You are on page 1of 2

PRINCE TRANSPORT, INC. and MR. RENATO CLAROS, vs.

DIOSDADO
GARCIA, et al
January 12, 2011 G.R. No. 167291
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner PTI is a company engaged in the business of transporting
passengers by land, on the other hand, respondents were hired as drivers,
conductors, mechanics and inspectors. In addition to their regular monthly
income, respondents also received commissions equivalent to 8 to 10% of
their wages; sometime in October 1997, the said commissions were reduced
to 7 to 9%; this led respondents and other employees of PTI to hold a series
of meetings to discuss the protection of their interests as employees; these
meetings led petitioner Claros, president of PTI, to suspect that respondents
are about to form a union. In December 1997, PTI employees requested for a
cash advance, but the same was denied by management, which resulted in
demoralization on the employees' ranks; later, the foregoing circumstances
led respondents to form a union for their mutual aid and protection. In order
to block the continued formation of the union, PTI caused the transfer of all
union members and sympathizers to one of its sub-companies, Lubas
Transport (Lubas); despite such transfer, the schedule of drivers and
conductors, as well as their company identification cards, were issued by PTI;
the daily time records, tickets and reports of the respondents were also filed
at the PTI office; and, all claims for salaries were transacted at the same
office; later, the business of Lubas deteriorated because of the refusal of PTI
to maintain and repair the units being used therein, which resulted in the
virtual stoppage of its operations and respondents' loss of employment.
Petitioners, on the other hand, denied the material allegations of the
complaints contending that herein respondents were no longer their
employees, since they all transferred to Lubas.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice.


HELD: Yes. The respondents transfer of work assignments to Lubas was
designed by petitioners as a subterfuge to foil the formers right to organize
themselves into a union. Under Article 248 (a) and (e) of the Labor Code, an
employer is guilty of unfair labor practice if it interferes with, restrains or
coerces its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or if it
discriminates in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in
any labor organization.

Indeed, evidence of petitioners' unfair labor practice is shown by the


established fact that, after respondents' transfer to Lubas, petitioners left
them high and dry insofar as the operations of Lubas was concerned.
Petitioners withheld the necessary financial and logistic support such as spare
parts, and repair and maintenance of the transferred buses until only two
units remained in running condition. This left respondents virtually jobless.