HACIENDA FATIMA and/or PATRICIO VILLEGAS, ALFONSO VILLEGAS and CRISTINE

SEGURA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD AND

GENERAL TRADE, respondents.

“The employer’s refusal to make a counter-proposal to the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication
of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the
union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively.”

Facts:
When respondent union was certified as the collective bargaining representative in the
Certification Election, respondents Hacienda Fatima under the pretext that the result was on
appeal, refused to sit down with the union (National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and
General Trade) for the purpose of entering into a collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the
workers including complainants herein were not given work for more than one month. In protest,
complainants staged a strike which was however settled upon the signing of a Memorandum of
Agreement which contained a list of those considered as regular employees for the payroll.

Subsequently, alleging that respondent union members failed to load some wagons, Hacienda
Fatima reneged on its commitment to sit down and bargain collectively. Instead, Hacienda Fatima
employed all means including the use of private armed guards to prevent the organizers from
entering the premises. No work assignments were given to complainant union which forced the
union to stage a strike. Due to conciliation efforts by the DOLE, another Memorandum of
Agreement was signed by the parties. When Hacienda Fatima again reneged on its commitment,
the complainant union filed a complaint. Petitioner Hacienda Fatima accused the union of refusing
to work & being in choosy in the kind of work they have to perform.

The NLRC ruled that petitioners Hacienda Fatima were guilty of Unfair Labor Practice and that the
respondent union were illegally dismissed. The CA affirmed the same.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the
NLRC's conclusion that private respondents were illegally dismissed, that petitioner/s guilty of
unfair labor practice, and that the union be awarded moral and exemplary damages.

Ruling: Yes, petitioner/s are guilty of Unfair Labor Practice.

Quoting the NLRC decision, "Indeed, from respondents' refusal to bargain, to their acts of
economic inducements resulting in the promotion of those who withdrew from the union, the
use of armed guards to prevent the organizers to come in, and the dismissal of union officials
and members, one cannot but conclude that respondents did not want a union in their hacienda
a clear interference in the right of the workers to self-organization."

The finding of unfair labor practice done in bad faith carries with it the sanction of moral and
exemplary damages."

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED