You are on page 1of 53


The effectivity of the said

ENCOURAGE/DISCOURAGE CBA was retroactive to August 1,
14 GENERAL MILLING ● The CBA contained the following
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. union security provisions:
OBREGON, JR., and ANTONIO employed by the Company
ANINIPOK, Respondents, and with the exception of those
VIRGILIO PINO, PAULINO who are specifically excluded
CABREROS, MA. LUNA P. JUMAOAS, by law and by the terms of
DOMINADOR BOOC, FIDEL VALLE, this Agreement must be
BARTOLOME AUMAN, REMEGIO members in good standing of
CABANTAN, LORETO GONZAGA, the Union… and shall
EDILBERTO MENDOZA and ANTONIO maintain such membership in
PANILAG, Respondents. good standing thereof as a
March 10, 2010 | Leonardo-De Castro, J. condition of their employment
| or continued employment.
○ Section 6. The Company,
Doctrine: In terminating the employment upon written request of the
of an employee by enforcing the union Union, shall terminate the
security clause, the employer needs only services of any
to determine and prove that: employee/worker who fails to
(1) the union security clause is fulfill the conditions set forth
applicable; in Sections 3 and 4 thereof…
(2) the union is requesting for the The Union shall absolve the
enforcement of the union security Company from any and all
provision in the CBA; and liabilities, pecuniary or
(3) there is sufficient evidence to support otherwise, and
the decision of the union to expel the responsibilities to any
employee from the union. employee or worker who is
dismissed or terminated in
Facts: pursuant thereof.
● The labor union Ilaw at Buklod ng ● Casio, et al. were regular
Mangagawa (IBM)-Local 31 employees of GMC. Casio was
Chapter (Local 31) was the sole elected IBM-Local 31 President for
and exclusive bargaining agent of a three-year term in June 1991,
the rank and file employees of while his co-respondents were
GMC in Lapu-Lapu City. union shop stewards.
● On November 30, 1991, IBM-Local ● In a letter, Rodolfo Gabiana, the
31, through its officers and board IBM Regional Director for Visayas
members, namely, respondents and Mindanao, furnished Casio, et
Pino, et al., entered into a CBA with al. with copies of the Affidavits of
GMC employees Basilio Inoc and ● Pressured by the threatened filing
Juan Potot, charging Casio, et al. of a suit, GMC acceded to
with "acts inimical to the interest of Gabiana's request to terminate the
the union." employment of Casio, et al. GMC
○ Through the same letter, issued a Memorandum terminating
Gabiana gave Casio, et al. the employment of Casio, et al.
three days from receipt within ● Casio, et al., in the name of IBM-
which to file their answers or Local 31, filed a Notice of Strike
counter-affidavits. with the NCMB-RO alleging as
○ However, Casio, et al. bases for the strike the illegal
refused to acknowledge dismissal of union officers and
receipt of Gabiana's letter. members, discrimination, coercion,
● Subsequently, on February 29, and union busting.
Pino, et al., as officers and ○ The NCMB-RO held
members of the IBM-Local 31, conciliation proceedings, but
issued a Resolution expelling no settlement was reached
Casio, et al. from the union. ● Casio, et al. next sought recourse
● Gabiana then wrote a letter from the NLRC Regional
addressed to Eduardo Cabahug, Arbitration Branch VII by filing a
GMC Vice-President for Complaint against GMC and Pino,
Engineering and Plant et al. for ULP.
Administration, informing the ● Finding that the case did not
company of the expulsion of Casio, undergo voluntary arbitration, the
et al. from the union pursuant to the LA dismissed the case for lack of
Resolution of IBM-Local 31 officers jurisdiction, but endorsed the same
and board members. to the NCMB-RO.
○ Gabiana likewise requested ● Prior to undergoing voluntary
that Casio, et al. "be arbitration before the NCMB-RO,
immediately dismissed from however, the parties agreed to first
their work for the interest of submit the case to the grievance
industrial peace in the plant." machinery of IBM-Local 31.
● Gabiana followed-up with another ● Casio, et al. filed their Complaint
letter inquiring from Cabahug why with Pino, the Acting President of
Casio, et al. were still employed IBM-Local 31.
with GMC despite the request of ○ Pino acknowledged receipt of
IBM-Local 31. Gabiana reiterated the Complaint and assured
the demand of IBM-Local 31 that Casio, et al. that they would
GMC dismiss Casio, et al., with the be "seasonably notified of
warning that failure of GMC to do whatever decision and/or
so would constitute gross violation action the Board may have in
of the existing CBA and constrain the instant case."
the union to file a case for ULP ○ When the IBM-Local 31
against GMC. Board failed to hold
grievance proceedings on
the Complaint of Casio, et al., ○ CA did not hold GMC liable to
NCMB VA assumed Casio, et al. for moral and
jurisdiction. exemplary damages and
● The VA rendered a Voluntary attorney's fees, there being
Arbitration Award dismissing the no showing that their
Complaint for lack of merit, but dismissal was attended by
granting separation pay and bad faith or malice, or that the
attorney's fees to Casio, et al. The dismissal was effected in a
Award presented the following wanton, oppressive, or
findings: malevolent manner, given
○ the termination by GMC of that GMC merely
the employment of Casio, et accommodated the request
al. was in valid compliance of IBM-Local 31.
with the closed shop ○ The CA, instead, made Pino,
provision in the CBA; et al. liable to Casio, et al., for
○ GMC had no competence to moral and exemplary
determine the good standing damages and attorney's
of a union member; fees, since it was on the
○ Casio, et al. waived their right basis of the imputations and
to due process when they actuations of Pino, et al. that
refused to receive Gabiana's Casio, et al. were illegally
letter which required them to dismissed from employment.
submit their answer to the
charges against them; GMC:
○ the IBM-Local 31 Resolution • In reviewing and reversing the
expelling Casio, et al. as findings of the VA, the CA departed
union members, also from the principle of
automatically ousted them as conclusiveness of the trial judge's
union officers. findings.
● Casio, et al. went to the CA which • The findings of the VA as to the
granted the appeal and set aside legality of the termination are well
the Voluntary Arbitration Award. supported by evidence.
● The CA ruled that while the • Before IBP-Local 31 expelled
dismissal of Casio, et al., was Casio, et al. from the union and
made by GMC pursuant to a valid requested GMC to dismiss Casio,
closed shop provision under the et al. from service pursuant to the
CBA, the company, however, failed closed shop provision in the CBA,
to observe the elementary rules of IBP-Local 31 already accorded
due process in implementing the Casio, et al. due process, only that
dismissal. Casio, et al. refused to avail
○ Casio, et al. were entitled to themselves of such opportunity.
reinstatement with • Casio, et al. were expelled by IBP-
backwages. Local 31 for "acts inimical to the
interest of the union," and GMC
had no authority to inquire into or
rule on which employee-member is Issue:
or is not loyal to the union, this W/N Casio, et al. were validly dismissed.
being an internal affair of the union.
GMC had to rely on the Held:
presumption that Pino, et al. NO. The dismissal of Casio, et al. was
regularly performed their duties indeed illegal, having been done
and functions as IBP-Local 31 without just cause and the
officers and board members, when observance of procedural due
the latter investigated and ruled on process.
the charges against Casio, et al. ● Whether Casio, et al. were illegally
• Pino, et al., the IBP-Local 31 dismissed without any valid reason
officers and board members who is a question of fact better left to
resolved to expel Casio, et al. from quasi-judicial agencies to
the union, and not GMC, should be determine.
held liable for the reinstatement of ○ In this case, the VA was
and payment of full backwages to convinced that Casio, et al.
Casio, et al. for the company had were legally dismissed; while
acted in good faith and merely the CA believed the opposite,
complied with the closed shop because even though the
provision in the CBA. dismissal of Casio, et al. was
made by GMC pursuant to a
Casio, et al. valid closed shop provision in
• GMC failed to identify the specific the CBA, the company still
pieces of evidence supporting the failed to observe the
findings of the VA. elementary rules of due
• To accord them due process, GMC process.
itself, as the employer, should have ○ The SC is therefore
held proceedings distinct and constrained to take a second
separate from those conducted by look at the evidence on
IBM-Local 31. GMC cannot justify record considering that the
its failure to conduct its own inquiry factual findings of the VA and
using the argument that such the CA are contradictory.
proceedings would constitute an ● The SC agrees with the CA. The
intrusion by the company into the dismissal of Casio, et al. was
internal affairs of the union. indeed illegal, having been done
• The claim of GMC that it had acted without just cause and the
in good faith when it dismissed observance of procedural due
Casio, et al. from service in process.
accordance with the closed shop ● Under the Labor Code, an
provision of the CBA is inconsistent employee may be validly
with the failure of the company to terminated on the following
accord the dismissed employees grounds:
their right to due process. ○ just causes under Art. 282;
○ authorized causes under Art. employer and his employees or
283; their representatives, no person
○ termination due to disease may be employed in any or certain
under Art. 284, and agreed departments of the
○ termination by the employee enterprise unless he or she is,
or resignation under Art. 285. becomes, and, for the duration of
○ Another cause for the agreement, remains a member
termination is dismissal from in good standing of a union entirely
employment due to the comprised of or of which the
enforcement of the union employees in interest are a part.
security clause in the CBA. ● Union security clauses are
● "Union security" is a generic recognized and explicitly allowed
term, which is applied to and under Article 248(e)1.
comprehends "closed shop," ● The law has allowed stipulations
"union shop," "maintenance of for "union shop" and "closed shop"
membership," or any other form of as means of encouraging workers
agreement which imposes upon to join and support the union of
employees the obligation to their choice in the protection of their
acquire or retain union rights and interest vis-a-vis the
membership as a condition employer.
affecting employment. ● A stipulation in the CBA authorizing
● There is union shop when all new the dismissal of employees are of
regular employees are required to equal import as the statutory
join the union within a certain provisions on dismissal under the
period as a condition for their Labor Code, since a CBA is the law
continued employment. between the company and the
● There is maintenance of union and compliance therewith is
membership shop when mandated by the express policy to
employees, who are union give protection to labor.
members as of the effective date of ● In terminating the employment of
the agreement, or who thereafter an employee by enforcing the
become members, must maintain union security clause, the employer
union membership as a condition needs only to determine and prove
for continued employment until that:
they are promoted or transferred (1) the union security clause is
out of the bargaining unit or the applicable;
agreement is terminated. (2) the union is requesting for the
● A closed shop, on the other hand, enforcement of the union
may be defined as an enterprise in security provision in the CBA;
which, by agreement between the and

1 Art. 248. Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. x x x in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop
the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining
xxxx agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are
already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and bargaining agreement.
conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership
(3) there is sufficient evidence to • The letter made no mention at all of
support the decision of the union the evidence supporting the
to expel the employee from the decision of IBM-Local 31 to expel
union. Casio, et al. from the union. GMC
• First requisite: never alleged nor attempted to
o No question that the CBA prove that the company actually
included a maintenance of looked into the evidence of IBM-
membership and closed shop Local 31 for expelling Casio, et al.
clause as can be gleaned and made a determination on the
from Sections 3 and 6 of sufficiency thereof. Without such a
Article II. IBM-Local 31, by determination, GMC cannot claim
written request, can ask that it had terminated the
GMC to terminate the employment of Casio, et al. for just
employment of the cause.
employee/worker who failed • The failure of GMC to make a
to maintain its good standing determination of the sufficiency of
as a union member. evidence supporting the decision of
• Second requisite: IBM-Local 31 is a direct
o Undisputed that IBM-Local consequence of the non-
31, through Gabiana, twice observance by GMC of procedural
requested GMC to terminate due process in the dismissal of
the employment of Casio, et employees.
al. as a necessary • GMC: as an employer, its only duty
consequence of their was to ascertain that IBM-Local 31
expulsion from the union. accorded Casio, et al. due process;
• Third requisite is lacking. and, it is the finding of the company
• The full text of the individual but that IBM-Local 31 did give Casio, et
identical termination letters served al. the opportunity to answer the
by GMC on Casio, et al., is very charges against them, but they
revealing. It is apparent from the refused to avail themselves of such
letters that GMC terminated the opportunity.
employment of Casio, et al. relying o SC: Allegations must be
upon the: proven by sufficient evidence
o Resolution of Pino, et al. because mere allegation is
expelling Casio, et al. from definitely not evidence.
IBM-Local 31; o The records of this case are
o Gabiana's Letters absolutely bereft of any
demanding that GMC supporting evidence to
terminate the employment of substantiate the bare
Casio, et al. on the basis of allegation of GMC that Casio,
the closed shop clause in the et al. were accorded due
CBA; process by IBM-Local 31.
o The threat of being sued by o There is nothing on record
IBM-Local 31 for ULP. that would indicate that IBM-
Local 31 actually notified 31 do not enjoy the presumption of
Casio, et al. of the charges regularity in the performance of
against them or that they official duties, because the
were given the chance to presumption applies only to public
explain their side. officers.
o All that was stated in the IBM- • Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union
Local 31 Resolution was that v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc.: The
"a copy of the said letter power to dismiss is a normal
complaint was dropped or left prerogative of the employer.
in front of E. Casio." It was However, this is not without
not established that said limitations. The employer is bound
letter-complaint charging to exercise caution in terminating
Casio, et al. with acts inimical the services of his employees
to the interest of the union especially so when it is made upon
was properly served upon the request of a labor union
Casio, that Casio willfully pursuant to the Collective
refused to accept the said Bargaining Agreement.
letter-notice, or that Casio • Malayang Samahan ng mga
had the authority to receive Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v.
the same letter-notice on Ramos: The enforcement of union
behalf of the other security clauses is authorized by
employees similarly law provided such enforcement is
accused. not characterized by arbitrariness,
o Casio, et al. were expelled and always with due process. Even
only five days after the on the assumption that the
issuance of the letter- federation had valid grounds to
complaint against them. The expel the union officers, due
SC cannot find proof on process requires that these union
record when the three-day officers be accorded a separate
period, within which Casio, et hearing by respondent company.
al. was supposed to file their • GMC cannot dispense with the
answer or counter-affidavits, requirements of notice and hearing
started to run and had before dismissing Casio, et al.
expired. even when said dismissal is
o The SC is likewise pursuant to the closed shop
unconvinced that the said provision in the CBA.
three-day period was o The rights of an employee to
sufficient for Casio, et al. to be informed of the charges
prepare their defenses and against him and to
evidence to refute the serious reasonable opportunity to
charges against them. present his side in a
• Contrary to the position of GMC, controversy with either the
the acts of Pino, et al. as officers company or his own union
and board members of IBM-Local are not wiped away by a
union security clause or a jurisprudence imposes upon
union shop clause in a GMC the obligation to accord
collective bargaining Casio, et al. substantive and
agreement. procedural due process
o An employee is entitled to be before complying with the
protected not only from a demand of IBP-Local 31 to
company which disregards dismiss the expelled union
his rights but also from his members from service. The
own union the leadership of failure of GMC to carry out
which could yield to the this obligation makes it liable
temptation of swift and for illegal dismissal of Casio,
arbitrary expulsion from et al.
membership and hence • Malayang Samahan ng mga
dismissal from his job. Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield:
• Casio, et al. did not receive any notwithstanding the fact that the
other communication from GMC, dismissal was at the instance of the
except the written notice of federation and that the federation
termination. GMC, by its own undertook to hold the company free
admission, did not conduct a from any liability resulting from the
separate and independent dismissal of several employees,
investigation to determine the the company may still be held liable
sufficiency of the evidence if it was remiss in its duty to accord
supporting the expulsion of Casio, the would-be dismissed employees
et al. by IBP-Local 31. It straight their right to be heard on the
away acceded to the demand of matter.
IBP-Local 31.
• GMC cannot insist that it has no Dispositive
liability for the payment of WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
backwages and damages to Casio, hereby DENIED. The assailed decision
et al., and that the liability for such of the Court of Appeals dated March 30,
payment should fall only upon 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 40280 is
Pino, et al. AFFIRMED.
o GMC completely missed the
point that the expulsion of
Casio, et al. by IBP-Local 31
and the termination of
employment of the same
employees by GMC,
although related, are two
separate and distinct acts.
o Despite a closed shop
provision in the CBA and the
expulsion of Casio, et al. from
IBP-Local 31, law and
[COLLECTION OF AGENCY FEES] • September 1997 — the UNION
15 DEL PILAR ACADEMY, EDUARDO negotiated for the renewal of the CBA.
ESPEJO and ELISEO OCAMPO, JR. ◦ DEL PILAR refused to renew the same

vs. DEL PILAR ACADEMY unless the provision regarding

EMPLOYEES UNION entitlement to 2 months summer
April 30, 2008 | Nachura, J. | vacation leave with pay will be
amended by limiting the same to
Doctrine: The employee's acceptance of teachers, who have rendered at least
benefits resulting from a collective 3 consecutive academic years of
bargaining agreement justifies the satisfactory service.
deduction of agency fees from his pay ◦ The UNION objected to the proposal

and the union's entitlement thereto. In claiming diminution of benefits. DEL

this aspect, the legal basis of the PILAR refused to sign the CBA,
union's right to agency fees is neither resulting in a deadlock.
contractual nor statutory, but quasi- • UNION requested DEL PILAR to submit
contractual, deriving from the case to VA, but DEL PILAR allegedly
established principle that non-union refused → UNION filed a case for unfair
employees may not unjustly enrich labor practice with Labor Arbiter
themselves by benefiting from
employment conditions negotiated by the DEL PILAR:
bargaining union. (Holy Cross of Davao • Denied committing ULP

College, Inc. v. Hon. Joaquin) • It justified the non-deduction of the

agency fees by the absence of

Facts: individual check-off authorization from
• Del Pilar Academy Employees Union the non-union employees.
(the UNION) is the certified collective • As regards the proposal to amend the

bargaining representative of teaching provision on summer vacation leave

and non-teaching personnel of with pay, DEL PILAR alleged that the
petitioner Del Pilar Academy (DEL proposal cannot be considered unfair
PILAR) for it was done to make the provision of
• September 15, 1994 — UNION and the CBA conformable to the DECS'
DEL PILAR entered into a CBA granting Manual of Regulations for Private
salary increase and other benefits to the Schools.
teaching and non-teaching staff
• The UNION then assessed agency fees LA: it was an error for DEL PILAR not to
from non-union employees, and have collected agency fee due other
requested DEL PILAR to deduct said workers who are non-union members but
assessment from the employees' are included in the bargaining unit being
salaries and wages. DEL PILAR, represented by the UNION
however, refused to effect • Non-union members are duty bound to

deductions claiming that the non- pay agency fees which may be lawfully
union employees were not amenable deducted without individual check-off
to it. authorization because they receive
CBA benefit
• Anent the proposal to decrease the ◦ The annual salary increase of its
coverage of the 11th and 12th month employee is a benefit mandated by
vacation with pay — such was an law, and not derived from the CBA.
honest attempt to make perfect DECS required all educational
procession following the DECS' institutions to allocate at least 70% of
Manuals. tuition fee increases for the salaries
and other benefits of teaching and
NLRC: affirmed non-teaching personnel; that even
CA: upheld UNION’s right to collect prior to the execution of the CBA in
agency fees from non-union employees September 1994, DEL PILAR have
already granting annual salary
Issue: increases to its employees.
W/N UNION is entitled to collect agency ◦ Besides, the non-union employees
fees from non-union members — YES objected to the deduction; hence, a
written authorization is indispensable
Held: to effect a valid check off.
• The collection of agency fees in an • Contrary to what DEL PILAR wants to
amount equivalent to union dues and portray, the grant of annual salary
fees, from employees who are not union increase is not the only provision in the
members, is recognized by Article 248 CBA that benefited the non-union
(e)2 employees.
• CHECK OFF SYSTEM: When so • The UNION has negotiated for other
stipulated in a collective bargaining benefits, namely, limitations on teaching
agreement or authorized in writing by assignments to 23 hours per week,
the employees concerned, the Labor additional compensation for overload
Code and its Implementing Rules units or teaching assignments in excess
recognize it to be the duty of the of the 23 hour per week limit, and
employer to deduct the sum equivalent payment of longevity pay. It has also
to the amount of union dues, as agency negotiated for entitlement to summer
fees, from the employees' wages for vacation leave with pay for two (2)
direct remittance to the union. months for teaching staff who have
• No requirement of written authorization rendered six (6) consecutive semesters
from the non-union employees is of service. For the non- teaching
necessary if the non-union employees personnel, the UNION worked for their
accept the benefits resulting from the entitlement to fifteen (15) days leave
CBA. with pay.
• DEL PILAR: Article 248 (e) is • Article 248 (e) makes it explicit that
inapplicable considering that its Article 241, paragraph (o), requiring
employees derived no benefits from the written authorization is inapplicable to
CBA. non-union members, especially in this

2LC, ART 248 (e). Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement. Provided, That the
who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be individual authorization required under Article 241, paragraph (o) of this
assessed reasonable fees equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by the Code shall not apply to the non-members of recognized collective
recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept bargaining agent.
case where the non-union employees
receive several benefits under the CBA.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86868, are
[RETALIATORY DISCHARGE] and illegal. It ordered the
16 ITOGON-SUYOC MINES V. BALDO reinstatement of Jose with back wages
24 December 1964 | Zaldivar, J. | PMCA
Petitioner/s: ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, W/N the company is guilty of ULP –
Respondent/s: JOSE BALDO, ● Jose started working as miner in 1954
SAÑGILO-lTOGON WORKERS UNION until February 1958 when he was given
and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL a ‘30-day notice of termination of
RELATIONS employment’ to the effect that his
services will not be needed by the
Facts: respondent company after March 5,
● November 18, 1958 – Acting 1958.
Prosecutor of CIR charged Itogon- ○ Jose refused to acknowledge receipt
Suyoc Mines, Inc., and Claude Fertig, of said notice when Mowry, the
its General Superintendent, with mine’s superintendent, asked him to
having committed ULP (§4(a), pars. 1, sign it.
4 and 5 of RA 875). ○ In fact, Jose was on a 15-day
● Complaint alleged that A. Manaois and vacation leave with pay immediately
Jose Baldo, employees, were prior to his being served his
dismissed by Itogon on June 1957 and separation notice.
March 1958 because of their ● This proves that Jose was dismissed
membership with the Sañgilo-Itogon by the company because of his
Workers Union and for having testified membership in Sañgilo-Itogon
against the company in a certification Workers Union, a legitimate labor
election case. The complaint prayed organization
that Itogon Suyoc cease and desist ○ Jose joined the Sañgilo-Itogon
from the labor practices complained of Workers Union, the rival union of the
and that A. Manaois and Jose be Itogon Labor Union that had a CBA
reinstated without loss of employee with the company which was known
benefits and with back wages. to management.
● Itogon-Suyoc admitted the dismissal ○ When Jose was given the 30-day
but alleged that they were dismissed notice of separation, there was
for just causes: inefficiency, utter pending before the CIR a
disregard and violation of safety rules certification election case (opposed
and regulations established and by the company) involving the
enforced for the protection of the lives employees of the company which
of the employees and properties, utter was brought about upon petition by
disregard of the company property and the Sañgilo-Itogon Workers Union of
poor attendance records. which Jose was a member
● CIR: ULP as to A. Manaois was not ○ When Jose was given notice of
proved and that his dismissal was just. separation, he brought his case to
As to Jose, the charge of ULP was the grievance committee of the
proved and his dismissal was unjust Itogon Labor Union and the
management of the company— the Itogon Labor Union, the rival Union
composed of representatives of the of the Sañgilo-Itogon Workers Union.
Itogon Labor Union and the
management—with a view to ON REINSTATEMENT AND
securing his reinstatement BACKWAGES
○ The case of Jose was pending ● When an employer commits ULP, he
before the grievance committee should be made to shoulder all the
when he was asked by Gelladoga consequences of his unfair acts. The
(also former VP of the Itogon matter of granting back wages or
Labor Union) not to testify in the backpay to an employee that is
hearing of the certification reinstated is discretionary with the
election case so that he would be CIR.
reinstated ● Under the circumstances, the CIR had
○ But Jose still testified which not abused the exercise of its
testimony was adverse to the discretion when it ordered the grant of
company back wages to Jose from the date he
○ After Jose testified, his case was was promised reinstatement to the day
dropped by the grievance of his actual reinstatement, including
committee, and he was never the time the case was pending.
○ Considering Jose’s case was Dispositive
pending before the grievance WHEREFORE, the decision appealed
committee when he was asked by from is affirmed, with costs against the
Gelladoga not to testify, and soon petitioner.
after he had testified adversely to
Itogon his case was dropped by the
grievance committee, the conclusion
is inescapable that the management
of the company had much to do with
the dropping of Baldo’s case and
because of the dropping of that case
it never reinstated Jose to his work.
● The alleged offenses imputed on Jose
relied upon by the company shows that
they were not so serious as to
warrant his immediate and
permanent dismissal.
○ Jose had not committed any serious
offense as would warrant his
immediate and permanent
● There is also proof that Claude Fertig,
the General Superintendent of Itogon,
was at that time acting as adviser of
Violative of Right to Collective NACIONAL, SANDY NAVALES, FELIPE
Union v Universal Robina Corporation RANDO, JR., PHILIP REPULLO,
October 05, 2016 | Leonen, J. VICENTE RUIZ, JR., JOHN SUMUGAT,
SULLIVAN, FEDERICO SUMUGAT, JR., May 6, 2002: Universal Robina
ROMULO AVENTURA, JR., JURRY Corporation Sugar Division -
MAGALLANES, HERNAN EPISTOLA, Southern Negros Development
MONTALVO, TEODORO MAGUAD, Philippine Agricultural Commercial
DOMINGO TABABA, MAXIMO SALE, and Industrial Workers Union
JUNSAY, JR., DANILO SAMILLION, bargaining representative of URC-
MARIANITO BOCATEJA, JUANITO SONEDCO's rank-and-file employees,
GEBUSION, RICARDO MAYO, RAUL entered into a Collective Bargaining
ALIMON, ARNEL ARNAIZ, REBENCY Agreement (2002 Collective Bargaining
BASOY, JIMMY VICTORIO BERNALDE, Agreement) effective January 1, 2002 to
RICARDO BOCOL, JR., JOB December 31, 2006.
CALAMBA, WOLFRANDO CALAMBA, - Under the 2002 Collective
RODOLFO CASISID, JR., EDGARDO Bargaining Agreement, rank-and-
file employees were entitled to a
wage increase of P14.00/day for
EDMUNDO EBIDO, JOSE ELEPTICO, 2002 and P12.00/day for the
JR., MARCELINO FLORES, succeeding years until 2006.
HITALIA, JOSELITO JAGODILLA, May 17, 2002: days after the 2002
NONITO JAYME, ADJIE JUANILLO, Collective Bargaining Agreement was
signed, a certification election was Petition13 for certification election on
conducted. SONEDCO Workers Free December 6, 2006 in view of the
Labor Union won and replaced PACIWU- approaching expiration of the 2002
TUCP as the exclusive bargaining Collective Bargaining Agreement. On
representative. December 31, 2006, the 2002 Collective
Bargaining Agreement expired with no
PACIWU-TUCP questioned the results of new collective bargaining agreement
the certification election before the being signed.
Department of Labor and Employment.
On July 8, 2002, Med-Arbiter Romulo August 28, 2007: Due to no CBA in
Sumalinog certified SONEDCO Workers effect, URC-SONEDCO informed rank
Free Labor Union as the sole and and file employees that they would be
exclusive bargaining representative of granted the following:
URC-SONEDCO.8 This was affirmed by - Wage increase of P16.00 a day
the Labor Secretary in a Resolution effective Jan 1, 2007
dated December 27, 2002, which - Group life insurance of P50,000.00
became final on April 15,
- Emergency leave in lieu of
2003. PACIWU-TUCP elevated the bereavement leave, up to five days
same issue to the Court of Appeals and per year; and
thereafter this Court, which on July 11, - Cash loan in lieu of emergency
2007, resolved that the certification loan of P5,000.00 payable in 11
election was valid. SONEDCO Workers months.
Free Labor Union was declared the
exclusive bargaining agent of URC- URC-SONEDCO asked the employees
SONEDCO's rank-and-file employees. who wished to avail themselves of
these-benefits to sign an
URC-SONEDCO consistently refused to acknowledgment receipt/waiver (2007
negotiate a new collective bargaining waiver), which stated that "in the
agreement with SONEDCO Workers event that a subsequent [collective
Free Labor Union, despite several bargaining agreement] is negotiated
demands from SONEDCO Workers Free between Management and Union, the
Labor Union, allegedly due to the 2002 new [Collective Bargaining
Collective Bargaining Agreement, which Agreement] shall only be effective
it signed with PACIWU-TUCP. January 1, 2008." URC-SONEDCO
claimed that the 2007 waiver was
Despite being the incumbent exclusive designed to avoid and/or prevent
bargaining agent, SONEDCO Workers double compensation.
Free Labor Union filed before the - Several SONEDCO Workers Free
Labor Union members refused to
Department of Labor and Employment a
sign the 2007 waiver, hence them 2007 and 2008. As a new collective
not receiving the benefits given to bargaining agreement had already been
other members of the bargaining renegotiated and did not include the
unit who had done so.
years 2007 and 2008, the purpose of the
waivers was already served
August 20, 2008: CE conducted.
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union
won again and proceeded to negotiate a
NLRC: Sustained LA (Requirement to
new collective bargaining agreement,
sign waiver did not constitute ULP)
which became effective January 1, 2009
- Such an act does not constitute
to December 31, 2013 (2009 Collective interference, restraining or
Bargaining Agreement). coercing employees in the exercise
of their right to self organization or
On July 2, 2009, SONEDCO Workers to bargain collectively, neither is it
Free Labor Union and its members tantamount to discrimination
who refused to sign the 2007 and 2008 against union members who
refused to waive wage increase in
waivers filed a complaint for unfair
a CBA. As aptly termed by
labor practices against URC- respondents, it is an "offer" during
SONEDCO. They argued that the the absence of a Collective
requirement of a waiver before the Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and
release of the wage increase violated during the time when there was an
their right to self-organization, unresolved union representation,
collective bargaining, and concerted which this Commission considers
as reasonable.
CA (via petition for certiorari): No grave
abuse of discretion. Petition dismissed.
URC-SONEDCO did not commit unfair
labor practice when it increased the
Elevated to SC via rule 45 Petition
wages of the rank-and-file employees for
2007 and 2008.25 He found that, the
Petitioners’ Arguments:
requirement of a waiver aside, it was
- Court of Appeals failed to consider
benevolent for URC-SONEDCO to give the totality of respondent's dealings
its employees additional benefits outside with them.
the Collective Bargaining - They allege that despite their
Agreement.26 However, the Labor Arbiter several invitations, respondent
ordered URC-SONEDCO to pay the consistently failed to bargain with
employees who refused to sign the 2007 them, and the wage increase was
just another move to avoid
and 2008 waivers of the benefits negotiations.
received by their fellow employees for
- Petitioners claim that the benefits WON petitioners, who refused to sign
given by respondent was an the 2007 and 2008 waivers, are entitled
economic incentive meant to to the wage increase and other
encourage individual employees to
economic benefits as a continuing
give up agreement bargaining for
2007 and 2008. employee benefit notwithstanding the
- Moreover, petitioners maintain that 2009 CBA? YES
the wage increase for 2007 and
2008 should be considered as a WON respondent is liable for damages
continuing benefit over what was ? YES
already provided in the 2009
Collective Bargaining Agreement
because Article XXI of the 2009
Collective Bargaining Agreement First issue. ULP:
excluded claims pending before Both the National Labor Relations
the courts (SEE NOTES FOR Commission and the Court of Appeals
ARTICLE XXI). ruled that respondent did not commit
unfair labor practice since the
Respondent’s Arguments: requirement of a waiver for 2007 and
- petitioners merely rehashed the 2008 did not interfere with the employees
same matters already ruled upon 5 exercise of their right to self-
by the Court of Appeals.
organization. However, the Court of
- It reiterates that both the National
Labor Relations Commission and Appeals failed to take into account that
the Court of Appeals found them unfair labor practice not only involves
not guilty of unfair labor practice acts that violate the right to self-
since the waivers did not violate organization but also covers several acts
the employees' right to organize. enumerated in Article 259 of the Labor
- Moreover, the employees freely
Code (see notes).
signed the waivers; even
petitioners did not accuse - Under this provision, an employer
respondent of coercing employees is guilty of unfair labor practice
to sign these waivers. when it fails in its duty to bargain in
- Respondent claims that the good faith.
benefits that it offered were higher
than what the employees had Although it Is well-settled that the
previously received; there was no findings of fact of quasi-judicial
diminution of benefits involved agencies such as the National
Issue: Labor Relations Commission are
accorded great respect, this rule
WON Respondent Universal Robina does admit exceptions.45 One of
Corporation committed unfair labor these exceptions is when, as in this
practice? YES case, the Court of Appeals errs in
appreciating the facts. (Culili v Respondent's argument has no merit.
Eastern Telecom Philippines) Respondent's reliance on the 2002
Collective Bargaining Agreement as
In ruling that respondent did not basis for not negotiating with petitioners
commit unfair labor practice, the is unjustified. The Collective Bargaining
National Labor Relations Commission Agreement that respondent invoked had
and the Court of Appeals failed to been entered into when a Petition for
consider the totality of respondent's Certification Election was already filed.
acts, which showed that it violated its
duty to bargain collectively. This
constitutes unfair labor practice Respondent claimed that it refused to
under Article 259(g) of the Labor bargain with petitioners because the
Code. issue of representation was still pending
before the courts. It claimed that when
- Respondent repeatedly refused to the 2002 Collective Bargaining
meet and bargain with SONEDCO
Agreement expired on December 31,
Workers Free Labor Union, the
exclusive bargaining agent of its 2006, it had no bargaining agent to deal
rank-and-file employees. with as SONEDCO Workers Free Labor
- In its Position Paper before the Union had filed before the Department of
National Labor Relations Labor and Employment a Petition for
Commission, respondent cited the Certification Election on December 6,
different instances when 2006, which resulted in the absence of a
petitioners sent it letters trying to
duly elected bargaining
set meetings to discuss a new 52
collective bargaining agreement. representative. Respondent claimed it
- Respondent admitted that it was only on September 25, 2008 that
refused to meet with petitioners in SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union
light of the 2002 Collective was certified by the Department of Labor
Bargaining Agreement, which it and Employment as the exclusive
signed with PACIWU-TUCP, the bargaining agent of respondent's rank-
previous bargaining
and-file employees.
- It claimed that the 2002 Collective - Argument fails to persuade the
Bargaining Agreement remained in court.
full force and effect without change - DOLE Order dated may 4, 2007
until December 31, 2006, despite granted SONEDCO Workers Free
PACIWU-TUCP losing the May 17, Labor Union’s second petition for
2002 certification election to CE, making them the sole and
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor exclusive bargaining agent for rank
Union and file employees of SONEDCO
Article 268 [256], the last paragraph Labor Unions v Trajano shows that the
provides: winning union has the option to either
- At the expiration of the freedom continue the existing CBA or negotiate a
period, the employer shall continue new one.
to recognize the majority status of - As petitioners asked for a P50.00
the incumbent bargaining agent wage increase instead of P12.00
where no petition for CE is filed. wage increase they were receiving
under the 2002 CBA, petitioners
When petitioners held a conference on were justified in demanding a
May 26, 2003, respondent refused to renegotiation.
attend. Because respondent failed to - Respondent was remiss in its duty
appear in the conference, petitioners when it repeatedly refused
negotiations with petitioners.
wrote their demands in a letter sometime
in July 2003. The letter included, among
Respondent's refusal is even more
others, a wage increase of P50.00/day
unfounded considering that the Labor
from September 2003 to 2006.
Secretary's Resolution,64 which upheld
- Instead of explaining its non-
the result of the May 17, 2002
attendance to the conference or
making a counter-offer, respondent certification election and declared
replied on August 15, 2003 SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union
acknowledging the receipt and as the exclusive bargaining agent,
contents of the July 2003 letter but became final and executory as early as
invoking the 2002 Collective April 15, 2003. Even though there had
Bargaining Agreement as an
been a pending petition for certiorari
excuse not to answer petitioners'
demands to negotiate. questioning the election results, no
- This is contrary to Article 261 of the temporary restraining order was issued
Labor Code, which requires the to preclude respondent from bargaining
other party to reply within 10 days with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor
from receipt of the written demand Union, the declared incumbent union.
o Respondent likewise failed to
reply to the collective
Even if we consider respondent's refusal
bargaining agreement
proposal sent by petitioners to bargain as merely a mistake made in
on August 21, 2007. good faith, its subsequent acts show an
o The September 22, 2007 attempt to restrict petitioners' negotiating
letter, sent with the power.
agreement proposal, also - First, the 2002 Collective
went unheeded Bargaining Agreement was done
on May 6, 2002, only days before
Respondent’s reliance on the 2002 CBA the May 17, 2002 certification
is contrary to jurisprudence. Associated election. When respondent and
PACIWU-TUCP entered into the Wording of the waivers show a clear
2002 CBA, they had been aware attempt to limit petitioner’s bargaining
that a certification election was power by making them waive the
going to be conducted in a few
negotations for 2007 and 2008.
days. In pushing through with
negotiations instead of waiting for - In stipulating that the CBA would be
the outcome of the election, entered into would only be effective
respondent risked needing to the year following the 2008 waiver,
renegotiate with a new union if respondent limited when the CBA
PACIWU-TUCP loses. It cannot, could be deemed effective
thus, invoke the hastily - In other words, respondent asked
concluded 2002 Collective petitioners to forego any benefits
Bargaining Agreement as an they might have received under a
excuse not to bargain with CBA in exchange for company
petitioners. If respondent had granted benefits.
truly intended to bargain in good
faith, it could have easily waited Both CA and NLRC thought the move
a few more days to know the was magnanimous because it granted
result of the certification a P16.00 wage increase, 4P more than
election. that under the 2002 CBA.
- Second, when the 2002 Collective - However, the wage increased
Bargaining Agreement expired in proposed by the petitioners in
December 2006, the Labor 2007 was P50.00. if a CBA had
Secretary's Resolution declaring been concluded in 2007,
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor employees who signed the
Union as the bargaining agent of waivers would have lose the
respondent's rank-and-file chance to receive P34.00 wage
employees was already final and increase that year.
executory. Respondent's initial
basis for refusal to bargain had
Finally, when the 2007 waiver circulated,
expired, and since no temporary
restraining order was issued, respondent URC already had a copy of
nothing was legally preventing the petitioner’s agreement proposal.
respondent from negotiating a new They were aware the petitioners were
collective bargaining agreement asking for a P50.00 wage increase.
with petitioners. That it chose to - the last bar preventing respondent
refuse negotiations and instead from recognizing SONEDCO
entered into an agreement with Workers Free Labor Union as the
its employees to essentially bargaining agent has been
waive negotiations for 2007 and resolved by the time it issued the
2008 betrays its intention of waivers.
limiting petitioners' bargaining o The Petition for Certiorari
power. relative to the May 17, 2002
certification election was
denied with finality by this o Samahang Manggagawa sa
Court on July 11, Top Form Manufacturing v
2007. There was no reason NLRC: if a proposal is not
to doubt that SONEDCO printed in the CBA, it cannot
Workers Free Labor Union be demanded.
was the sole and exclusive o If petitioners wanted the
bargaining representative. If wage increase for 2007 and
respondents had been acting 2008 to carry on, the proper
in good faith, it would have recourse was to demand it be
undergone agreement included in the 2009 CBA
negotiations with the
petitioners. 3rd issue: liability for damages
- Respondent is liable to pay moral
and exemplary damages
2nd issue: entitlement to wage
increase and econ benefits despite Dispositive
non signing of waiver Petition GRANTED.
- NLRC did not err in granting Decision of CA dated Jan 30, 2015 set
benefits for 2007 and 2008 to the aside. Respondent URC is guilty of ULP
employees w and is ORDERED to pay each of the
- ho did not sign the waiver
petitioners the wage increase of P16.00
- After SONEDCO Workers Free
Labor Unionw as again declared for the years 2007 and 2008; and to pay
exclusive bargaining rep in the SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union
August 20, 2008 CE, the 2009 CBA moral damages in the amount of
was created to cover 2009-2013. P100,00.00; and exemplary damages in
- Since 2009 CBA did not include the the amount of P200,000.00.
years 2007 and 2008, the alleged
purpose of the waivers, which was
to prevent double compensation,
was already served.
o It would be unfair for the
employees to still not receive Notes
benefits for 2007 and 2008
simply because their refusal ARTICLE XXI COMPLETE
to sign a waiver was a moot SETTLEMENT
- The parties agree that this
- However there is no need for the
Agreement is full and complete
continuation of the wage increase
settlement of all demands,
for 2007 and 2008 since the 2009
requests, claims and disputes of
CBA contains wage increase
any nature, written or verbal, that
either party have or may have
against the other prior to the
effectivity hereof, except those in any labor organization. Nothing in
subject of pending cases before this Code or in any other law shall stop
the NLRC or its arbitration branch, the parties from requiring membership in
or before the DOLE or regular
a recognized collective bargaining agent
as a condition for employment, except
those employees who are already
ARTICLE 259. [248] Unfair Labor members of another union at the time of
Practices of Employers. — It shall be the signing of the collective bargaining
unlawful for an employer to commit any agreement. Employees of an appropriate
of the following unfair labor practices:: bargaining unit who are not members of
the recognized collective bargaining
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce agent may be assessed a reasonable fee
employees in the exercise of their right equivalent to the dues and other fees
to self-organization; paid by members of the recognized
collective bargaining agent, if such non-
(b) To require as a condition of union members accept the benefits
employment that a person or an under the collective bargaining
employee shall not join a labor agreement: Provided, That the individual
organization or shall withdraw from one authorization required under Article 242,
to which he belongs; paragraph (o) of this Code 204 shall not
apply to the non-members of the
(c) To contract out services or functions recognized collective bargaining agent;
being performed by union members
when such will interfere with, restrain or (f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise
coerce employees in the exercise of their prejudice or discriminate against an
right to self-organization; employee for having given or being about
to give testimony under this Code;
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or
otherwise interfere with the formation or (g) To violate the duty to bargain
administration of any labor organization, collectively as prescribed by this
including the giving of financial or other Code;
support to it or its organizers or
supporters; (h) To pay negotiation or attorney's fees
to the union or its officers or agents as
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, part of the settlement of any issue in
hours of work and other terms and collective bargaining or any other
conditions of employment in order to dispute; or
encourage or discourage membership
(i) To violate a collective bargaining

The provisions of the preceding

paragraph notwithstanding, only the
officers and agents of corporations,
associations or partnerships who have
actually participated in, authorized or
ratified unfair labor practices shall be
held criminally liable. (Emphasis

ARTICLE 263. [252] Meaning of Duty to

Bargain Collectively. — The duty to
bargain collectively means the
performance of a mutual obligation to
meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement
with respect to wages, hours of work and
all other terms and conditions of
employment including proposals for
adjusting any grievances or questions
arising under such agreement and
executing a contract incorporating such
agreements if requested by either party
but such duty does not compel any party
to agree to a proposal or to make any
[VIII. ULP – C. Acts violative of right to negotiations and therefore shall be
collective bargaining – 1. Violation of excluded therefrom."
duty to bargain] • 14 August 2001 - Nestlé requested the
19 Union of Filipro Employees vs NCMB to conduct preventive
Nestle mediation proceedings
March 3, 2008 | Chico-Nazario, J. | o despite 15 meetings, the parties
failed to reach any agreement
Petitioner/s : UNION OF FILIPRO on the proposed CBA
KILUSANG MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA- o 1st (31 October): bargaining
KMU) deadlock pertaining to economic
Respondent/s : NESTLÉ issues (retirement plan, panel
PHILIPPINES, INC composition, costs and
attendance, and CBA)
Facts: o 2nd (07 November): Nestlé’s
• UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole and alleged unfair labor practices
exclusive bargaining agent of the (bargaining in bad faith by
rank-and-file employees of Nestlé setting pre-conditions in the
belonging to the latter’s Alabang and ground rules, refusing to include
Cabuyao plants the issue of the Retirement Plan
• 4 April 2001 - as the existing CBA in CBA negotiations)
between Nestlé and UFE-DFA-KMU • A strike vote conducted by UFE-DFA-
was to end on 5 June 2001, the KMU members showed approval of
Presidents of the Alabang and the decision to hold a strike
Cabuyao Divisions of UFE-DFA-KMU o Of the 789 employees of Nestlé
informed Nestlé of their intent to open Cabuyao Factory, only 724
a new Collective Bargaining employees voted
Negotiation for the year 2001-2004. o YES ballot garnered 708 votes,
Nestlé informed them that it was also only 13 employees decided
preparing its own counter-proposal against the plan to stage a strike
and proposed ground rules to govern • 26 November 2001 - prior to holding
the impending conduct of the CBA the strike, Nestlé filed with the DOLE
negotiations a Petition for Assumption of
• 29 May 2001 - Nestlé sent a letter to Jurisdiction
UFE-DFA-KMU Cabuyao Division: • 29 November 2001 - DOLE Sec. Sto.
"unilateral grants, one-time company Tomas issued an Order assuming
grants, company-initiated policies and jurisdiction over the subject labor
programs, which include, but are not dispute pursuant to LC 263(g), and
limited to the Retirement Plan, enjoining any strike/lockout. MR
Incidental Straight Duty Pay and denied
Calling Pay Premium, are by their very • 15 January 2002 - Despite the order
nature not proper subjects of CBA and NCMB conciliation efforts, UFE-
DFA-KMU members from Cabuyao rules of the CBA
Plant went on strike. negotiations)
• 16 January 2002 - Sec. Sto. Tomas • Sec. Sto. Tomas denied MR of UFE-
issued an order directing: DFA-KMU.
o UFE-DFA-KMU members to • UFE-DFA-KMU filed a Petition
return-to-work within 24 hours; for Certiorari before CA
Nestlé to accept back all • In the interim, then Acting DOLE
returning workers Secretary Hon. Arturo Brion, came out
o submission of their respective with an Order
position papers within 10 days o Retirement Plan is a unilateral
• UFE-DFA-KMU members continued grant that the parties have
with their strike, prompting Sec. Sto. expressly so recognized
Tomas to seek the assistance of PNP subsequent to SC ruling in
• 7 February 2002 - Nestlé and UFE- Nestlé vs. NLRC (1991), and is
DFA-KMU filed their respective therefore not a mandatory
position papers subject for bargaining
o Nestlé addressed several o UFE-DFA-KMU’s charge of ULP
issues concerning economic against Nestlé is dismissed
provisions of the CBA as well as • UFE-DFA-KMU filed MR. MR denied
the non-inclusion of the issue of • UFE-DFA-KMU filed another Petition
the Retirement Plan in the for Certiorari before CA
collective bargaining • CA ruled in favor of UFE-DFA-KMU
negotiations for both petitions. MRs denied
o UFE-DFA-KMU limited itself to • UFE-DFA-KMU and Nestlé separately
the issue of W/N retirement plan filed Petitions for Review on Certiorari
was a mandatory subject in CBA before SC
negotiations • SC consolidated the petitions:
• Sec. Sto. Tomas allowed UFE-DFA- o UFE-DFA-KMU petition seeking
KMU the chance, by way of that Nestlé be declared to have
a Supplemental Position Paper, to committed ULP - denied
tender its stand on the other issues o CA decision ruling that DOLE
raised by Nestlé Secretary gravely abused her
• UFE-DFA-KMU, instead of filing SPP, discretion in failing to confine
filed a Manifestation with MR of the her assumption of jurisdiction
Order dated February 11, 2002 power over the ground rules of
o Sec. Sto. Tomas could only the CBA negotiations - reversed
assume jurisdiction over the o CA decision on the inclusion of
issues mentioned in the notice the Retirement Plan as a valid
of strike issue in the collective bargaining
▪ notice of strike did not cite negotiations between UFE-
the CBA deadlock as DFA-KMU and Nestlé - affirmed
ground (i.e. only pertained o parties are directed to resume
to Nestlé setting pre- negotiations respecting the
conditions in the ground Retirement Plan
• UFE-DFA-KMU filed Motion for Partial party can serve a written notice
Reconsideration to terminate or modify the
o Nestlé guilty of ULP: the agreement at least (60) days
transaction speaks for itself (res prior to its expiration date. It
ipsa loquitor) shall be the duty of both parties
▪ Refusal to bargain on a to keep the status quo and to
very important CBA continue in full force and effect
economic provision the terms of conditions of the
constitutes ULP existing agreement during the
o DOLE Secretary should not 60-day period and/or until a new
have gone beyond the agreement is reached by the
disagreement on the CBA parties
negotiations ground rules • The purpose of collective bargaining
is the reaching of an agreement
Ruling: resulting in a contract binding on the
W/N Nestlé was guilty of ULP. NO parties. But the failure to reach an
• Duty to bargain collectively is agreement after negotiations have
mandated by LC 252 and 253 continued for a reasonable period
o LC 252: The duty to bargain does not establish a lack of good faith.
collectively means the The duty to bargain does not include
performance of a mutual the obligation to reach an agreement.
obligation to meet and convene • The crucial question of W/N a party
promptly and expeditiously in has met his statutory duty to bargain
good faith for the purpose of in good faith typically turns on the
negotiating an agreement with facts of the individual case.
respect to wages, hours, of work o There is no per se test of good
and all other terms and faith. Good faith or bad faith is
conditions of employment an inference to be drawn from
including proposals for adjusting the facts.
any grievances or questions o The effect of an employer’s or a
arising under such agreement union’s individual actions is not
and executing a contract the test of good-faith bargaining,
incorporating such agreements but the impact of all such
if requested by either party but occasions or actions,
such duty does not compel any considered as a whole, and the
party to agree to a proposal or to inferences fairly drawn
make any concession. therefrom collectively may offer
o LC 253: When there is a a basis for the finding of the
collective bargaining NLRC.
agreement, the duty to bargain • For a charge of ULP to prosper, it
collectively shall also mean that must be shown that Nestlé, in
neither party shall terminate nor disclaiming unilateral grants as proper
modify such agreement during subjects in their collective bargaining
its lifetime. However, either negotiations, was motivated by ill will,
bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive the negotiations were not the
to labor, or done in a manner contrary unilateral activity of the
to morals, good customs, or public bargaining
policy, and that social humiliation, representative. Nestlé’s desire
wounded feelings, or grave anxiety to settle the dispute and
resulted proceed with the negotiation
o LC 247: Unfair labor practices being evident in its cry for
violate the constitutional right of compulsory arbitration is proof
workers and employees to self- enough of its exertion of
organization, are inimical to the reasonable effort at good-faith
legitimate interests of both labor bargaining.
and management, including o An employer’s steadfast
their right to bargain collectively insistence to exclude a
and otherwise deal with each particular substantive provision
other in an atmosphere of is no different from a bargaining
freedom and mutual respect, representative’s perseverance
disrupt industrial peace and to include one that they deem of
hinder the promotion of healthy absolute necessity.
and stable labor-management • Also, of the 2 notices of strike filed by
relations. UFE-DFA-KMU before NCMB, it was
o LC 248(g): It shall be unlawful only on the 2nd that ULP was alleged.
for an employer to commit any In contrast, Nestlé, in its Position
of the following unfair labor Paper, did not confine itself to the
practices: (g) To violate the duty issue of the non-inclusion of the
to bargain collectively as Retirement Plan but extensively
prescribed by this Code; discussed its stance on other
• The union merely bases its claim of economic matters pertaining to the
refusal to bargain on Nestlé’s 29 May CBA
2001 letter. But said letter is not
tantamount to refusal to bargain W/N DOLE Secretary should not have
o In thinking to exclude the issue gone beyond the disagreement on the
of Retirement Plan from the ground rules of the CBA negotiations.
CBA negotiations, Nestlé, NO
cannot be faulted for • It was UFE-DFA-KMU which first
considering the benefit as alleged a bargaining deadlock as the
unilaterally granted since 8 of 9 basis for the filing of its Notice of
bargaining units have allegedly Strike. At the time of the filing of the 1st
agreed to treat the Retirement Notice of Strike, several conciliation
Plan as a unilaterally granted conferences had already been
benefit undertaken where both parties had
o This is not a case where the already exchanged with each other
employer exhibited an their respective CBA proposals.
indifferent attitude towards During the conciliation meetings
collective bargaining, because before NCMB, the parties had already
delved into matters affecting the meat mode of dispute settlement.
of the CBA (“The parties are directed to
• DOLE Secretary simply relied on the resume negotiations respecting
Notices of Strike that were filed by the Retirement Plan and to take
UFE-DFA-KMU. Nowhere in the 2nd action consistent with the
Notice of Strike is it indicated that it is discussion hereinabove set
an amendment to and took the place forth. No costs”)
of the 1st o Nowhere in said Decision did
o Grounds for the 1st: Economic SC require parties to submit to
issues (retirement, panel negotiate by themselves the
composition, cost and tenor of the retirement benefits
attendance, CBA) of the concerned employees of
o Grounds for the 2nd: Bargaining Nestlé, precisely because the
bad faith, Setting pre-condition Secretary of the DOLE had
in the ground rules (Retirement already assumed jurisdiction
issue) over the labor dispute. The
• That the union later on changed its Secretary having already
mind is of no moment because to give assumed jurisdiction, the issue
premium to such would make the concerning the retirement
legally mandated discretionary power benefits of the concerned
of the DOLE Secretary subservient to employees must be remanded
the whims of the parties. back to him for proper
Dispositive • The Cabuyao Division of UFE-DFA-
WHEREFORE, premises considered, KMU became the sole bargaining unit
the basic issues of the case having been involved in the subject CBA
passed upon and there being no new negotiations because of the closure of
arguments availing, the Motion for Partial the Nestlé Alabang Plant.
Reconsideration is hereby DENIED
WITH FINALITY for lack of merit. Let
these cases be remanded to the
Secretary of the Department of Labor
and Employment for proper disposition,
consistent with the discussions in this
Court’s Decision of 22 August 2006 and
as hereinabove set forth. No costs.

• Nestlé filed a Motion for Clarification
re: parties being directed to resume
o Nestlé posits that the dispositive
part of SC Decision directs the
parties to submit to a voluntary
[ACTS VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT TO respondent CAB agreed to execute
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING] a pro-rated increase of wages
20 CABUEU-NFL V. CENTRAL every time the government would
AZUCARERA mandate an increase in the
Nov. 17, 2010 | Mendoza, J. | minimum wage.
○ CAB, however, did not agree
Petitioner/s: CENTRAL AZUCARERA to grant additional and
[CABEU-NFL], represented by its bonuses.
President, PABLITO SAGURAN ● On May 21, 2004, CAB received an
Respondent/s: CENTRAL Amended Union Proposal sent by
AZUCARERA DE BAIS, INC. [CAB], CABEU-NFL reducing its previous
represented by its President, demand regarding wages and
ANTONIO STEVEN L. CHAN bonuses. CAB, however,
maintained its position. There was
Doctrine: For a charge of unfair labor a deadlock.
practice to prosper, it must be shown that ● CABEU-NFL filed a Notice of Strike
CAB was motivated by ill will, bad faith, with the NCMB, which then
or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or assumed conciliatory-mediation
done in a manner contrary to morals, jurisdiction and summoned the
good customs, or public policy, and, of parties to conciliation conferences.
course, that social humiliation, wounded ● In a letter, CAB expressed that the
feelings or grave anxiety resulted in request for further conciliation
suspending negotiations with CABEU- conference will serve no lawful and
NFL. practical purpose because:
○ Mr. Saguran, the one who
Facts: signed the letter, is no longer
● CABEU-NFL is a duly registered an employee as he was
labor union and a certified lawfully terminated
bargaining agent of the CAB rank- (redundancy).
and-file employees. ○ The meeting is moot because
● On January 19, 2004, CABEU-NFL the union has already lost its
sent CAB a proposed CBAseeking majority status. A new union,
increases in the daily wage and CABELA, was formed.
vacation and sick leave benefits of ○ CABELA had concluded a
the monthly employees and the new CBA with Central on
grant of leave benefits and 13th April 21, 2005.
month pay to seasonal workers. ● CABEU-NFL filed a Complaint for
● On March 27, 2004, CAB Unfair Labor Practice for the
responded with a counter-proposal formers refusal to bargain with it.
to the effect that the production ○ Mainly because of its act in
bonus incentive and special concluding a CBA with
production bonus and incentives CABELA, another union in
be maintained. In addition, the bargaining unit, and its
failure to resume Moreover, the indication in said
negotiations with CABEU- petition by CAB that CABEU-NFL
NFL. could be served with court
● LA dismissed the complaint and processes through its counsel was
held that CAB committed no ULP. substantial compliance with the
○ CAB participated in the Rules.
negotiations. ● The Court, likewise, cannot sustain
● NLRC revered and found CAB CABEU-NFLs contention on forum
guilty of ULP. shopping against CAB.
○ It held that CABEU-NFL was
the certified collective W/N CAB was guilty of acts
bargaining agent as constituting ULP by refusing to
determined in a certification bargain. NO.
election. There was no • The concept of unfair labor practice
reason for negotiations with is provided in Article 2473.
CABELA since it did not have • The acts are enumerated in Article
the status of majority 248. Paragraph g reads: to violate
representation. the duty to bargain collectively as
● CA reversed the NLRC. prescribed by the code.
• For a charge of unfair labor practice
Ruling: to prosper, it must be shown that
W/N CA erred in serving a copy of the CAB was motivated by ill will, bad
petition to CABEU-NFL’s counel and faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to
not to the union itself and failing in labor, or done in a manner contrary
indicate the address of CABEU-NFL in to morals, good customs, or public
the petition.- NO. policy, and, of course, that social
● On the matter of service, Section 1, humiliation, wounded feelings or
Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, grave anxiety resulted in
Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, suspending negotiations with
clearly provides that in a petition CABEU-NFL.
filed originally in the CA, the • CAB believed that CABEU-NFL
petitioner is required to serve a was no longer the representative of
copy of the petition on the adverse the workers. It just wanted to foster
party before its filing. If the adverse industrial peace by bowing to the
party appears by counsel, service wishes of the overwhelming
shall be made on such counsel majority of its rank and file workers
pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13. and by negotiating and concluding
● A perusal of the petition filed before in good faith a CBA with CABELA.
the CA reveals that CAB indeed Such actions of CAB are nowhere
indicated both the name and tantamount to anti-unionism, the
address of CABEU-NFL.

3 Article 247. Concept of Unfair Labor Practice and Procedure for Prosecution thereof. -- freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and
stable labor-management relations.
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self- xxxxxxxxx
organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including
their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of
evil sought to be punished in cases Notes
of unfair labor practices. Insert notes
• Basic is the principle that good faith
is presumed and he who alleges
bad faith has the duty to prove the
same. By imputing bad faith to the
actuations of CAB, CABEU-NFL
has the burden of proof to present
substantial evidence to support the
allegation of unfair labor practice.
o The Court is of the view that
CABEU-NFL, in simply
relying on the said letter-
response, failed to
substantiate its claim of
unfair labor practice to rebut
the presumption of good
• Moreover, as correctly determined
by the LA, the filing of the complaint
for unfair labor practice was
premature inasmuch as the issue
of collective bargaining is still
pending before the NCMB.
• In the resolution of labor cases, this
Court has always been guided by
the State policy enshrined in the
Constitution that the rights of
workers and the promotion of their
welfare shall be protected. The
Court is, likewise, guided by the
goal of attaining industrial peace by
the proper application of the law.
Thus, it cannot favor one party, be
it labor or management, in arriving
at a just solution to a controversy if
the party has no valid support to its
claims. It is not within this Courts
power to rule beyond the ambit of
the law.

[UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE – Acts BPI and Far East Bank and Trust Co.
Violative of CBA - 21 BPI Employees (FEBTS) merged, with BPI as the
Union v. BPI Gross Violation of CBA] surviving corporation, 12 former
employees of FEBTC from its
21 BPI Employees Union v. BPI
cashiering, distribution, and
July 24, 2013 | Mendoza, J. bookkeeping services were
transferred to BOMC.
CITY-FUBU (BPIEU-DAVAO CITY- (UNION) objected the transfer and
FUBU), petitioner, vs. BANK OF THE wrote to the Co-Respondents BPI VPs
Reyes and Conanan, arguing that the
UNION was effectively deprived of
OFFICERS CLARO M. REYES, CECIL membership due to the transfer.
CONANAN and GEMMA VELEZ, Pursuant to the union shop clause
respondents. in the CBA, the 12 employees
should have been absorbed by BPI,
Facts: not BOMC, as they would form part
− BPI Operations Management of the bargaining unit represented
Corporation (BOMC) is a subsidiary by the UNION.
but a “separate and distinct entity” of − UNION then filed a formal protest,
BPI primarily engaged with providing requesting to submit the issue under
support services for banks and other the grievance machinery under the
financial institutions. CBA. BPI, however, did not
− BOMC and Respondent BPI had a considered it as “grievable”;
service agreement where BOMC will hence, the parties proceeded with a
provide cashiering, bookkeeping, and labor management conference
distributing services of BPI. Not a instead.
single BPI employee was o In the LMC, BPI asserted its
displaced. Those performing the management prerogative to
said functions were given other justify the transfer, whereas the
assignments. Neither were there UNION argued that the
demotions nor deductions in contracting out of services to
salaries, benefits, or other BOMC not only deprived the
privileges. union of its membership but also
curtailed the employees’ rights
− BPIEU-Metro Manila-FUBU (Manila
to join the union.
chapter of BPI Employees Union) filed
a complaint for ULP. LA favored them, − As the LMC was unsuccessful
but NLRC reversed, and CA denied (perhaps it was a stalemate), UNION
their petition. The transfer of demanded submission to
employees from BPI to BOMC was grievance machinery but BPI
held to be in pursuit of legitimate ignored the demand. Thus, the
business. UNION filed a notice of strike before
the NCMB on the following
− The same service agreement was
implemented in Davao City. After
o Contractingoutofservices/fun merger and the labor
ctionswhichinterferedwith,re dispute.
strained,and/orcoerced the ▪ These acts caused BOMC
employees in their exercise of to encroach upon the work
right to self-organization supposedly exclusive to
o Violation of duty to bargain BPI employees.
o Unionbusting − NLRC upheld the validity of the
− BPI petitioned the SOLE to assume service agreement, dismissed the
jurisdiction. SOLE certified the ULP charge, and held that BPI’s
dispute to the NLRC for compulsory activities are clearly a valid exercise of
arbitration and directed the parties to management prerogative.
cease and desist from committing any o The UNION did not even
act that may exacerbate the situation. present an iota of evidence
o After submission of position showing that BPI had
papers, UNION filed an Urgent terminated employees. In fact,
Omnibus Motion to Cease and BPI exercised utmost
Desist, with prayer that BPI diligence, care, and effort, to
Davao be held in contempt for see to it that no union member
the following: was terminated.
▪ Formation of a task force o NLRC also stressed that BSP
composed of 6 former Circular No. 1388 s. 1993 (Circ
FEBTC employees to 1388), not DOLE Dept. Order
handle the cashiering, No. 10 s. 1997 (DO 10), was
distributing, clearing, the applicable rule. (To be
tellering, and accounting discussed later)
functions of former − CA affirmed the NLRC, finding no
FEBTC branches BUT GAD, as the factual findings were
conducted its business in supported by substantial evidence.
BOMC, using the latter’s o CA also stressed that the
equipment and facilities UNION did not become the
▪ While BPI transactions bargaining agent of the
(checks) were cleared by FEBTC employees by mere
BPI employees, FEBTC fact of merger. The merged
transactions were cleared employees still need to elect
by BOMC employees at whether they wish to be
the Clearing House. Also, represented.
checks coming from BPI o CA also agreed that DO 10 does
or FEBTC were brought to not apply to commercial banks,
BOMC, instead of the like BPI, which are subject to
Processing Center of BPI BSP rules and regulations.
with BPI employees, o Hence, this petition for review
which was not the case on certiorari.
before the corporate
− Outsourcing of jobs included in the WON BPI’s act of transferring and
existing bargaining unit breached the outsourcing constituted ULP? NO.
union-shop provision in the CBA.
− Transfer of employees from FEBTC to Held:
BOMC instead of absorbing them in
− UNION reliance on Shell is
BPI reduced UNION membership
misplaced. LC 261 is now the rule,
since the employees in BOMC were
which provides that CBA
not part of the existing bargaining unit.
violations, excepting those which
− BPI’s acts constituted a violation of
are gross in character, shall no
the CBA and interference with the
longer be treated as unfair labor
right to self- organization and,
practice and shall be resolved as
therefore, ULP, citing the case of
grievances under the CBA.
Shell Oil Workers’ Union v. Shell
o Gross violation = flagrant
Company of the Philippines., Ltd.
and/or malicious refusal to
comply with the economic
BPI: provisions of such
− Service agreement was pursuant to agreement.
Circ1388. − IN THIS CASE, the alleged violation
− Outsourcing to BOMC was within of the union shop agreement was
management prerogatives. NOT a violation of an economic
− UNION recognized in its CBA the provision. The provisions referred
exclusive right and prerogative of BPI to by the UNION concerned the
to conduct management and representation aspect.
operation of its business o The UNION did not even
− Shell is not applicable because the consider CBA provisions
finding of ULP therein was predicated relating to the rights and
upon the express assurance in the prerogatives exclusive to BPI
CBA that the security guard section of such as hiring, promotions,
the respondent company (which was transfers, and dismissals for just
replaced with an outside agency) cause, and the maintenance of
would continue. In this case at bar, order, discipline, and efficiency
there is no such provision. in its operations.
− The right to self-organization could not − Reduction of positions in the
have been curtailed since the bargaining unit does not interfere with
representation of the prospective the right to self-organization since NO
members of the UNION (the former EMPLOYEE was transferred or
FEBTC employees) is contingent dismissed, and neither were there
upon their choice whether they wish to any demotions or deductions. The
join the UNION. UNION failed to present proof of ill
will, anti-unionism, or bad faith.
− Bad faith cannot be attributed to
Issue: BPI since its actions were
authorized by Circ 1388.
o Circ 1388 allowed BPI to as cashiering, distribution
engage with a bank service and bookkeeping.
corporation (like BOMC) to o The core activities / main
perform services, such as business / inherent functions
check-clearing processing, of banks are DEPOSIT and
collection and delivery of checks LOAN functions, the
not included in the Philippine outsourcing of which is also
Clearing House System, as well prohibited by Circ 1388.
as recording of the same (Sec o The UNION even acknowledged
1177[d], Book I, Manual of BPI has a “Processing Center”
Regulations for Banks and which implies that the said
Other Financial Intermediaries, functions of cashiering,
as amended by Circ 1388). distribution and bookkeeping
− There is no conflict between DO 10 are not directly relative to the
and Circ 1388; rather, they core activities of banks.
complement each other. This is
consisted with the maxim interpretare − Farming out of activities, whether
et concodare leges legibus est peripheral or core in nature, is a
optimus interpretandi modus. (To management prerogative.
interpret and harmonize laws is the o What is of primordial importance
best method of interpretation.) It is is that the service agreement
only when harmonization is does not violate the
impossible that it is proper to resort to employee’s right to security
choosing which law would apply. of tenure and payment of
o DO 10 enumerates the benefits.
permissible contracting or o Outsourcing must not
subcontracting activities, but in squarely fall under labor-only
general terms, such as works or contracting where the
services not directly related or contractor or sub-contractor
not integral to the main business merely recruits, supplies or
or operation of the principal (Sec places workers to perform a job,
6[d], DO 10). work or service for a principal or
o This does not limit or prohibit if any of the following elements
BSP to issue rules to specifically are present:
determine services which may ▪ The contractor or
be contracted out. DO 10 is subcontractor does not
simply the guideline. have substantial capital or
o BUT even if DO 10 is investment which relates
considered, BPI does NOT to the job, work or service
violate DO 10 because Circ to be performed and the
1388 specified functions employees recruited,
which are merely ancillary to supplied or placed by such
the business of banks – such contractor or
subcontractor are
performing activities
which are directly related
to the main business of
the principal; or
▪ The contractor does not
exercise the right to
control over the
performance of the work
of the contractual

Petition DENIED.
No ULP committed. Transfer and
outsourcing was in accordance with law.

notice to the company, establishing
Topic Employer Motive and Proof pickets and blocking ingress and
Case Philippine Metal Foundries Inc egress to and from the company's
Name v CIR, Regal Manufacturing premises, causing interruption of the
Employees Association work and/or business of the company.
(REGEMAS) and Celestino 5. CIR’s decision
Baylon • Celestino was discharged for his
Ponen Antonio, j. union activities
te • The employees declared a
strike because they believed in
good faith that the dismissal of
their president was an unfair
labor practice
1. Phil Metal filed a complaint against • Phil Metal is guilty of unfair labor
REGEMAS FTUP and its members for practice
unfair labor practice for declaring a
strike and picketing the company’s
premises without filing a notice of
strike despite the existence of a ‘no
strike no lockout’ clause and Issue Ratio
grievance procedure in the CBA W/N DUE TO HIS ACTIVITIES AS
between the company and the union. Celestino UNION PRESIDENT (see notes)
2. REGEMAS: filed an Answer – denied Baylon was
the charge; alleged that the union and dismissed Phil Metal’s argument:
its members requested the due to his • according to the CBA, "one
management for a grievance absences or absent for a period of one
conference but the company refused to his union week who fails to give notice
and instead handed the union’s activities as thereof shall be dropped
president a memorandum dismissing union automatically"
him from work. The management also president • under its Disciplinary
told the union members not to report Policies and Procedures,
for work. absence of an employee
3. REGEMAS and Celestino (union without permission for a
president): filed a complaint against period of seven (7)
Phil Metal and its General Manager for consecutive calendar days
unfair labor practice for the dismissal is a ground for immediate
of Celestino allegedly due to his union dismissal upon
activities. establishment of guilt;
4. Phil Metal: filed an Answer – the • the CIR found that Baylon
company was constrained to incurred numerous
terminate the services of Celestino absences from January to
because of frequent absenteeism and September 1963
because he encouraged and abetted
the staging of strike without prior SC Ruling:
1. In determining whether a broke the proverbial camel's
discharge is discriminatory, the back.
true reason for the discharge • His dismissal under the
must be established. While foregoing circumstances,
union activity is no bar to a being ultimately triggered by
discharge, the existence of a his union activity, is
lawful cause for discharge is no therefore not without some
defense if the employee was taint of unfair labor practice.
actually discharged for union
activity. 2. The question of whether an
employee was discharged
In this case: because of his union activities
Celestino incurred numerous is essentially a question of fact
absences from Jan to Sept 1963. as to which the findings of the
Had the company wanted to CIR are conclusive and binding
terminate his services on the if supported by substantial
ground of absences, it could have evidence considering the
done so as early as March 1963 record as a whole.
when he incurred 12 consecutive
absences without permission. Its In this case: upon examining the
failure to do so shows tha the evidence on hand, SC found the
infractions of Baylon were same to be substantially
disregarded. supported. (see notes)

The CIR found that: 3. Although a man's motive, like

• Baylon went to the company his intent, is, in the words of
one day but did not work as Lord Justice Bowen "as much a
he was very sleepy. On fact as the state of his
another day, he submitted a digestion", evidence of such
written explanation for his fact may consist both direct
absences which was testimony by one whose motive
received by the company. is in question and of inferences
• Two days later, he invited of probability drawn from the
the General Manager totality of other facts.
through a letter for the
grievance conference. In this case: It is admitted by Phil
However, he was then Metal that it accepted the invitation
handed a termination letter. of Baylon for a grievance
• It was the letter of invitation conference. Yet, two hours after it
to a grievance conference accepted the letter of invitation, it
sent by Baylon to the dismissed Baylon without prior
general manager coming at notice and/or investigation. Such
the heels of his last dismissal is undoubtedly an unfair
unexcused absences, that labor practice committed by the
company. Under these facts and
circumstances, Baylon and the WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari
members of the Union had valid is hereby DISMISSED.
reasons to ignore the schedule
grievance conference and
declared a strike. SEPARATE OPINIONS
WN the strike NOT ILLEGAL
declared by NOTES
the union is When the Union declared a strike Some of Celestino’s
legal or not in the belief that the dismissal of complaints/demands as union president
Baylon was due to union activities, as evidenced by several exhibits.
said strike was not illegal.
• management hired several casual
workers without giving preference
It is not required that there be in
to previously laid off employees
fact an unfair labor practice
and without notifying the Union
committed by the employer. It
suffices, if such a belief in good
• poor condition of the toilet facilities
faith is entertained by labor, as the
in one of the buildings of the
inducing factor for staging a strike.
company and requested the
management for its improvement
Here, the strike declared by the
Union in this case cannot be • plight of seventy-two (72) workers
considered a violation of the "no who were supposed to be
strike" clause of the CBA because temporarily laid off for a period of
it was due to the unfair labor two (2) months only as agreed
practice of the employer. A no upon between the Union and the
strike clause prohibition in a management, but were not re-hired
Collective Bargaining Agreement after the lapse of the period so he
is applicable only to economic requested for the payment of their
strikes. separation pay
• payment of a claim for
The strike cannot be declared as compensation of a worker prior to
illegal for lack of notice. In strikes the scheduled hearing of the same
arising out of and against a • payment of the accrued vacation
company's unfair labor practice, a and sick leave and separation pay
strike notice is not necessary in of terminated workers
view of the strike being founded on
urgent necessity and directed
against practices condemned by
public policy, such notice being
legally re. required only in cases of
economic strikes.

[UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE – which became affiliated with
TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE] the Philippine Transport and
V. CIR Organization (PTGWO for
June 6, 1990 | Medialdea, J. | brevity).
● December 14, 1961 – The RUWU-
Petitioner/s: Royal Undergarment PTGWO, represented by the
Corporation of the Philippines National Secretary of PTGWO and
Respondent/s: Court of Industrial Cruz as RUWU President, sent
Relations, Royal Undergarment Workers proposals to Royal for the purpose
Union (PTGWO) and Antonio Cruz of collective bargaining.
● December 15, 1961 – Royal,
Doctrine: It has previously been through its personnel manager,
indicated that an employer may treat terminated Cruz allegedly on the
freely with an employee and is not basis of the latter's "record and
obliged to support his actions with a after careful analysis and
reason or purpose. However, where the deliberation." His wife, Felicidad
attendant circumstances, the history of Cruz, who was also an employee of
the employer's past conduct and like Royal, was likewise terminated.
considerations, coupled with an intimate ○ Thus, RUWU called a strike
connection between the employer's sometime during the first
action and the union affiliations or week of January, 1962.
activities of the particular employee or ● January 10, 1962 – RUWU-
employees taken as a whole raise a PTGWO and ROyal entered into a
suspicion as to the motivation for the Return-to-Work Agreement thru
employer's action, the failure of the the conciliation efforts of the
employer to ascribe a valid reason Department of Labor.
therefore may justify an inference that his ○ The agreement contained a
unexplained conduct in respect of the provision wherein the
particular employee or employees was reinstatement of the spouses
inspired by the latter's union membership Cruz was contingent on
or activities (Rothenbergon Labor RUWU-PTGWO being
Relations, cited in San Miguel Brewery, chosen as the collective
Inc., et al. v. Santos, et al.) bargaining agent through
election by the workers.
Facts: ○ Cruz and his wife were both
● Antonio Cruz was employed by reinstated, indicating the
Royal in 1957 as an electrician. victory of RUWU-PTGWO in
○ Sometime in December, the consent election.
1961, he was elected ● March 31, 1962 – RUWU-PTGWO
president of the Royal and Royal entered into a collective
Undergarment Workers bargaining agreement which
Union (RUWU for brevity), a contained a grievance procedure
legitimate labor organization for the settlement of disputes; this
was applied on several occasions ● November 30, 1962 – The general
through the help and active manager of Royal placed Cruz on
participation of Antonio. preventive suspension for
● Sometime in November, 1962, the threatening "the lives of four (4)
PTGWO urged its member-unions employees" and for having 'been
to stage a nationwide strike. Cruz reported under the influence of
campaigned among the members liquor," both acts being "contrary to
of RUWU to join the strike. rules and regulations."
● November 28, 1962 – At around ○ Upon the request of Cruz and
11PM, within the company the union, Royal conducted a
premises, Cruz approached three conference in the nature of
co-employees who are supervisors an investigation.
of the company, namely, ● December 13, 1962 – Royal
Camaguin, Dayadante and dismissed Cruz for being under the
Gaspar. influence of liquor and for having
○ These persons contended threatened the lives of four of his
that Cruz, who was under the co-employees.
influence of liquor, uttered ○ Cruz filed a complaint for
the following remarks to unfair labor practice against
them: "Ikaw, Ikaw, Ikaw-mga Royal with the CIR.
hayop kayo. Bibigyan ko ● CIR – Declared Royal guilty of
kayo ng isang linggong unfair labor practice and ordered to
taning sa buhay ninyo cease and desist from committing
ipapapatay ko kayo." the same; Royal was further
○ They also claim that Cruz directed to reinstate Cruz with
had challenged another co- backwages.
employee. ● Royal filed a petition for review on
○ Cruz and his witnesses certiorari with the SC with the ff
denied this charge and arguments:
claimed that what he actually ○ The CIR misapprehended
said to the three employees facts when it held in the
was: "Ikaw, Ikaw, Ikaw pare, decision that the dismissal of
alam kong matitigas kayo rito Cruz was caused by his
sa compania, kayat ako'y union activities.
nakikiusap, kung maaari pag- ■ Royal argues that it did
natuloy ang nationwide strike not interfere with or
bukas, makiisa kayo at prevent the union
gamitin ang tigas ninyo." activities of its
○ Immediately thereafter, the employees; that it has
three employees went to the even allowed or
personnel officer of Royal. abetted active
○ November 29, 1962, they unionism within the
executed an affidavit company; and that the
regarding the incident. dismissal of Cruz was
not impelled by reason nationwide strike being
of his union planned by the PTGWO.
participation but solely ○ On the other hand, there
by his infraction of appears to be an attitude of
company rules and antipathy towards Cruz.
regulations, ■ He and his wife were
specifically, serious dismissed one day
threats and intoxication after the collective
while on duty, all of bargaining proposals of
which clearly the union, represented
amounted to a by Cruz, were sent.
dismissal for cause ■ The record does not
under the Termination show specific reasons
Pay Law. other than that his
○ It also misapprehended facts record was supposedly
when it did not hold that his carefully analyzed.
dismissal was for cause as This is not a sufficient
provided for in the explanation nor does it
Termination Pay Law and in show why his wife was
accordance with also dismissed.
management prerogative. ■ The Return to Work
○ The CIR erred in not Agreement also had a
deducting income earned by strange arrangement
Cruz during the period Royal whereby the
is required to pay reinstatement of the
backwages. spouses was
contingent on the
Ruling: victory of their union.
W/N the CIR correctly held that the ● One’s
dismissal of Cruz was due to his union employment
activities thereby amounting to unfair should not be
labor practices – YES. made to depend
● The CIR found from the on his union
surrounding circumstances of the affiliation or
case, a valid and sufficient basis for identity.
the charge of unfair labor practice ○ Cruz was even dismissed the
against Royal. same year he was reinstated.
○ Cruz engaged himself ■ Royal cites the incident
actively in union affairs and of intoxication where
had, in behalf of others, he threatened his co-
pursued the employee employees but the
relationships of the evidence of intoxication
membership. He also urged was based on the
the members to join the observation of the
witnesses he allegedly ○ The charges for intoxication
threatened and so such and threats were too flimsy.
source is biased. ○ The record shows that Cruz,
■ None of the witnesses as Pres of RUWU, was
ever hinted at any known for his aggressive and
motivation for the militant union activities.
threats and even ○ He was dismissed two times;
claimed they were all first, pursuant to the CBA
on friendly terms with negotiations and second, in
Cruz. No criminal the course of his campaign to
charges were filed. join the nationwide strike.
■ The CIR found that ● SEE DOCTRINE
the incident was simply ● The SC will not review the CIR’s
blown into such factual findings as long as the
proportion so as to same are supported by evidence.
provide a supposed This is so because the industrial
valid cause for Cruz’s court is governed by the rule of
dismissal. substantial evidence rather than by
● In the light of the initial attitude of the rule of preponderance of
Royal as discussed, the inducing evidence as in ordinary civil cases.
cause directly contributing to ● It is the judicial trend to fix a
Cruz's dismissal is Royal's reasonable period for the payment
antipathy to his union activity and of backwages to avoid protracted
not his misconduct. delay in post judgment hearings to
● Section 3 of RA 875, known as the prove earnings of the worker
The Industrial Peace Act, as elsewhere during the period that he
amended, provides that employees had not been reinstated to his
shall have the right to self- employment.
○ Hence, it shall be unfair labor Dispositive
practice for an employer to ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby
discriminate in regard to DENIED and the decision of the Court of
tenure of employment or any Industrial Relations dated January 21,
term or condition of 1974 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
employment to encourage or that petitioner is directed to reinstate
discourage membership in respondent Antonio Cruz without loss of
any labor organization. seniority rights and with backwages for
● The SC found that the totality of three (3) years from the time of dismissal,
evidence as found by the CIR without deduction and qualification. If
supports the conclusion that reinstatement is no longer possible,
respondent Cruz has been unjustly respondent Antonio Cruz should be
dismissed by reason of his union awarded separation pay of one (1) month
activities. for every year of service. With costs
against petitioner.
24 TOPIC: ULP; Enforcement, employment
Remedies, and Sanctions – Parties • Respondent filed an answer and as
Liable for Acts (ER & LO) affirmative defenses, it claimed
National Labor Union v CIR that:
Sep. 9, 1982 | Gutierrez, J. o the company is no longer
Facts owned by Estanislao but by
• NLU charged Everlasting Ang who purchased the
Manufacturing with ULP (under same from the former
then RA 875) before the CIR. o that the new owner is not
• The complaint alleged that: duty bound to respect
o Following the conclusion of whatever agreement has
the CBA between petitioner been entered into by the
union and the company former owner and the
through its GM Benito workers;
Estanislao: o that there has never been
▪ Began hiring 24 new any ER-EE relationship
workers; between the new owner and
▪ To avoid the the complaining workers so
implementation of the that the latter could not have
CBA, to bust the union, been dismissed
to discourage • Ang also filed an answer which was
membership with the substantially similar to
union, on the pretext of Everlasting’s
selling and closing its • CIR Judge: Respondent company
business, the and Ang Wo Long guilty of ULP;
company, by its GM ordered to reinstate the 21 workers
Estanislao and • Motion for Reconsideration: Case
proprietor Ang Wo reopened via en banc Resolution;
Long, dismissed and/or Estanislao included as respondent.
locked out all 21 Decision above set aside.
members of petitioner • Summons eventually issued to
union. Estanislao by publication because
▪ The company he was missing in action
continued with its o He did not file an answer nor
business operations by appear in court so the
availing of the services hearings were conducted
of the 24 new workers without him
who are non-union • CIR ORDER: Estanislao guilty of
members. ULP; ordered to pay backwages.
▪ It refuses to reinstate Dismissed as to Ang.
the workers to their Issue: W/N Ang Wo Long is guilty of
jobs who have since ULP – YES
then, not found any
Ratio: o Its 1966 decision was based
Facts in the ratio as narrated by SC: mainly on Ang’s inconsistent
• Estanislao was the original owner. testimony and the
• April 1963 – Sold company to Ang circumstances surrounding
via Deed of Sale “absolutely free his acquisition of Everlasting
from lien, encumbrances or liability which showed his knowledge
of whatsoever kind and nature.” of the existence of the May
• May 1963 – But Estanislao, signing 1963 CBA.
as manager, still executed CBA o On the other hand, in its 1968
with NLU. Order the CIR found the
• In the meantime, Ang filed with the same circumstances to be
Bureau of Commerce an merely preparatory acts of
application for the registration of Ang before he could begin to
Everlasting Manufacturing as a firm operate Everlasting
name. Certificate registration was Manufacturing and that there
issued on the same day that the was no evidence which
CBA was executed. proved his knowledge of the
• The Office of the Mayor, Caloocan CBA.
City issued a business permit to o The reconsidered
Ang to operate Everlasting conclusions of the CIR not
Manufacturing. only fly against the dictates of
• Individual letters to the 21 workers reason and common sense
were sent informing them that the but are out of touch with the
company was now under new grounds of public policy
management, advising them of its implicit in the Industrial
temporary closure, and that they Peace Act and in the
will be notified if their services will constitutional mandate on
be needed again. protection to labor.
• After a week, Petitioner charged o Whether or not Ang knew the
Everlasting with ULP. Three days labor problems of the firm he
after, Ang hired 24 new employees purchased, the existence of a
union, the ongoing CBA
ULP – Enforcement, Remedies and negotiations, and the efforts
Sanctions – Parties Liable for Acts (ER & of the employees he later
LO) dismissed to reach an
o The court found that the agreement with management
findings of the CIR in its on the T&Cs of their
original decision were employment can be
completely superseded by a determined only from an
different set of findings and admission of Ang himself or
conclusions on the main from the surrounding facts
issue in the questioned Order and circumstances indicative
(the MR) of awareness.
o Here, it is irrational to productivity arising from
assume that Ang bought a harmonious relations.
business without inquiring o Estanislao signed the CBA
into its labor-management no longer as owner but as
situation and that his “GM.” The new owner used
dismissal of all the union the same premises, the same
members without retaining a business name, machineries,
few experienced workers and tools and implements and the
their replacement with a same officials and
completely new set of supervisors. The only change
employees who were was the replacement of the
strangers to the company 21 union members with a
was anything other than an completely new set of
attempt to rid the firm of employees hired from
unwanted union activity. outside the firm.
o There is substantial evidence o Ang did not show any just
that Ang’s knew of the cause for terminating their
bargaining negotiations and services. The inevitable
the resulting CBA and, conclusion is that they were
consequently, of ULP on his dismissed in order to break
part. Estanislao sold the union and do away with
Everlasting Manufacturing to the existing CBA.
Ang while CBA negotiations o Another mystifying aspect of
were going on and about to the questioned Order was the
be concluded. The firm had a placing of full responsibility
recent history of labor on Estanislao whom the court
problems and the bargaining fully knew had already
negotiations came about only conveniently disappeared
after a strike. even as it absolved the only
o Ang’s acts are not person who could grant
preparatory to taking over. affirmative relief and whose
Precisely because he liability had earlier been
performed acts indicative of determined to be founded on
normal care and caution on substantial evidence.
the part of a man buying a o The circumstances clearly
manufacturing firm, we rule indicates the participation of
that the same care and both Estanislao and Ang in
caution was also extended to the ULP. Thus, they should
a more sensitive aspect of be jointly and severally liable
the business, which was the for the payment of
relationship of the workers to backwages to the
management, their employees.
willingness to cooperate with
the owner, and their
Dispositive: GRANTED. Pay 3 years
backwages. Ang to reinstate subject
to employees physical fitness.
CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS organization of the union &
UNION, CORNELIO L. PANGILINAN, requesting for a labor-management
LEO TROPACIO, OLIMPIO GUMIN, conference to normalize ER-EE
RUBEN BUELA, ODILON LISING, • Union sent a written notice to R
REYNALDO DAYRIT, ROGELIO requesting permission for certain
MANGUERRA, ORLANDO NACU, officers & members to attend the
DIOSILINO PERDON, ERNESTO hearing of the PCE, but the
GALANG, ORLANDO PANGILINAN, management refused to
JESUS SEMBRANO, RENATO acknowledge receipt of said
BINGCANG, ERNESTO CAPIO, RUFO • R preventively suspended the union
A. BUGAYONG, RICARDO S. officers & members who attended the
DOMINGO, TERESITO CULLARIN, hearing, on the ground of
ISRAEL VINO, ERNESTO RAMIREZ, “abandonment of work.” On the same
ROMEO S. GINA, ARNEL CALILUNG, date, a base guard confiscated all
PEDRO A. SANTOS, RODOLFO the gate passes of the above EEs to
EDILBERTO QUIAMBAO, FERNANDO • Claiming that private respondent
LISING, ERNESTO M. TUAZON, instigated the confiscation of their
MARCELO LANGUNSAD, gate passes to prevent them from
MARCELINO VALERIO, SERAFIN performing their duties and that
PAWA, JESUS S. DAQUIGAN, and respondent firm did not pay them
ISMAEL CAYANAN, petitioners, their overtime pay, 13th month pay
vs. NLRC, and e.g. GOCHANGCO, and other benefits, petitioner union
INC., respondents. and its members filed a complaint for
30 May 1988 | J. Sarmiento constructive lockout & ULP against
FACTS: • R filed an application for clearance to
P Union: Local chapter of Central Luzon dismiss said union officers &
Labor Congress (CLLC) – LLFed duly members.
registered with MOLE • The services of 9 more union
Ps: Former EEs of R, officers & members were terminated on the
members of union ground that its contract with the US
R: Corporation engaged in packing & Air Force had expired; these
crating, general hauling, warehousing, employees likewise filed a complaint
sea van & freight forwarding for illegal dismissal against R.
• R filed with MOLE a Notice for
• Jan 1980: Majority of R&F EEs of R Termination of Contract together with
organized the e.g. Gochangco a list of EEs affected by the
Workers Union as an affiliate of expiration of the contract, among
CLLC → filed PCE them the 39 Ps herein.
• CLLC Nat’l Pres wrote the general • All these cases were consolidated
manager of R informing him of the and assigned to LA Palumbarit,
which were later taken over by LA "abandonment of work" on
Bernardo February 27, 1980, the date on
which, apparently, the pre-election
LA: granted P’s complaint, denied R’s conference had been scheduled
application for clearance; ordered → clear effort by management to
reinstatement/SP and restoration of punish Ps for their union activities.
transportation privilege
NLRC: reversed LA, dismissed We cannot be fooled by the
complaint for lack of merit and granted company's pretenses that "[t]he
application for clearance to terminate; subsequent confiscation by the
MR denied. Americans of the complainants'
passes is beyond the powers of
ISSUES: management." To start with, those
1) W/N R Company is guilty of ULP passes would not have been
2) W/N P’s alleged waiver of their confiscated had not management
economic demands is valid ordered the suspension. As put by
the Solicitor General, "the U.S. Air
HELD: Force authorities could not have
1) YES. It is no coincidence that at known who were supposed to
the time said respondent issued its report for work on February 27,
suspension and termination 1980," and who were under
orders, the petitioners were in the suspension. Conversely, in the
midst of a certification election absence of such a suspension
preliminary to a labor order, there was no ground to
management conference, seize such gate passes.
purportedly, "to normalize ER-EE Reinstatement then would have
relations." It was within the legal deprived the base gullibility guards
right of the petitioners to do so, the any right to hold on to such
exercise of which was their sole passes any further. In the absence
prerogative, and in which of superior orders, mere base
management may not as a rule guards are bereft of any discretion
interfere. R Company was to act on such matters.
condemned by the SC for ignoring
P’s request for some time out to In finding the petitioners'
attend to the hearing of their suspension illegal, with more
petition before the med-arbiter. It reason do we hold their
is not only an act of arrogance, but subsequent dismissal to be
a brazen interference as well with illegal. As regular employees, the
the EE’s right to self-organization, petitioners' tenure are secure, and
contrary to the prohibition of the their dismissal must be premised
Labor Code against ULP. on a just cause; but we find none
here. What we find, instead, are
But as if to add insult to injury, R flimsy attempts by the respondent
suspended Ps on the ground of company to discredit the person of
the petitioners' counsel, or their therefore, his authority to
officers, and other resorts to represent them cannot be
argumenta ad hominem. questioned. Also, this waiver was
personally executed by the
There is no merit in the claim that signatories and all that Atty.
the petitioners' terms were Solomon did weas to assist them.
coterminous with the duration of SC did not give merit to such
the contract. There is nothing in resolution as it referred to other
the records that would show that cases and not the instant ULP
the petitioners were parties to that controversy. SC rebuked R’s
contract. It appears furthermore counsel for the unbecoming act of
that the petitioners were in the wielding such influence and
employ of the respondent besmirching the integrity of the
company long before that Commission.
contract was concluded. They
were not contract workers In any event, ULP cases are not,
whose work terms are tied to in view of the public interest
the agreement, but were, rather, involved, subject to
regular employees of their compromises. Furthermore,
employer who entered into that these alleged waivers do not
contract. appear to have been presented in
the first instance. They cannot be
But even if dismissal were introduced for the first time on
warranted, the same nonetheless appeal.
faces our disapproval in the
absence of a proper clearance Just in case she asks: Reinstatement,
then required under the Labor backwages, moral & exemplary
Code. It is true that efforts were damages awarded to Ps
undertaken to seek such a
clearance, yet there is no showing
that it was issued. That still taints
the dismissal with the vice of

2) NO. NLRC’s ruling was based on

alleged order issued by LA
Luciano Aquino in connection with
another case involving the same
parties, saying that the “Waiver of
Claims, Rights, and Interest” filed
by Ps were valid since Atty.
Solomon had been the authority of
record for the complainants since
the inception of the cases and,
[Enforcement, Remedies, and for ULP against PCSO and its
Sanction] officers.
26 Quadra V. CA • CIR found Respondent PCSO
July 31, 2006 | Puno, J. |
guilty of ULP for having committed
Respondent/s:CA and PCSO discrimination against the union
Facts: and for having dismissed petitioner
• Geronimo Q. Quadra was the Chief due to his union activities.
Legal Officer of respondent • PCSO complied with the decision
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes of the CIR. But while it reinstated
Office (PCSO) when he organized Petitioner to his former position and
and actively participated in the paid his backwages, it also filed
activities of Philippine Charity with the Supreme Court a petition
Sweepstakes Employees for review on certiorari assailing the
Association (CUGCO), now decision of the CIR.
Association of Sweepstakes Staff • During the pendency of the case in
Personnel and Supervisors the Supreme Court, Petitioner filed
(ASSPS) an organization with the CIR petition for moral and
composed of the rank and file exemplary damages in connection
employees of PCSO. with ULP case. Respondent filed
• In April 1964, he was MtD.
administratively charged before the • Later, Petitioner resigned from
Civil Service Commission (CSC) PCSO. The petition for damages
with violation of Civil Service Law and the motion to dismiss,
and Rules for neglect of duty and however, remained pending with
misconduct and/or conduct the CIR until it was abolished and
prejudicial to the interest of the the NLRC was created.
service. • On April 25, 1980, the Labor Arbiter
• Civil Service Commission rendered rendered a decision awarding
a decision finding Petitioner guilty moral and exemplary damages to
and recommending the penalty of petitioner in the amount of P1.6
dismissal. million.
• The following day, the General • NLRC affirmed LA, but CA
Manager of PCSO, sent Petitioner reversed. No basis for damages as
a letter of dismissal, in accordance the dismissal was not tainted with
with the decision of the CSC. bad faith. It was CSC that
Petitioner filed a MR. At the same recommended the dismissal. MR
time, Petitioner together with Denied.
ASSPS filed with CIR a complaint
• Petitioner’s argument :Ruling of CA the decision of the CSC.
contrary to the already final and Respondent PCSO may not impute
executory decision of CIR finding to the Civil Service Commission the
responsibility for petitioner's illegal
Respondent guilty of bad faith and
dismissal as it was respondent
ULP and that the ruling of CA that PCSO that first filed the
the Petitioner’s claims is administrative charge against him.
tantamount to splitting cause of • As found by the CIR, petitioner's
action is contrary to law as the dismissal constituted unfair labor
prevailing law and jurisprudence practice. It was done to interfere
(at the time of filing of complaint for with, restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of their right to self-
illegal dismissal and ULP) was that
CIR did not have jurisdiction to • Unfair labor practices violate the
grant moral and exemplary constitutional rights of workers and
damages employees to self-organization, are
Ruling inimical to the legitimate interests
WON Petitioner is entitled to of both labor and management,
damages? YES. R is guilty of ULP including their right to bargain
• A dismissed employee is entitled to collectively and otherwise deal with
moral damages when the dismissal each other in an atmosphere of
is attended by bad faith or fraud or freedom and mutual respect; and
constitutes an act oppressive to disrupt industrial peace and hinder
labor, or is done in a manner the promotion of healthy and stable
contrary to good morals, good labor-management relations. As
customs or public policy. the conscience of the government,
• Exemplary damages may be it is the Court's sworn duty to
awarded if the dismissal is effected ensure that none trifles with labor
in a wanton, oppressive or rights.
malevolent manner. • For this reason, it is proper in this
• It appears from the facts that case to impose moral and
Petitioner was deliberately exemplary damages.
dismissed from the service by
reason of his active involvement in P is entitled to moral and exemplary
the activities of the union groups of damages
both the rank and file and the • Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative,
supervisory employees of PCSO, Inc. (NEECO I) Employees
which unions he himself organized Association, et al. v. NLRC, et al
and headed. (where SC found it proper to award
• When CSC recommended the moral and exemplary damages to
dismissal of Petitioner, PCSO illegally dismissed employees as
immediately served on P a letter of their dismissal was tainted with
dismissal even before the latter ULP): “Unfair labor practices
could move for a reconsideration of violate the constitutional rights of
workers and employees to self-
organization, are inimical to the
legitimate interests of both labor
and management, including their
right to bargain collectively and
otherwise deal with each other in
an atmosphere of freedom and
mutual respect; and disrupt
industrial peace and hinder the
promotion of healthy and stable
labor-management relations. As
the conscience of the government,
it is the Court’s sworn duty to
ensure that none trifles with labor
rights. For this reason, we find it
proper in this case to impose moral
and exemplary damages on private
Dispositive: IN VIEW WHEREOF ,the
assailed decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The decision of the NLRC in
NLRC NCR Case No. 4312-ULP is

Filing of Petition for Damages before
CIR did not constitute splitting cause
of action. The prevailing rule at the time
that the action for unfair labor practice
and illegal dismissal was filed and tried
before the CIR was that said court had no
jurisdiction over claims for damages.
Hence, petitioner, at that time, could not
raise the issue of damages in the