Bankard, Inc. v.

NLRC

G.R. No. 171664

March 6, 2013

Contracting out of services is an exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. Absent

any proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere
with the exercise of judgment by an employer. Furthermore, bear in mind that ULP is punishable
with both civil and/or criminal sanctions. As such, the party so alleging must necessarily prove it
by substantial evidence. The Union, as earlier noted, failed to do this. Bankard merely validly
exercised its management prerogative. Not shown to have acted maliciously or arbitrarily, no act
of ULP can be imputed against it.

Allan Mendoza v. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union (MWEU), et. Al.

G.R. No. 201595

January 25, 2016

It is true that some of petitioner’s causes of action constitute intra-union cases cognizable by the
BLR under Article 226 of the Labor Code. An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between
and among union members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and
conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s
constitution and bylaws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union. Sections
1 and 2, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the DOLE enumerate the
following circumstances as inter/intra-union disputes x x x. However, petitioner’s charge of unfair
labor practices falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant
to Article 217 of the Labor Code. In addition, Article 247 of the same Code provides that “the civil
aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative relief, shall be under
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.”

The primary concept of unfair labor practices is stated in Article 247 of the Labor Code, which
states: Article 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. “In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the commission of acts that
transgress the workers’ right to organize.” “[A]ll the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor
practice in essence relate to the workers’ right to self-organization.” “[T]he term unfair labor
practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which, at their core, violates
the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization.”
GPLEU v. Great Pacific Life

303 SCRA 113

Petitioner de la Rosa also claims 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, he demands entitlement to moral and exemplary damages. We
disagree. While an act or decision of an employer may be unfair, certainly not every unfair act or
decision constitutes unfair labor practice (ULP) as defined and enumerated under Art. 248 of the
Labor Code.

Kiok Loy v. NLRC

141 SCRA 179

Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a collective agreement, is one of

the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between
labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace. It is a mutual
responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a legal obligation. So much
so that Article 249, par. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to
refuse “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 grievance or question arising under such an
agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement, if requested by either party.”

Standard Chartered Bank Employyes v. Confesor

432 SCRA 308

Article 248(a) of the Labor Code, considers it an unfair labor practice when an employer interferes,
restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or the right to form
association. The right to self-organization necessarily includes the right to collective bargaining.
Parenthetically, if an employer interferes in the selection of its negotiators or coerces the Union to
exclude from its panel of negotiators a representative of the Union, and if it can be inferred that
the employer adopted the said act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise to right to self-
organization or on the right to collective bargaining of the employees, ULP under Article 248(a)
in connection with Article 243 of the Labor Code is committed. In order to show that the employer
committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim.
Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. In the case at bar, the Union bases its claim of interference on
the alleged suggestions of Diokno to exclude Umali from the Union’s negotiating panel.
Singapore Airlines v. NLRC

130 SCRA 472

Despite a finding of petitioner’s entitlement to her claim for reimbursement, we are not prepared
to pronounce respondent SIA guilty of unfair labor practice. SIA’s refusal to grant benefits was
not a willful evasion of its obligations under the CBA but was due to an honest mistake in the
belief that the same is not covered by the aforementioned CBA provision. An error in interpretation
without malice or bad faith does not constitute unfair labor practice. We take judicial notice of the
fact that honest differences in construction may arise in the actual application of contractual
provisions.

UST Faculty Union v. UST

G.R. No. 180892

April 7, 2009

The general principle is that one who makes an allegation has the burden of proving it. While there
are exceptions to this general rule, in the case of ULP, the alleging party has the burden of proving
such ULP. Thus, we ruled in De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor v. NLRC, 304 SCRA 448 (1999),
that “a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence. Any
decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process.”

It is not the duty or obligation of respondents to inquire into the validity of the election of the
Gamilla Group. Such issue is properly an intra-union controversy subject to the jurisdiction of the
med-arbiter of the DOLE. Respondents could not have been expected to stop dealing with the
Gamilla Group on the mere accusation of the Mariño Group that the former was not validly elected
into office. The subsequent ruling of this Court in G.R. No. 131235 that the Gamilla Group was
not validly elected into office cannot support petitioner’s allegation of ULP. Had respondents dealt
with the Gamilla Group after our ruling in G.R. No. 131235 had become final and executory, it
would have been a different story. As the CA ruled correctly, until the validity of the election of
the Gamilla Group is resolved with finality, respondents could not be faulted for negotiating with
said group.

Manila Mandarin Employees Union v. NLRC

154 SCRA 368

The Hotel would not have compelled Beloncio to go on forced leave were it not for the union's
insistence and demand to the extent that because of the failure of the hotel to dismiss Beloncio as
requested, the union filed a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor and Employment on August
17, 1984 on the issue of unfair labor practice. The hotel was then compelled to put Beloncio on
forced leave and to stop payment of her salary from September 1,1984.
Union Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines

192 SCRA 396

A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or
certification order becomes a prohibited activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph
of Art. 264 of the Labor Code as amended (Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. 82088,
October 13, 1989; 178 SCRA 482). The Union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to
have lost their employment status for having knowingly participated in an illegal act.

Standard Chartered Bank Employyes v. Confesor

432 SCRA 308

We, likewise, do not agree that the Union is guilty of ULP for engaging in blue-sky bargaining or
making exaggerated or unreasonable proposals.59 The Bank failed to show that the economic
demands made by the Union were exaggerated or unreasonable. The minutes of the meeting show
that the Union based its economic proposals on data of rank and file employees and the prevailing
economic benefits received by bank employees from other foreign banks doing business in the
Philippines and other branches of the Bank in the Asian region.

In sum, we find that the public respondent did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the questioned order and resolutions. While the
approval of the CBA and the release of the signing bonus did not estop the Union from pursuing
its claims of ULP against the Bank, we find that the latter did not engage in ULP. We, likewise,
hold that the Union is not guilty of ULP.