Hotel Enterprises Of The Philippines v. Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Hyatt-National Union Of Workers In

NACHURA, J.:

The Constitution affords full protection to labor, but the policy is not to be blindly followed at the expense of capital. Always, the interests of both sides must be balanced in light of the evidence adduced and the peculiar circumstances surrounding each case. This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated July 20, 2004 and the Resolution2 dated October 20, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 81153.

The appellate court, in its decision and resolution, reversed the April 3, 2003 Resolution3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and reinstated the October 30, 2002 Decision4 issued by Labor Arbiter Aliman Mangandog upholding the legality of the strike staged by the officers and members of respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-National Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries (Union). We trace the antecedent facts below. Respondent Union is the certified collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Hyatt Regency Manila, a hotel owned by petitioner Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. (HEPI).1avvphi1 In 2001, HEPI's hotel business suffered a slump due to the local and international economic slowdown, aggravated by the events of September 11, 2001 in the United States.

An audited financial report made by Sycip Gorres Velayo (SGV) & Co. on January 28, 2002 indicated that the hotel suffered a gross operating loss amounting to ₱16,137,217.00 in 2001,5 a staggering decline compared to its ₱48,608,612.00 gross operating profit6 in year 2000.7 2000 2001 Income from Hotel Operations ₱ 78,434,103 ₱ 12,230,248