ise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In. case of conflict, the latter must Court recognized and upheld that the free exer¢l iom, although not unlimited, is a and has a preferred position in the thereforé, must yield to freedom of kers’ Union, et-al., G.R. |. vs. Central Azucarera 1985, 139 yield to the former. Religious freed fundamental personal right and liberty, hierarchy of values. Contractual rights, religion (Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Worl No. L-25246, Sept. 12, 1974; Gonzales, et al de Tarlac Labor Union, et al., G.R. No. 1-38178, Oct. 3, SCRA 30). While the Court upheld the rights of menibers of the Iglesia Ni Kristo sect not to join a labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, such members are not barred from forming their own union (Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Div 1’ (Tupas Local Chapter No. 1027) vs. The Honorable BLR Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja, et al., G.R. No. L-82914, June 20, 1988). Chapter VIII UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (A) CONCEPT LABOR CODE PROVISION Art. 258 (247). CONCEPT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR PROSECUTION THEREOF. - Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right 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, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations. Consequently, unfair labor practices are not cnt iolati : c viol je civil rights of both labor and management but De raea ice 107fenses against the State which . punishment as herein provided. shall be subject to prosecution and Subject to the exercise by the Presi Labor one ean of the powers acai thon bY pene (now 2 > ani 4 (now 279) of this Code, the civil aspects of all cases invo! ee unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms and. damages, attorney's tees 2 siters etmematye reiiet shall be under the jurisdiction of the ‘ : Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priori hearing and resolution of all cases involving Den erences They shall resolve such cases within thii 30) time they are submitted for decision. ne eee Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. No criminal prosecution under this Title may be instituted without a final judgment, finding that an unfair labor practice was committed, having been first obtained in the preceding paragraph. During the pendency of such administrative proceeding, the running of the period of prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall be considered interrupted: Provided, however, That the final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the requirements therein set forth. Concept of unfair labor practice (ULP) The first paragraph of Art. 247 states a precise concept of unfair labor practice. if 5 to acts that violate the workers’ right 2 i: bit to the. workers’ right to self- organize. hibited acts are related M ; Seatatin aacle the observance of Oe cael Aare toes that el Sno matter how unfair, labor practic eee Union vs- Philippine ‘Global Communications, G R. No. 144315, July 17, 2006). Unfair labor practice refer: 108CASE GREAT PACIFIC EMPLOYEES UNION-AND RODEL P. DE LA ROSA VS. GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL- G.R. NO. 126717, FEB. 11, 1999 FACTs: Petitioner UNION, led by its President Isidro Alan B, Domingo and Vice-President Rodel P. de la Rosa, went on strike due to deadlock in collective bargaining. Before the NCMB, respondent GREPALIFE submitted “draft agreement” which proposed, among others, that the employees/members of the Union who were earlier dismissed for commission of illegal acts during the strike shall be reinstated but subject to the conditions that Isidro Alan B, Domingo and Rodel P. de la Rosa submit their voluntary resignations to the Company ‘upon the signing of the agreement. The UNJON and GREPALIFE executed a Memorandum of Agreement which ended the dispute. Domingo and de la Rosa filed a joint letter of resignation but emphasized that their resignation was submitted because it was demanded by the Company and that it should not be understood as a waiver of whatever rights they have under existing contracts and labor and social legislation. fi Domingo and de la Rosa filed a case for illegal dismissal against the Company. The Labor Arbiter sustained the illegal dismissal but the decision was reversed by the NLRC on appeal. In a petition filed before the Supreme Court, petitioner de la Rosa claimed that respondent Company unreasonably singled out the top officers of the UNION, including himself, as unfit for reinstatement, insisting that this act constitutes unfair labor practice, HELD: While an act or decision of an employer m: i cs a unfair act or decision constitutes unfair labor Yi 'Y be unfair, not every Art. 248 (now Art. 258) ofthe Labor Code, Ps CULP) @5 defined under