that the Dyeing and Finishing Division comply with the said requirement shall be sufficient
of the respondent was shutdown, it could not have caused a ground for the dismissal of their petition:
work stoppage. The union members merely picketed in front Sec. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-
of the respondent’s factory to urge the respondent to open and compliance with requirements.—The petition shall contain the full
order the resumption of the operations in its Dyeing and names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a
Finishing Division. There was, thus, no need to comply with concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of
the requirements laid down by Article 263 of the Labor Code the case and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
and its implementing rules. It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with
For its part, the respondent prayed that the petition be proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy
intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be
dismissed on the ground that the petition filed before the CA
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true
failed to comply with Section 1 of Rule 65, Section 3 of Rule copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof,
46, and Section 7 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, and that the such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and
requirement as to the signatories in the petition failed to other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall
comply with Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. The be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly
respondent reiterates that the petitioners staged an illegal authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court,
strike, and that as officers of the union who participated tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized
therein, the petitioners are deemed to have lost their representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition
employment status. shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents
attached to the original.
The contention of the petitioners is erroneous. They are of
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a
the erroneous impression that the only respondent in the sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other
NLRC was the petitioner union and that it was sued in its action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
representative capacity. The fact of the matter is that the Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
respondent sued not only the petitioner union as respondent, agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the
653 status of the same; and if he should, thereafter, learn that a similar
VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 653 action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5)
days therefrom.
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00
but also its officers and members of its Board of Directors as for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.
principal respondents, and sought the termination of the The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
employment of the said officers. The Labor Arbiter rendered requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition.
judgment against all the respondents therein and declared the
officers to have lost their employment status. The NLRC 655
affirmed the decision on appeal. It was not only the union that VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 655
assailed the decision of the NLRC in the CA, but also the
dismissed officers. The petitioners (respondents therein) Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
prayed for the reversal thereof and that another judgment be Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
rendered as prayed for by them in their position paper in the Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
NLRC, thus: and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed to
this Honorable Labor Arbiter that, after submission of this Position Moreover, under Section 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court,
Paper, the above entitled case be considered submitted for resolution, the title of the action indicates the names of the parties who
and the decision be rendered in favor of the respondents employees: shall be named in the original petition:
1. Declaring Petitioners guilty of illegal reduction of working Section 1. Caption.—The caption sets forth the name of the
days, shutdown and UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES against court, the title of the action, and the docket number, if assigned.
individual respondents; The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They
2. Ordering petitioners be, jointly and severally, liable to pay shall all be named in the original complaint or petition; but in
respondents actual damages, payment of MORAL and subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in the amount of not less than party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there
P50,000.00 each individual employees and 10% of the total monetary are other parties.
award for the Office of BMC-SUPER plus P10,000.00 litigation Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
expenses;
3. Ordering that Petitioner Paul Lee be in contempt of court and In this case, the title of the petition for certiorari filed in
be fined to pay individual respondents in the amount of P50,000.00 the CA does not contain the names of the petitioners officers
each or imprisonment of Two (2) to Four (4) Years or both. of the petitioner BMC-SUPER and of the members of the
Other relief and remedies equitable in the premises are, likewise, Board of Directors; even the petition itself does not contain the
prayed for.”28
full names and addresses of the said officers and members of
the Board of Directors of the petitioner union. We quote the
Under Section 3 of Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, the petition for certiorari shall
title of the petition and the averments thereof having reference SARDONIDOS, JOSEPH SEDERIO, MARITCHU
to the parties-petitioners: JAVELLANA, ENRIQUE OMADTO, EFREN MOGAR,
BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA CLOTHMAN FRANCISCO BERTULFO, JUDY ROQUERO, PATERNO
KNITTING CORPORATION—SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN SILVESTRE, CAYETANO PALMON, TEODORO OCOP
THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS AND JOSEPH ESTIFANO,
(BMC-SUPER), ET AL., Petitioners. 32

Petitioner, . . .
-vs- 1. Petitioners, BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA
CLOTHMAN KNITTING CORPORATION, CLOTHMAN—SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS FOR
Respondents. 29 EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (BMC-SUPER), ROEL
. . . SARDONIDOS, JOSEPH SEDERIO, MARITCHU JAVELLANA,
Petitioners, BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA ENRIQUE OMADTO, EFREN MOGAR, FRANCISCO
CLOTHMAN—SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS FOR BERTULFO, JUDY ROQUERO, PATERNO SILVESTRE,
EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (BMC-SUPER), et al., is a CAYETANO PALMON, TEODORO OCOP AND JOSEPH
legitimate labor organization with Charter Certificate No. S-102, can ESTIFANO, the former is a legitimate labor organization with
be served with summons and Charter Certificate No. S-102, and the latter are members of the
_______________ former; they can be served with summons and other processes of this
Honorable Court at c/o H.O. VICTORIA AND ASSOCIATES LAW
29 CA Rollo, p. 2. OFFICES, Unit 305 Web-Jet Building, 64 Quezon Avenue cor. BMA
Avenue, Quezon City. 33

656
On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS reads:
ANNOTATED “Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping.—The plaintiff
or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a)
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment that he has not, therefore, commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or
other processes at 4th Floor Perlas Building, 646 Quezon claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or
Avenue, Quezon City. claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
Private Respondent, CLOTHMAN KNITTING should, thereafter, learn that the same or similar action or claim has
CORPORATION, is a domestic corporation organized and existing been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5)
under and by virtue of Philippine Laws engaged in textile industry _______________
with principal place of business at No. 57 Don Pedro Street, Don
Pedro Village, Marulas, Valenzuela City. 32 Rollo, p. 3.
Public Respondents, National Labor Relations Commission, 33 Id., at p. 6.
Second Division, herein impleaded as the tribunal exercising judicial 658
functions who issued the assailed decision in NLRC Case No. 05-
03332-2001. 30
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
The petitioners’ reliance on the ruling of this Court ANNOTATED
in Davao Free Workers Front v. CIR31 is misplaced. In the said Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
case, the Court held that the failure to specify the details
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
regarding the number and names of the striking members of a
labor union in the decision or in the complaint was of no Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
consequence. This is due to the fact that it was established that and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
all the union members went on strike as a result of the unfair days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
labor practice of the employer, in consonance with the rule initiatory pleading has been filed.
that it is precisely the function of a labor union to carry the Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be
representation of its members, particularly against the curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
employer’s unfair labor practices against it and its members,
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
and to file an action for their benefit and behalf without The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of
joining each and every member as a separate party. the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
Significantly, the full names and addresses of the officers without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal
and members of the Board of Directors of the petitioner union actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful
are set forth in their petition at bench; proof that, indeed, there and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for
is a need for the full names and addresses of all the petitioners summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
to be stated in the title of the petition and in the petition itself. contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
We quote the title of the petition and the allegation therein As gleaned from the petition for certiorari in the CA, only
having reference to the parties-petitioners: the petitioner Raymond P. Tomaroy signed the certification of
BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA CLOTHMAN
KNITTING CORPORATION—SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS
non-forum shopping in his capacity as the president of the
IN THE petitioner union. The officers and members of the Board of
_______________ Directors, who were, likewise, principal petitioners, did not
execute any certification of non-forum shopping as mandated
30 Id., at p. 4. by the said Rule. The rule is that the certification of non-forum
31 Supra at note 26.
shopping must be signed by all the petitioners and that the
  signing by only one of them is insufficient. 34 Although
657 petitioner Tomaroy was authorized by virtue of his position as
president of the petitioner union to execute the certification for
VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 657 and in its behalf, he had no authority to do so for and in behalf
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa of its petitioners-officers, as well as the members of the Board
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of of Directors thereof. The execution by the individual
petitioners of a special power of attorney subsequent to the
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
dismissal of the petition by the CA authorizing petitioner
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals Tomaroy to execute the requisite certification does not cure
PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS the fatal defect in their petition.35
(BMC-SUPER), AND RAYMOND TOMAROY, ROEL
 The respondent alleges that the petition for certiorari filed Highway, they gave way to a big truck turning to Don Pedro St. and
before the CA was correctly dismissed as it was not signed by at the same time the group of Mr. Raymond Tomaroy, the leader of
_______________ BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA CLOTHMAN—
SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR
34 Docena v. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658 (2001). EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS—BMC-SUPER were on their
35 Shipside, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA 334 (2001). way to CKC compound. Seeing the group, Mr. Fabian greeted them
by giving a quick forward motion of his head. But instead, according
659 to Mr. Fabian, Mr. Tomaroy with finger pointing on to Mr. Fabian
VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 659 accusing him as the one responsible for the delay of their 13th month
pay. Mr. Fabian just told the group BMC-SUPER to read the
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa Memorandum of the HRD dated June 8, 2001. Mr. Flores and Mr.
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of Fabian returned to CKC, Don Pedro St., Marulas, Valenzuela, to
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment report the matter.
At about 1517H of same date, Mr. Tomaroy with 16 members of
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals BMC SUPER staged a rally and/or gathered in front of Clothman
counsel. The respondent noted that petitioner Tomaroy _______________
was not a lawyer and that petitioner Enrique Belarmino did not
37 Article 212(o) of the Labor Code.
manifest in the petition that he was the lawyer. The 38 Article 212(l) of the Labor Code.
respondent, thus, contends that Tomaroy and Belarmino
engaged in the illegal practice of law, in violation of Section 661

34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

We do not agree. VOL. 448, JANUARY 17, 2005 661
Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that every Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
him.36 Considering that the union is one of the petitioners, Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
Tomaroy, as its president, may sign the pleading. For this
reason alone, the CA cannot dismiss the petition. and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
Even if we glossed over the procedural lapses of the Knitting Corporation gate carrying placards with slogan read as
follows:
petitioners and resolved the petition on its merits, we find that 1. Itigil ang sabwatan ng KATIPUNAN (FABIAN GROUP) at
the petitioner union, along with its supporters, staged a strike management BMC-SUPER;
without complying with the requirements laid down in Article 2. Mr. Paul Lee—Huwag mong ipitin ang mid-year, 13th
263 of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules. month pay ng mga manggagawa sa CKC. BMC-SUPER;
The petitioner union alleges that it could not have staged a 3. Ibalik ang pasok sa Finishing Department;
strike because the operations at the Dyeing and Finishing 4. Mr. Paul Lee—Magagara ang sasakyan mo, Montero, BMW,
Division were temporarily stopped. It insists that it merely Pajero pero kaunting benepisyo ng manggagawa ay di mo maibigay
protested the unjustified closing of the respondent’s Dyeing BMC-SUPER;
_______________ 5. Kilalanin ang karapatan ng manggagawa na magtatag ng
unyon BMC-SUPER.
36 Sec. 3. Signature and address.—Every pleading must be signed by On or about 1640H at the same date, a PNP-Valenzuela Mobil car
the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which had SPO1 Palma, PO2 Manresa and PO1 Isip on board. The police
should not be a post office box. with the BMC-SUPER.
 The signature of counsel constitute a certificate by him that he has read The Valenzuela Police left at about 1727H.
the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is At about 1810H of the same date, the group of BMC-SUPER
good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. abandoned the area. 39

 An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may,
in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the The subsequent Reports dated June 14, 15, 16 and 18,
same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this 2001 of the same agency further stated that members of the
Rule or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly petitioner union, along with other employees particularly from
report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate the knitting department, joined in the picket. 40 It is, thus,
disciplinary action. apparent that the concerted effort of the members of the
660 petitioner union and its supporters caused a temporary work
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS stoppage. The allegation that there can be no work stoppage
because the operation in the Dyeing and Finishing Division
ANNOTATED had been shutdown is of no consequence. It bears stressing
Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa that the other divisions were fully operational. There is
Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of nothing on record showing that the union members and the
supporters who formed a picket line in front of the
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
respondent’s compound were assigned to the finishing
and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals department. As can
and Finishing Division by forming a picket in front of the _______________
respondent’s compound to urge the re-opening thereof.
We do not agree. 39 Rollo, p. 154.
A strike is any temporary stoppage of work by the 40 Id., at pp. 156-159.
concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or 662
labor dispute.37 A labor dispute includes any controversy or 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the
association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, ANNOTATED
maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions Bukluran ng mga Mangagawa sa
of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in Clothman Knitting Corp.-Solidarity of
the proximate relation of employer and employee.38
Unions in the Phils. for Empowerment
The members and the supporters of the petitioner union,
headed by petitioner Tomaroy, thru concerted action, caused a and Reforms vs. Court of Appeals
temporary stoppage of work as a result of an industrial be clearly inferred from the spot reports, employees from the
dispute. This is evidenced in the June 13, 2001 spot report of knitting department also joined in picket. The blockade of the
the Atlantic Security & Investigation Agency: delivery of trucks and the attendance of employees from the
On or about 1445H of June 11, 2001, Mr. Jojo Flores and Mr. Rene other departments of the respondent meant work stoppage.
Fabian were about to deliver fabrics in Bulacan with service truck The placards that the picketers caused to be displayed arose
TBK-158. Upon reaching the corner of Don Pedro St. and McArthur from matters concerning terms or conditions of employment as
well as the association or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the
terms and conditions of employment.
Clearly, the petitioner union, its officers, members and
supporters staged a strike. In order for a strike to be valid, the
following requirements laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of
Article 263 of the Labor Code must be complied with: (a) a
notice of strike must be filed; (b) a strike-vote must be taken;
and (c) the results of the strike-vote must be reported to the
DOLE.41 It bears stressing that these requirements are
mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the
strike illegal. The evident intention of the law in requiring the
strike notice and strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate
the right to strike, which is essential to the attainment of
legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law.42
Considering that the petitioner union failed to comply with
the aforesaid requirements, the strike staged on June 11 to 18,
2001 is illegal. Consequently, the officers of the union who
participated therein are deemed to have lost their employment
status.43
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 73353 are AFFIRMED. No costs.
_______________