1. Bagong Pagkakaisa vs. Secretary; G.R. No.

167401; July 5, 2010

Facts: The Bagong Pagakakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International (union) and

Triumph International Inc. (company) had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that
expired. The union seasonably submitted proposals to the company for its renegotiation.
The negotiations reached a deadlock, leading to a Notice of Strike the union. The National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) exerted efforts but failed to resolve the
deadlock.
The company filed a Notice of Lock-out for unfair labor practice due to the unions alleged
work slowdown. The union went on strike three days later. Secretary Bienvenido E.
Laguesma (Labor Secretary) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) assumed
jurisdiction over the labor dispute, pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. The Labor
Secretary directed all striking workers to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours
from receipt of the assumption order, while the company was directed to accept them back
to work under the same terms and conditions existing before the strike.
Several employees attempted to report for work, but the striking employees prevented
them from entering the company premises. The union and the officers filed a petition to
cite the company and its responsible officers for contempt, and moved that a reinstatement
order be issued.
The Labor Secretary resolved the bargaining deadlock and awarded a wage increase of
P48.00 distributed over three years. The unions other economic demands and non-
economic proposals were all denied. The union elevated the case to the CA, through a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA found the petition partly
meritorious. It affirmed the Labor Secretary's wage increase award, but modified his ruling
on the dismissal of the union officers. On the wage issue and related matters, the CA found
the Labor Secretary's award legally in order.

Issue: Whether or not the Labor Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion on not
deciding the illegal dismissal.

Ruling: Yes. The assumption of jurisdiction powers granted to the Labor Secretary under
Article 263(g) is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may
have preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout
that in the meanwhile may have taken place.  As the term “assume jurisdiction” connotes,
the intent of the law is to give the Labor Secretary full authority to resolve all matters
within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or lockout, including
cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.
In the present case, what the Labor Secretary refused to rule upon was the dismissal from
employment of employees who violated the return to work order and participated in illegal
acts during a strike. This was an issue that arose from the strike and was, in fact, submitted
to the Labor Secretary, through the union’s motion for the issuance of an order for
immediate reinstatement of the dismissed officers and the company’s opposition to the
motion.  The dismissal issue was properly brought before the Labor Secretary and he was
mistaken in ruling that the matter is legally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter to decide.
4. Employees Union of Bayer vs. Bayer Philippines; G.R. No. 162943; December 6,
2010

Facts: Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (EUBP) is the exclusive bargaining agent of all
rank-and-file employees of Bayer Philippines. During the negotiations, EUBP rejected
Bayer’s 9.9% wage increase proposal resulting in a bargaining deadlock and the former
staged a strike prompting the Secretary of DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the dispute.
Pending the resolution of the dispute, Avelina Remigio (Remigio) and 27 other union
members, without authority form their union leaders accepter Bayer’s wage increase
proposal. EUBP’s grievance committee questioned Remigio’s action and reprimanded
Remigio and her allies. After a while, the DOLE Secretary issued an arbitral award ordering
EUPB and Bayer to execute a CBA. Meanwhile, barely 6 months from the signing of the new
CBA, during a company-sponsored seminar, Remigio solicited signatures from union
members in support of a resolution containing the decision of the signatories to: (1)
disaffiliate from FFW; (2) rename the union as Reformed Employees Union of Bayer
Philippines (REUBP); (3) adopt a new constitution and by-laws for the union; abolish all
existing officer positions in the union and elect a new set of interim officers and (5)
authorize REUBP to administer the CBA between EUBP and Bayer. The said resolution was
signed by 147 of 257 local union members. A subsequent resolution was issued affirming
the first resolution.

A tug of war then ensued between the 2 rival groups with both seeking recognition from
Bayer and demanding remittance of the union dues collected from its rank and file
members. Bayer remitted the union dues to REUBP and later on they agreed to sign a CBA.
LA and NLRC dismissed the complaints for Unfair Labor Practice on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not the act of the management of Bayer in dealing and negotiating
with Remigios’ splinter group despite its validly existing CBA with EUBP can be
considered unfair labor practice.

Ruling: Yes. It must be remembered that a CBA is entered into in order to foster stability
and mutual cooperation between labor and capital. An employer should not be allowed to
rescind unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified bargaining agent it had previously
contracted with, and decide to bargain anew with a different group if there is no legitimate
reason for doing so and without first following the proper procedure. If such behavior
would be tolerated, bargaining and negotiations between the employer and the union will
never be truthful and meaningful, and no CBA forged after arduous negotiations will ever
be honored or be relied upon.

This is the reason why it is axiomatic in labor relations that a CBA entered into by a
legitimate labor organization that has been duly certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative and the employer becomes the law between them. Additionally, in the
Certificate of Registration issued by the DOLE, it is specified that the registered CBA serves
as the covenant between the parties and has the force and effect of law between them
during the period of its duration. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the CBA is
mandated by express policy of the law primarily to afford protection to labor and to
promote industrial peace. Thus, when a valid and binding CBA had been entered into by the
workers and the employer, the latter is behooved to observe the terms and conditions
thereof bearing on union dues and representation. If the employer grossly violates its CBA
with the duly recognized union, the former may be held administratively and criminally
liable for unfair labor practice.

7. Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union vs. Central Azucarera; G.R. No.
186605; November 17, 2010

Facts: Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. (CAB) is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Philippines., while CABEU-NFL is a duly registered labor union and a
certified bargaining agent of the CAB rank-and-file employees.

On January 19, 2004, CABEU-NFL sent CAB a proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement
seeking increases in the daily wage and vacation and sick leave benefits of the monthly
employees and the grant of leave benefits and 13th month pay to seasonal workers. CAB
responded with a counter-proposal to the effect that the production bonus incentive and
special production bonus and incentives be maintained. In addition, respondent CAB
agreed to execute a pro-rated increase of wages every time the government would mandate
an increase in the minimum wage. CAB, however, did not agree to grant additional and
separate Christmas bonuses. Thereafter CAB received an Amended Union Proposal sent by
CABEU-NFL reducing its previous demand regarding wages and bonuses. CAB, however,
maintained its position on the matter. Thus, the collective bargaining negotiations resulted
in a deadlock.

On account of the impasse, CABEU-NFL filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. The NCMB
then assumed conciliatory-mediation jurisdiction and summoned the parties to conciliation
conferences.

Later, CABEU-NFL requested copies of CAB’s annual financial statements from 2001 to
2004 and asked for the resumption of conciliation meetings. CAB replied, denying the
request, since the Union which Mr. Saguran purportedly represents has already lost its
majority status by reason of the disauthorization and withdrawal of support thereto by
more than 90% of the rank and file employees in the bargaining unit of Central sometime in
January, 2005, and the workers themselves, acting as principal, after disauthorizing the
previous agent CABEU-NFL have organized themselves into a new Union known as Central
Azucarera de Bais Employees Labor Association (CABELA). CAB underscored that the
request for further conciliation conference will serve no lawful and practical purpose.

It appears that the NCMB failed to act on the letter-response of CAB. However, reacting
from the letter-response of CAB, CABEU-NFL filed a Complaint for ULP for the former’s
refusal to bargain with it.
LA dismissed the complaint, saying that it cannot be said that respondent CAB refused to
negotiate or that it violated its duty to bargain collectively in light of its active participation
in the past CBA negotiations at the plant level as well as in the NCMB.

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA’s decision and found CAB guilty of unfair labor
practice, saying that it is undeniable that complainant is the certified collective bargaining
agent of the regular workers and seasonal employees of respondent. CAB moved for a
reconsideration but the motion was denied by the NLRC. Unsatisfied, CAB elevated the
matter to the CA, which found CAB’s petition meritorious and reversed the NLRC decision
and resolution.

CABEU-NFL moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied, hence the petition.

Issue: Whether CAB was guilty of acts constituting unfair labor practice by refusing to
bargain collectively.

Ruling: NO. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that CAB was
motivated by ill will, “bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation,
wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted” in suspending negotiations with CABEU-NFL.
Notably, CAB believed that CABEU-NFL was no longer the representative of the workers. It
just wanted to foster industrial peace by bowing to the wishes of the overwhelming
majority of its rank and file workers and by negotiating and concluding in good faith a CBA
with CABELA.” Such actions of CAB are nowhere tantamount to anti-unionism, the evil
sought to be punished in cases of unfair labor practices.

Furthermore, 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. Apparently, CABEU-NFL refers only to the circumstances mentioned in the
letter-response, namely, the execution of the supposed CBA between CAB and CABELA and
the request to suspend the negotiations, to conclude that bad faith attended CAB’s actions.
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
faith.

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. Thus, petition is DENIED.
10. Cirtek Employees vs Cirtek Electronics; G.R. No. 190515; November 15, 2010

Facts: Cirtek Electronics had a Collective Bargaining Agreement with its employees,
through Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers (Cirtek Employees).
Prior to the 3rd year of the CBA, the parties renegotiated its economic provisions but failed
to reach a settlement, particularly on the issue of wage increases. Cirtek Employees
thereafter declared a bargaining deadlock, and filed a Notice of Strike, while Cirtek
Electronics filed a Notice of Lockout.

They’re being no Amicable Settlement, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the
controversy. However, both parties came into an amicable resolution and had a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which increased the wages from P6 to P9 each day. The
MOA was submitted to the Secretary, who issued a different ruling of 6-10 and 9-15 php
per day. Cirtek Electronics filed with the CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion, which was
eventually granted. Cirtek Employees Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor is authorized to give an award higher than
that agreed upon in the MOA.

Ruling: Yes. It is well-settled that the Secretary of Labor, in the exercise of his power to
assume jurisdiction under Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code may resolve all issues involved in
the controversy including the award of wage increases and benefits. While an arbitral
award cannot per se categorized as an agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties
because it requires the intervention and imposing power of the State thru the Secretary of
Labor when he assumes jurisdiction, the arbitral award can be considered an
approximation of a collective bargaining agreement which would otherwise have been
entered into by the parties, hence, it has the force and effect of a valid contract obligation.

The Secretary is not limited to considering the MOA as basis in computing the wage
increases. The filing and submission of the MOA did not have the effect of divesting the
Secretary of his jurisdiction, or of automatically disposing the controversy, and then
neither should the provisions of the MOA restrict the Secretary’s leeway in deciding the
matters before him.