PRINCE TRANSPORT, INC. v. DIOSDADO GARCIA, et. al.

Indeed, evidence of petitioners' unfair labor practice is shown

GR No. 167291; Jan 12, 2011 [DORIA] by the established fact that, after respondents' transfer to
Lubas, petitioners left them high and dry insofar as the
FACTS operations of Lubas was concerned. The Court finds no error
 Respondents were hired as either drivers, in the findings and conclusion of the CA that petitioners
conductors, mechanics or inspectors, except for withheld the necessary financial and logistic support such as
respondent Diosdado Garcia (Garcia), an Operations spare parts, and repair and maintenance of the transferred
Manager. buses until only two units remained in running condition. This
 In addition to their regular monthly income, they left respondents virtually jobless.
also received commissions equivalent to 8%-10% of
their wages. These were reduced to 7%-9%. Thus, Petition denied. CA decision is affirmed.
respondents and other employees of PTI met to
discuss the protection of their interests as
employees.
 Renato Claros, President of PTI, made known to
Garcia his objection to the formation of a union.
 In order to block the continued formation of the
union, PTI caused the transfer of all union members
and sympathizers to one of its sub-companies, Lubas
Transport (Lubas). Despite the transfer, the schedule
of bus drivers and conductors, their company IDs
were issued by PTI. The daily time records, tickets
and reports were also filed at the PTI office; and all
claims for salaries were transacted thereto.
 Later, the business of Lubas deteriorated because of
the refusal of PTI to maintain and repair the units
being used – which resulted to the virtual stoppage
of its operations and respondents’ loss of
employment.
 Petitioners claimed that respondents were all
transferred to Lubas at their own request; and that
petitioner has nothing to do with the management
and operations of Lubas.
 LA – dismissed complaints for unfair labor practices,
but declared that complainants are illegally
dismissed. NLRC affirmed.
 CA – reversed. Guilty of unfair labor practices.
Petitioners act of transferring respondents
employment to Lubas is indicative of their intent to
frustrate the efforts of respondents to organize
themselves into a union.

ISSUE
W/N petitioners are guilty of unfair labor practices? YES.

HELD
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings
of the CA that respondents transfer of work assignments to
Lubas was designed by petitioners as a subterfuge to foil the
formers right to organize themselves into a union. Under
Article 248 (a) and (e) of the Labor Code, an employer is guilty
of unfair labor practice if it interferes with, restrains or
coerces its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization or if it discriminates in regard to wages, hours of
work and other terms and conditions of employment in order
to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization.