You are on page 1of 6

109. EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS vs BAYER PHILS.

INC
GR NO. 162943 DEC 6, 2010

ISSUE:
1) Does the Labor Arbiter lack jurisdiction over the propriety of the disaffiliation
and the legality of a splinter union necessarily incorporated in a complaint
for ULP?
2) Can the act of the management in dealing and negotiating with a splinter
union despite its validly existing CBA with the then existing exclusive
bargaining representative be considered unfair labor practice?

RULING:
1)Yes. The issue of EUBP against Remigio and Villareal essentially involves an
intraunion dispute. To rule on the the validity or illegality of their acts, the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC will necessarily touch on the issues respecting the
propriety of their disaffiliation and the legality of the establishment of REUBP –
issues that are outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Accordingly, the dismissal
of the complaint was validly made, but only with respect to these two respondents.
2) Yes. When an employer proceeds to negotiate with a splinter union despite the
existence of its valid CBA with the duly certified and exclusive bargaining agent, the
former indubitably abandons its recognition of the latter and terminates the entire
CBA.

1
110. MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG STAYFAST PHILS INC. vs NLRC
GR NO. 155306 AUG 28, 2013

ISSUE:
Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court a proper remedy to
question the decision of the CA affirming the dismissal of the NLRC?

RULING:
No. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil
action that may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. For purposes of
appeal, the Decision dated July 1, 2002 of the Court of Appeals was a final judgment
as it denied due course to, and dismissed, the petition. Thus, the Decision
disposed of the petition of petitioner in a manner that left nothing more to
be done by the Court of Appeals in respect to the said case. Thus, petitioner should
have filed an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in this Court. Where the rules prescribe a
particular remedy for the vindication of rights, such remedy should be availed of.
The proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or
resolution is appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering
the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of
power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of
law set out in the decision, order or resolution. The existence and availability
of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the
requirements for the latter remedy is that there should be no appeal.

2
110-A. DE LA SALLE vs DLSU EMPLOYEES UNION

ISSUE:
Is the employer’s refusal to bargain collectively justified by a void leadership in the
union?

RULING:
No. The Court quoted the findings of the Secretary of Labor, saying that the issue
of union leadership is distinct and separate from the duty to bargain. It is then guilty
of unfair labor practice. The official determination of the BLR Director, saying that
there was actually no void leadership, removed whatever cloud of doubt on the
authority of the incumbent to negotiate for and in behalf of the union as the
bargaining agent of the covered employees.
Furthermore, this issue of void leadership has already been long extinguished
upon the conduct of the election of the union officers.

3
110-B. GOYA INC vs GOYA INC EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW

ISSUE:
Does the hiring of contractual workers for work in positions handled by union
members constitute ULP?

RULING:
Yes, if such hiring violates the CBA between the employer and the workers.
To emphasize, declaring that a particular act falls within the concept of
management prerogative is significantly different from acknowledging that such
act is a valid exercise thereof. The company’s act of contracting
out/outsourcing is within the purview of management prerogative. However,
such act is not a valid exercise thereof. Obviously, this is due to the recognition that
the CBA provisions agreed upon by the Company and the Union delimit the free
exercise of management prerogative pertaining to the hiring of contractual
employees. The right of the management to outsource parts of its operations is
not totally eliminated but is merely limited by the CBA. The exercise of
management prerogative is not unlimited; it is subject to the limitations found in
law, collective bargaining agreement or the general principles of fair play and
justice

4
111. ASIA BREWERY INC vs TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA
ASIA
GR NO. 17594-96 SEPT 18, 2013

ISSUE:
Did the Secretary of Labor commit grave abuse of discretion when it resolved the
case based on unaudited financial statements submitted by the company?

RULING:
Yes. Such financial statements are mere self-serving declarations and inadmissible
in evidence. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or
equity are not controlling in Labor case proceedings, the evidence presented must
at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value.
The extent of judicial review over the Secretary of Labor's arbitral award is not
limited to a determination of grave abuse in the manner of the secretary's exercise
of his statutory powers. This Court is entitled to, and must — in the exercise of its
judicial power — review the substance of the Secretary's award when grave abuse
of discretion is alleged to exist in the award, i.e., in the appreciation of and the
conclusions the Secretary drew from the evidence presented. Thus, we rule
that the Secretary of Labor gravely abused her discretion when she relied on the
unaudited financial statements of company in determining the wage award
because such evidence is self -serving and inadmissible.

5
112. BANKARD INC vs NLRC
GR NO. 171664 MAR. 6, 2013

ISSUE:
Can an employer be charged for ULP for effectively reducing the number of
its employees?

RULING:
Yes, if such reduction of employment would be shown to affect in whatever manner
the right of the employees to self-organize. In this case, it could not be
shown that the company committed ULP. There was no proof that the program
was meant to encourage the employees to disassociate themselves from the Union
or to restrain them from joining any union or organization. There was no showing
that it was intentionally implemented to stunt the growth of the Union or that
Bankard discriminated, or in any way singled out the union members who had
availed of the retirement package under the MRP. True, the program might
have affected the number of union membership because of the employees’
voluntary resignation and availment of the package, but it does not necessarily
follow that Bankard indeed purposely sought such result. It must be recalled that
the MRP was implemented as a valid cost-cutting measure, well within the ambit
of the so-called management prerogatives. Bankard contracted an independent
agency to meet business exigencies. In the absence of any showing that Bankard
was motivated by ill will, bad faith or malice, or that it was aimed at interfering with
its employees’ right to self-organize, it cannot be said to have committed an act of
unfair labor practice.