G.R. No.

194192: June 16, 2015

DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT REPRESENTED V OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF
NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT (NAMADACWAD)

BRIEFER:
Petitioner Davao City Water District (DCWD) is a government-owned and controlled corporation
in Davao City represented by its General Manager Engr. Rodora N. Gamboa (GM Gamboa).
The private respondents are officers and members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Davao City
Water District (NAMADACWAD). They were charged with several administrative cases due to
acts committed during the anniversary celebration of DCWD such as wearing of t-shirts with
inscriptions and posting of bond papers outside the designated places. The inscriptions and
postings bore employees’ grievances.

FACTS:
As early as 16 May 2007, the members and officers of NAMADACWAD have been staging
pickets in front of the DCWD Office during their lunch breaks to air their grievances about the
non-payment of their Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives and their opposition to
DCWD’s privatization and proposed One Hundred Million Peso Loan.

Came the DCWD’s anniversary, officers and members sported t-shirts with inscriptions "CNA
Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. Braganza Pahawa Na!" at the beginning of the Fun Run. Gregorio S.
Cagula (Cagula), one of the members of the Board of Directors of NAMADACWAD, with the
help of some of its members, attached similar inscriptions and posters of employees’ grievances
to a post in the motor pool area, an area not among the officially designated places for posting
of grievances.

GM Gamboa required those who committed the acts to explain the reasons for the attire they
wore during the anniversary celebration. Through a collective letter, the officers and members
explained they were only required to wear any sports attire, though theirs were with additional
inscriptions containing grievances. They were also required to explain within 72-hours why they
should not be held liable for the actions committed by Cagula.

GM Gamboa filed formal charges against the officers and members of NAMADACWAD to the
Hearing Committee. They were held guilty as charged with penalties ranging from suspension to
dismissal from service with all accessory penalties under the CSC Law and Rules. The decision
was appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

The CSC granted the consolidated appeal and held that the collective act of respondents in
wearing t-shirts with grievance inscriptions during office hours was not within the ambit of the
definition of prohibited mass action punishable. However, though not prohibited under the
Resolution, the act was considered as an offense punishable under "Violation of Reasonable
Office Rules and Regulations."
Aggrieved, DCWD filed a Petition for Review under Rules 43 before the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the resolution of CSC.

ISSUE:
Did the respondents conduct prohibited concerted mass actions? No.
RULING:

Section 5. Definition of Prohibited Concerted Mass Action. - As used in this Omnibus Rules,
the phrase ‘‘prohibited concerted activity or mass action’’ shall be understood to refer to any
collective activity undertaken by government employees, by themselves or through their
employees organizations, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption in
order to realize their demands of force concession, economic or otherwise, from their respective
agencies or the government. It shall include mass leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar
nature.

The operative phrases are "any collective activity" and "work stoppage or service
disruption." Without the intent at work stoppage or service disruption, the concerted
activity is not prohibited. The time and place of the activity are not determinative of the
prohibition. Whether done within government hours, a concerted activity is allowed if it is without
any intent at work stoppage.

It is clear that the collective activity of joining the fun run in t-shirts with inscriptions on
CNA incentives was not to have work stoppage as an effect or to disrupt the service. The
employees followed the advice of GM Gamboa "to be there" at the fun run. Respondents joined,
and did not disrupt the fun run.

They did not violate the rule issued by GM Gamboa relating to the proper attire to be
worn during the fun run. To reiterate, the t-shirts they wore fall within the description of "any
sports attire" that the Memorandum allowed to be worn.

Furthermore, in line with the civil service rules and jurisprudence, the Court concluded
that a violation of an office memorandum, which was issued as an internal rule to
regulate the area for posting of grievances inside the office premise, is only a light
offense punishable by reprimand.

Rules and regulations are issued to attain harmony, smooth operation, maximize efficiency and
productivity, with the ultimate objective of realizing the functions of particular offices and
agencies of the government.

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION:
It is correct to conclude that those who enter government service are subjected to a different
degree of limitation on their freedom to speak their mind; however, it is not tantamount to the
relinquishment of their constitutional right of expression otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by
reason of their employment.
 G.R. 183798: SEPTEMBER 9, 2015
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCBPI) V. ILOCOS PROFESSIONAL AND
TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION (IPTEU)

FACTS:
CCBPI (Petitioner) is a domestic engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing
carbonated soft drinks while IPTEU (Respondent) is a registered labor organization in Ilocos
Norte.

The respondent filed for a Certification Election (CE) to represent 22 rank & file employees of
the CCBPI plant. CCBPI, however, prayed for the denial and dismissal of the petition arguing
that some of respondent’s members are supervisory or confidential employees. Hence, they are
ineligible for inclusion as members of IPTEU.

A preliminary hearing of the petition was held. The possibility of voluntary recognition or consent
election was not acceded to by CCBPI. The Med-Arbiter concluded that the members of the
union are all rank & file employees and granted IPTEU’s petition to exclude said employees
from the existing bargaining units of CCBPI.

In the Pre-election Conference CCBPI and IPTEU mutually agreed to conduct the certification
election. On Election Day, only 16 of the 22 employees in the IPTEU list voted. However, no
votes were canvassed. CCBPI filed and registered a Protest questioning the conduct and
mechanics of the election and a Challenge to Votes on the ground that the voters are
supervisory and confidential employees.

The Mediator-Arbiter denied CCBPI’s challenge to the 16 votes. It found that the voters are
rank-and-file employees holding positions that are not confidential in nature, and who are not, or
who used to be, members of Ilocos Monthlies Union (IMU) due to the reclassification of their
positions by CCBPI. They have been excluded from the CBA entered into by IMU and CCBPI
from 1997 to 2005. Consequently, the challenged votes were opened and canvassed.

After garnering 14 out of the 16 votes cast, IPTEU was proclaimed as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file exempt workers in CCBPI Ilocos Norte Plant.

CCBPI elevated the case to the SOLE; appeal was denied. The SOLE held that, as shown by
the certification of the IMU President and the CBAs forged between CCBPI and IMU from 1997
to 2007, the 22 employees sought to be represented by IPTEU are not part of IMU and are
excluded from its CBA coverage. CCBPI filed before the CA a petition for certiorari with prayer
for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. CA denied said petition, as well
the MR filed by CCBPI; hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Are the 22 employees sought to be represented by IPTEU excluded from the bargaining
unit? Yes.
HELD:
As proven by the certification of the IMU President as well as the CBAs executed
between IMU and CCBPI, the 22 employees sought to be represented by IPTEU are not
IMU members and are not included in the CBAs due to reclassification of their positions.
If these documents were false, the IMU should have manifested its vigorous opposition.

SC held that said employees are not members of the IMU due to reclassification of their
positions.

Does the status of being a confidential employee bar membership from the collective
bargaining unit?

The SC refrained from resolving the issue of whether the 22 are confidential employees or not,
as this was a factual issue. SC defers to the findings of fact of the Mediator-Arbiter, the SOLE,
and the CA that the 22 are not confidential employees. As to whether the 16 voters sought to be
excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit are confidential employees, such query is a
question of fact, which is not a proper issue in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules.
This holds true in the present case in view of the consistent findings of the Mediator-Arbiter, the
SOLE, and the CA.

In this case, organizational charts, detailed job descriptions, and training programs were
presented by CCBPI before the Mediator-Arbiter, the SOLE, and the CA. Despite these, the
Mediator-Arbiter ruled that employees who encounter or handle trade secrets and
financial information are not automatically classified as confidential employees. It was
admitted that the subject employees encounter and handle financial as well as physical
production data and other information which are considered vital and important from the
business operations' standpoint. Nevertheless, it was opined that such information is not the
kind of information that is relevant to collective bargaining negotiations and settlement
of grievances as would classify them as confidential employees. The SOLE, which the CA
affirmed, likewise held that the questioned voters do not have access to confidential labor
relations information.

However, the Court defers to the findings of fact of the Mediator-Arbiter, the SOLE, and
the CA. Certainly, access to vital labor information is an imperative consideration. An
employee must assist or act in a confidential capacity and obtain confidential
information relating to labor relations policies. Exposure to internal business operations
of the company is not per se a ground for the exclusion in the bargaining unit.
 G.R. 171664: MARCH 6, 2013
BANKARD, INC., v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION - FIRST DIVISION,
PAULO BUENCONSEJO, BANKARD EMPLOYEES UNION-AWATU

FACTS:
Respondent Bankard Employees Union-AWATU (Union) filed before the National Conciliation
and Mediation Board (NCMB) its first Notice of Strike (NOS) alleging commission of unfair labor
practices by petitioner Bankard, Inc. (Bankard), to wit: 1) job contractualization; 2)
outsourcing/contracting-out jobs; 3) manpower rationalizing program; and 4) discrimination.

It was alleged that Bankard, Inc. has resorted to job contractualization or outsourcing or
contracting out of jobs. Among other programs, it also implemented a Manpower Rationalization
Program (MRP), which was an invitation to the employees to tender their voluntary resignation
with entitlement to separation pay equivalent to at least two months’ salary for every year of
service. Majority of its Phone Center and Service Fulfillment Division employees availed
themselves of the MRP.

Respondent Bankard Employees Union-AWATU (Union) contended that Bankard committed

unfair labor practice (ULP).

Bankard denied that there was ULP or even bad faith on its part in bargaining with the Union. It
came up with counter-offers to the Union's proposals, but the latter's demands were far beyond
what management could give. Nonetheless, Bankard continued to negotiate in good faith until
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) re-negotiation. The CBA was overwhelmingly ratified by
the Union members. For said reason, Bankard contended that there was no bad faith.

ISSUE:
Is there an unfair labor practice from the contracting and reducing of employees?

RULING:
No. The general principle is that the one who makes an allegation has the burden of proving it.
While there are exceptions to this general rule, in ULP cases, the alleging party has the burden
of proving the ULP; and in order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor
Code; substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Such principle finds justification in
the fact that ULP is punishable with both civil and/or criminal sanctions.

Aside from the bare allegations of the union, nothing in the records strongly proves that Bankard
intended its program, the MRP, as a tool to drastically and deliberately reduce union
membership. Contrary to the findings and conclusions of both the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), there was no proof that the program was
meant to encourage the employees to disassociate themselves from the union or to restrain
them from joining any union or organization.
There was no showing that it was intentionally implemented to stunt the growth of the union or
that Bankard discriminated against, or in any way singled out the union members who had
availed themselves of the retirement package under the MRP.

Although the program might have affected the number of union membership because of the
employees’ voluntary resignation and availment of the package, it does not necessarily follow
that Bankard indeed purposely sought such a result. It must be recalled that the MRP was
implemented as a valid cost-cutting measure, well within the ambit of the so-called management
prerogatives. Bankard contracted an independent agency to meet business exigencies. In the
absence of any showing that Bankard was motivated by ill will, bad faith or malice, or that it was
aimed at interfering with its employees’ right to self-organize, it cannot be said to have
committed an act of unfair labor practice.

ON SANCTIONS
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.
 G.R. 162943: DECEMBER 06, 2010
EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS., FFW AND JUANITO S. FACUNDO VS. BAYER
PHILIPPINES, INC.

FACTS:

Petitioner 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 Bayers
proposal resulting in a bargaining deadlock. Subsequently, EUBP staged a strike, prompting the
Secretary of the DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the dispute.

Pending the resolution of the dispute, respondent Avelina Remigio and 27 other union
members, without any authority from their union leaders, accepted Bayers’ wage-increase
proposal. The DOLE Secretary issued an arbitral award ordering EUBP and Bayer to execute a
CBA.

Meanwhile, the rift between the union leadership and Remigio’s group broadened. Six months
from the signing of the new CBA, 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, (4) 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 the 257 local union members.

Both groups sought recognition from Bayer and demanded remittance of the union dues
collected from its rank-and-file members. Bayer responded by deciding not to deal with either of
the two groups, and by placing the union dues collected in a trust account until the conflict
between the two groups is resolved.

EUBP filed a complaint for unfair labor practice (first ULP complaint) against Bayer for non-
remittance of union dues. While the ULP case was still pending and despite EUBPs repeated
request for a grievance conference, Bayer decided to turn over the collected union dues to
REUBP.

Aggrieved by the said development, EUBP lodged a complaint against Remigios group before
the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE praying for their expulsion from EUBP for
commission of "acts that threaten the life of the union."Labor Arbiter dismissed thefirstULP
complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioners filed a second ULP complaint against herein respondents. Petitioners complained
that Bayer refused to remit the collected union dues to EUBP despite several demands sent to
the management and that the latter opted to negotiate instead with Remigios group.
REUBP and Bayer agreed to sign a new CBA. In response, petitioners immediately filed an
urgent motion for the issuance of a restraining order/injunction before the NLRC and the Labor
Arbiter against respondents.

Labor Arbiter dismissed EUBPs second ULP complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the
Labor Arbiters decision to dismiss the second ULP complaint, petitioners appealed the said
decision, but the NLRC denied the appeal. The CA sustained both the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRCs rulings.

ISSUE:
Is the act of the management of Bayer in dealing and negotiating with Remigio’s group an unfair
labor practice despite its validly existing CBA with EUBP?

HELD:
The petition is partly meritorious.

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.

However, as to respondents Remigio and Villareal, the court finds that petitioner’s
complaint was validly dismissed. The ULP complaint cannot prosper as against them
because the issue essentially involves an intra-union dispute.