Short answer. Yes. Article 289 punishes anyone who uses violence or threats to compel or force laborers in the free and legal exercise of their work, specifically for the purpose of preventing a strike of laborers, among other coalition-related purposes. Using force to stop a lawful strike falls within this offense.
What the law says
shall be imposed upon any person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of employers, shall employ violence or threats in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employees in the free and legal exercise of their industry or work
Revised Penal Code, Article 289 — Coercing Labor Or Capital Combinations. Read the full provision →
Preventing a strike by force is expressly covered
Article 289 names preventing a strike as one of the specific purposes that triggers liability under this article, not just organizing one. Shall be imposed upon any person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of employers, shall employ violence or threats in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employees in the free and legal exercise of their industry or work. Using violence or threats specifically to stop workers from striking is exactly the conduct this clause addresses.
It is the coercion, not the strike itself, that gets tested
The article is not about whether the strike is legal or advisable — it is about the means used to interfere with the workers' choice. Someone who uses violence or threats to force laborers away from a strike they were legally entitled to hold is compelling them in the exercise of their work, which is exactly the harm Article 289 punishes, independent of the underlying labor dispute's merits.
A degree of force sufficient to actually compel
The article requires violence or threats used in such a degree as to compel or force the workers — meaning the conduct has to actually rise to a level capable of overriding their free choice, not merely express disagreement or apply ordinary persuasion. Whether a specific incident meets that threshold is a factual question, but the statute's target is coercive force strong enough to functionally take the decision out of the workers' hands.
What this means and where the article stops
If violence or threats were used specifically to stop workers from exercising their right to strike, Article 289 provides a basis for criminal liability, carrying arresto mayor and a fine — the peso figure updated by Republic Act No. 10951 in 2017 — unless the act constitutes a more serious offense under some other provision of the Code, in which case that other, more serious offense applies instead.