SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 220383. October 5, 2016.]

SONEDCO WORKERS FREE LABOR UNION (SWOFLU)/RENATO

YUDE, MARIANITO REGINO, MANUEL YUMAGUE, FRANCISCO
DACUDAG, RUDY ABABAO, DOMINIC SORNITO, SERGIO
CAJUYONG, ROMULO LABONETE, GENEROSO GRANADA,
EMILIO AGUS, ARNOLD CAYAO, BEN GENEVE, VICTOR
MAQUE, RICARDO GOMEZ, RODOLFO GAWAN, JIMMY
SULLIVAN, FEDERICO SUMUGAT, JR., ROMULO AVENTURA,
JR., JURRY MAGALLANES, HERNAN EPISTOLA, JR., ROBERTO
BELARTE, EDMON MONTALVO, TEODORO MAGUAD,
DOMINGO TABABA, MAXIMO SALE, CYRUS DIONILLO,
LEONARDO JUNSAY, JR., DANILO SAMILLION, MARIANITO
BOCATEJA, JUANITO GEBUSION, RICARDO MAYO, RAUL
ALIMON, ARNEL ARNAIZ, REBENCY BASOY, JIMMY VICTORIO
BERNALDE, RICARDO BOCOL, JR., JOB CALAMBA,
WOLFRANDO CALAMBA, RODOLFO CASISID, JR., EDGARDO
DELA PENA, ALLAN DIONILLO, EDMUNDO EBIDO, JOSE
ELEPTICO, JR., MARCELINO FLORES, HERNANDO
FUENTEBILLA, SAUL HITALIA, JOSELITO JAGODILLA, NONITO
JAYME, ADJIE JUANILLO, JEROLD JUDILLA, EDILBERTO
NACIONAL, SANDY NAVALES, FELIPE NICOLASORA, JOSE
PAMALO-AN, ISMAEL PEREZ, JR., ERNESTO RANDO, JR.,
PHILIP REPULLO, VICENTE RUIZ, JR., JOHN SUMUGAT,
CARLO SUSANA, ROMEO TALAPIERO, JR., FERNANDO
TRIENTA, FINDY VILLACRUZ, JOEL VILLANUEVA, and JERRY
MONTELIBANO, petitioners, vs. UNIVERSAL ROBINA
CORPORATION, SUGAR DIVISION-SOUTHERN NEGROS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SONEDCO), respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN, J : p

An employer who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict
its bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether
an employer has not bargained in good faith, the totality of all the acts of the
employer at the time of negotiations must be taken into account. HTcADC

This resolves a Petition 1 for review assailing the Decision 2 dated

January 30, 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated July 27, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by
members of SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union for lack of merit. 4
On May 6, 2002, Universal Robina Corporation Sugar Division-Southern
Negros Development Corporation (URC-SONEDCO) and Philippine
Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU-TUCP), then
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the exclusive bargaining representative of URC-SONEDCO's rank-and-file
employees, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (2002 Collective
Bargaining Agreement) effective January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006. 5
Under the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, rank-and-file employees
were entitled to a wage increase of P14.00/day for 2002 and P12.00/day for
the succeeding years until 2006. 6
On May 17, 2002, days after the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement
was signed, a certification election was conducted. SONEDCO Workers Free
Labor Union won and replaced PACIWU-TUCP as the exclusive bargaining
representative. 7
PACIWU-TUCP questioned the results of the certification election before
the Department of Labor and Employment. On July 8, 2002, Med-Arbiter
Romulo Sumalinog certified SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union as the sole
and exclusive bargaining representative of URC-SONEDCO. 8 This was
affirmed by the Labor Secretary in a Resolution dated December 27, 2002,
which became final on April 15, 2003. 9 PACIWU-TUCP elevated the same
issue to the Court of Appeals and thereafter this Court, which on July 11,
2007, resolved that the certification election was valid. SONEDCO Workers
Free Labor Union was declared the exclusive bargaining agent of URC-
SONEDCO's rank-and-file employees. 10
URC-SONEDCO consistently refused to negotiate a new collective
bargaining agreement with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union, despite
several demands from SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union, allegedly due to
the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which it signed with PACIWU-
TUCP. 12 aScITE

Despite being the incumbent exclusive bargaining agent, SONEDCO

Workers Free Labor Union filed before the Department of Labor and
Employment a Petition 13 for certification election on December 6, 2006 in
view of the approaching expiration of the 2002 Collective Bargaining
Agreement. On December 31, 2006, the 2002 Collective Bargaining
Agreement expired with no new collective bargaining agreement being
signed. 14
On August 28, 2007, with no collective bargaining agreement in effect,
URC-SONEDCO informed the rank-and-file employees that they would be
granted the following economic benefits:
(1) Wage increase of P16.00/day effective January 1, 2007; DETACa

(2) Group life insurance of P50,000.00 coverage/year;

(3) Emergency leave in lieu of bereavement leave, up to five (5)
days per year; and
(4) Cash loan in lieu of emergency loan of P5,000.00, payable in 11
months. 15
URC-SONEDCO asked the employees who wished to avail themselves
of these benefits to sign an acknowledgment receipt/waiver (2007 waiver),
which stated that "[i]n the event that a subsequent [collective bargaining
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 agreement] is negotiated between Management and Union, the new
[Collective Bargaining Agreement] shall only be effective January 1, 2008."
16 URC-SONEDCO claimed that the 2007 waiver was designed to avoid
and/or prevent double compensation. 17
Several SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union members refused to sign
the 2007 waiver. Hence, they did not receive the benefits given to other
members of the bargaining unit who had done so. 18
In 2008, another wage increase of P16.00/day effective January 1,
2008 were given to employees who signed an acknowledgment
receipt/waiver (2008 waiver). 19 The 2008 waiver stated that "[s]a panahon
na kung saan may [collective bargaining agreement] na maisasara sa
pagitan ng Management at Uniyon, ito ay magiging epektibo lamang simula
January 1, 2009." 20
Again, several SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union members refused
to sign the 2008 waiver. They did not receive the benefits from URC-
SONEDCO. 20
On August 20, 2008, a certification election was conducted. 21
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union won again and proceeded to negotiate
a new collective bargaining agreement, which became effective January 1,
2009 to December 31, 2013 (2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement). 22
On July 2, 2009, SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union and its members
who refused to sign the 2007 and 2008 waivers filed a complaint for unfair
labor practices against URC-SONEDCO. 23 They argued that the requirement
of a waiver before the release of the wage increase violated their right to
self-organization, collective bargaining, and concerted action. 24
The Labor Arbiter found that URC-SONEDCO did not commit unfair
labor practice when it increased the wages of the rank-and-file employees
for 2007 and 2008. 25 He found that, the requirement of a waiver aside, it
was benevolent for URC-SONEDCO to give its employees additional benefits
outside the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 26 However, the Labor Arbiter
ordered URC-SONEDCO to pay the employees who refused to sign the 2007
and 2008 waivers of the benefits received by their fellow employees for
2007 and 2008. As a new collective bargaining agreement had already been
renegotiated and did not include the years 2007 and 2008, the purpose of
the waivers was already served. aDSIHc

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission sustained 27 the

Labor Arbiter's Decision that the requirement of a waiver before the release
of the benefits for 2007 and 2008 did not constitute unfair labor practice:
Such an act does not constitute interference, restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self organization
or to bargain collectively, neither is it tantamount to discrimination
against union members who refused to waive wage increase in a
CBA. As aptly termed by respondents, it is an "offer" during the
absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and during the
time when there was an unresolved union representation, which this
Commission considers as reasonable. 29
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The National Labor Relations Commission likewise affirmed the decision
to award the wage increase to the employees who initially refused to sign
the waiver. 30
Aggrieved, members of SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union filed
before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari assailing the National
Labor Relations Commission Decision. The Court of Appeals found no grave
abuse of discretion in the assailed decision and dismissed the Petition. 31
Hence, on October 22, 2015, this Petition 32 was filed.
In the Resolution 33 dated January 11, 2016, this Court required
respondent URC-SONEDCO to file its comment on the Petition. Respondent
filed its Comment 34 on March 22, 2016.
Petitioners now argue that the Court of Appeals failed to consider the
totality of respondent's dealings with them. 35 They allege that despite their
several invitations, respondent consistently failed to bargain with them, and
the wage increase was just another move to avoid negotiations. 36
Petitioners claim that the benefits given by respondent was an economic
incentive meant to encourage individual employees to give up agreement
bargaining for 2007 and 2008. 37 Moreover, petitioners maintain that the
wage increase for 2007 and 2008 should be considered as a continuing
benefit over what was already provided in the 2009 Collective Bargaining
Agreement because Article XXI of the 2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement
excluded claims pending before the courts. 38 Article XXI provides: ETHIDa

ARTICLE XXI
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT
The parties agree that this Agreement is full and complete
settlement of all demands, requests, claims and disputes of any
nature, written or verbal, that either party have or may have against
the other prior to the effectivity hereof, except those subject of
pending cases before the NLRC or its arbitration branch, or before the
DOLE or regular courts. 39
Respondent points out that petitioners merely rehashed the same
matters already ruled upon by the Court of Appeals. 40 It reiterates that both
the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals found
them not guilty of unfair labor practice since the waivers did not violate the
employees' right to organize. 41 Moreover, the employees freely signed the
waivers; even petitioners did not accuse respondent of coercing employees
to sign these waivers. 42 Respondent claims that the benefits that it offered
were higher than what the employees had previously received; there was no
diminution of benefits involved. 43
For resolution are the following issues:
First, whether respondent committed unfair labor practice;
Second, whether petitioners, who refused to sign the 2007 and 2008
waivers, are entitled to the wage increase and other economic benefits as a
continuing employee benefit notwithstanding the 2009 Collective Bargaining
Agreement; and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Lastly, whether respondent is liable for damages.
I
Respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice.
Both the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals
ruled that respondent did not commit unfair labor practice since the
requirement of a waiver for 2007 and 2008 did not interfere with the
employees' exercise of their right to self-organization. 44 However, the Court
of Appeals failed to take into account that unfair labor practice not only
involves acts that violate the right to self-organization but also covers
several acts enumerated in Article 259 of the Labor Code, thus: cSEDTC

ARTICLE 259. [248]Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. — It shall

be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
labor practices:
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization ;
(b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an
employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from
one to which he belongs;
(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union
members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the
formation or administration of any labor organization, including the
giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or
supporters;
(e) To discriminate 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. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the
parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective
bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those
employees who are already members of another union at the time of
the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an
appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized
collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee
equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the
recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members
accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement:
Provided, That the individual authorization required under Article 242,
paragraph (o) of this Code 204 shall not apply to the non-members of
the recognized collective bargaining agent; SDAaTC

(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate

against an employee for having given or being about to give
testimony under this Code;
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed
by this Code;
(h) To pay negotiation or attorney's fees to the union or its
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective
bargaining or any other dispute; or
(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the
officers and agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who
have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor
practices shall be held criminally liable. (Emphasis supplied)
Under this provision, an employer is guilty of unfair labor practice when
it fails in its duty to bargain in good faith.
Although it is well-settled that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial
agencies such as the National Labor Relations Commission are accorded
great respect, this rule does admit exceptions. 45 One of these exceptions is
when, as in this case, the Court of Appeals errs in appreciating the facts. In
Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.: 46
While it is true that factual findings made by quasi-judicial and
administrative tribunals, if supported by substantial evidence, are
accorded great respect and even finality by the courts, this general
rule admits of exceptions. When there is a showing that a palpable
and demonstrable mistake that needs rectification has been
committed or when the factual findings were arrived at arbitrarily or
in disregard of the evidence on record, these findings may be
examined by the courts. 47 acEHCD

In ruling that respondent did not commit unfair labor practice, the
National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals failed to
consider the totality of respondent's acts, which showed that it violated its
duty to bargain collectively. This constitutes unfair labor practice under
Article 259 (g) of the Labor Code.
Article 263 of the Labor Code defines the duty to bargain collectively:
ARTICLE 263. [252]Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. — The
duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual
obligation 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 grievances or
questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract
incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such
duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any
concession.
Respondent repeatedly refused to meet and bargain with SONEDCO
Workers Free Labor Union, the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank-and-file
employees. In its Position Paper 48 before the National Labor Relations
Commission, respondent cited the different instances when petitioners sent
it letters trying to set meetings to discuss a new collective bargaining
agreement. 49 Respondent admitted that it refused to meet with petitioners
in light of the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which it signed with
PACIWU-TUCP, the previous bargaining representative. It claimed that the
2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement remained in full force and effect
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 without change until December 31, 2006, despite PACIWU-TUCP losing the
May 17, 2002 certification election to SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union.
50

Respondent's argument has no merit. Respondent's reliance on the

2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement as basis for not negotiating with
petitioners is unjustified. The Collective Bargaining Agreement that
respondent invoked had been entered into when a Petition for Certification
Election was already filed.
I n Associated Trade Unions v. Trajano , 50 this Court ruled on the
temporary nature of this type of collective bargaining agreement:
The Court will not rule on the merits and/or defects of the new
CBA and shall only consider the fact that it was entered into at a time
when the petition for certification election had already been filed by
TUPAS and was then pending resolution. The said CBA cannot be
deemed permanent, precluding the commencement of negotiations
by another union with the management. In the meantime however,
so as not to deprive the workers of the benefits of the said
agreement, it shall be recognized and given effect on a temporary
basis, subject to the results of the certification election. The
agreement may be continued in force if ATU is certified as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the workers or may be
rejected and replaced in the event that TUPAS emerges as the
winner. 51 (Emphasis supplied) SDHTEC

Respondent claimed that it refused to bargain with petitioners because

the issue of representation was still pending before the courts. It claimed
that when the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement expired on December
31, 2006, it had no bargaining agent to deal with as SONEDCO Workers Free
Labor Union had filed before the Department of Labor and Employment a
Petition for Certification Election on December 6, 2006, which resulted in the
absence of a duly elected bargaining representative. 52 Respondent claimed
it was only on September 25, 2008 that SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union
was certified by the Department of Labor and Employment as the exclusive
bargaining agent of respondent's rank-and-file employees. 53
This argument fails to persuade.
The Department of Labor and Employment, in its Order 54 dated May 4,
2007 granting SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union's second Petition for
Certification Election, illustrated why respondent's argument is untenable:
Let it be noted that based on the results of the certification
election conducted in the establishment on 17 May 2002, Mediator-
Arbiter Sumalinog, declared and certified SWOFLU as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of
SONEDCO. The office of the Secretary affirmed SWOFLU's certification
in OS-A-6-63-01, and the decision became final and executory on 15
April 2003. As such, the suspension of the running of the one (1) year
period referred in Section 3(a) Rule VIII was automatically lifted on 15
April 2003. Hence, the one (1) year bar cannot be used to deny the
subject petition. Furthermore, despite PACIWU-TUCP's act of
questioning the Office of the Secretary's affirmation before the Court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari, no restraining order was
issued to stay the implementation of the decision.
In other words, as far as this Office is concerned, SWOFLU is the
incumbent sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees of SONEDCO. As such, there was actually no necessity for
SWOFLU to file the subject petition, as its representation status
remains to be effective unless challenged by other legitimate labor
organizations during the freedom period of the CBA that was entered
into by PACIWU-TUCP and employer SONEDCO. AScHCD

Incidentally, the Office of the Secretary declared in OS-A-6-63-

01 that SWOFLU had the option to adopt the interim CBA or negotiate
with SONEDCO a new CBA. Whether SWOFLU was able to actually
administer the said CBA, or whether it attempted to negotiate with
the employer for a new CBA but was rejected, the issues are already
moot and academic by reason of the expiration of the effectivity of
the agreement. 56 (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent's duty to bargain with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union
as the incumbent bargaining agent is clear. The last paragraph of Article 268
of the Labor Code states:
ARTICLE 268 [256]. Representation issue in organized
establishments. — In organized establishments, when a verified
petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within
the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining
agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by
secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written
consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in
the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a
majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes.
The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the
unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices
results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-
off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving
the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number of
votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the
number of votes cast.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent where no petition for certification election is filed. (Emphasis
supplied)
When petitioners held a conference on May 26, 2003, respondent
refused to attend. 57 Because respondent failed to appear in the conference,
petitioners wrote their demands in a letter sometime in July 2003. The letter
included, among others, a wage increase of P50.00/day from September
2003 to 2006. 58 Instead of explaining its non-attendance to the conference
or making a counter-offer, respondent replied on August 15, 2003
acknowledging the receipt and contents of the July 2003 letter but invoking
the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement as an excuse not to answer
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioners' demands to negotiate. 59 This is contrary to Article 261 of the
Labor Code, which requires the other party to reply within 10 days from
receipt of the written demand:
ARTICLE 261. [250] Procedure in Collective Bargaining. — The
following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve
a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its
proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than
ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice[.] caITAC

This was not respondent's only violation of Article 261. Respondent

likewise failed to reply to the collective bargaining agreement proposal sent
by petitioners on August 21, 2007. 60 The September 22, 2007 letter, sent
with the agreement proposal, also went unheeded. 61
Respondent's reliance on the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement is
contrary to jurisprudence. In Associated Labor Unions v. Trajano, 62 this Court
explicitly held that the winning union had the option to either continue the
existing collective bargaining agreement or negotiate a new one:
The new CBA negotiated by petitioners whether or not
submitted to the MOLE in accordance with Article 231 of the Labor
Code cannot be deemed permanent, precluding commencement of
negotiations by another union with management, considering that it
was entered into at a time when the petition for certification election
had already been filed by respondent union. . . . Meantime, this
interim agreement must be recognized and given effect on a
temporary basis so as not to deprive the workers of the favorable
terms of the agreement. . . .
If, as a result of the certification election, respondent union or a
union other than petitioner union which executed the interim
agreement, is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the rank and file employees of respondent company, then, such union
may adopt the interim collective bargaining agreement or negotiate
with management for a new collective bargaining agreement[ . ] 63
(Citations omitted, emphasis supplied) ICHDca

As petitioners asked for a P50.00 wage increase, as opposed to the

P12.00 wage increase they had been receiving under the 2002 Collective
Bargaining Agreement, petitioners were justified in demanding a
renegotiation. Respondent was remiss in its duty when it repeatedly refused
negotiations with petitioners.
Respondent's refusal is even more unfounded considering that the
Labor Secretary's Resolution, 64 which upheld the result of the May 17, 2002
certification election and declared SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union as
the exclusive bargaining agent, became final and executory as early as April
15, 2003. 65 Even though there had been a pending petition forcertiorari
questioning the election results, no temporary restraining order was issued
to preclude respondent from bargaining with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor
Union, the declared incumbent union.
Even if we consider respondent's refusal to bargain as merely a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 mistake made in good faith, its subsequent acts show an attempt to restrict
petitioners' negotiating power.
First, the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement was done on May 6,
2002, only days before the May 17, 2002 certification election. When
respondent and PACIWU-TUCP entered into the 2002 Collective Bargaining
Agreement, they had been aware that a certification election was going to
be conducted in a few days. In pushing through with negotiations instead of
waiting for the outcome of the election, respondent risked needing to
renegotiate with a new union if PACIWU-TUCP loses. It cannot, thus, invoke
the hastily concluded 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement as an excuse
not to bargain with petitioners. If respondent had truly intended to bargain in
good faith, it could have easily waited a few more days to know the result of
the certification election. TCAScE

Second, when the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement expired in

December 2006, the Labor Secretary's Resolution declaring SONEDCO
Workers Free Labor Union as the bargaining agent of respondent's rank-and-
file employees was already final and executory. Respondent's initial basis for
refusal to bargain had expired, and since no temporary restraining order was
issued, nothing was legally preventing respondent from negotiating a new
collective bargaining agreement with petitioners. That it chose to refuse
negotiations and instead entered into an agreement with its employees to
essentially waive negotiations for 2007 and 2008 betrays its intention of
limiting petitioners' bargaining power.
The 2007 waiver provided, in part:
In the event that a subsequent CBA is negotiated between
Management and Union, the new CBA shall only be effective January
1, 2008. 66
The 2008 waiver provided, in part:
Sa panahon na kung saan may CBA na maisasara sa pagitan ng
Management at Unyon, ito ay magiging epektibo lamang simula
January 1, 2009. 67
The wording of the waivers shows a clear attempt to limit petitioners'
bargaining power by making them waive the negotiations for 2007 and
2008. In stipulating that the collective bargaining agreement that would be
entered into would only be effective the year following the 2008 waiver,
respondent limited when the collective bargaining agreement could be
deemed effective. In other words, respondent asked petitioners to forego
any benefits they might have received under a collective bargaining
agreement in exchange for the company-granted benefits.
Both the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals
regarded the incentives as a magnanimous move because it gave the
employees a P16.00 wage increase, P4.00 more than the P12.00 increase
under the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, respondent's
claim of benevolence falls short: the wage increase proposed by petitioners
in 2007 was P50.00. If a collective bargaining agreement had been
concluded in 2007, employees who signed the waivers would have lost the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 chance to receive P34.00 wage increase for that year.
Lastly, when the 2007 waiver was circulated, respondent already had a
copy of petitioners' agreement proposal. Respondent was aware that
petitioners asked for a P50.00 wage increase. More importantly, the last bar
preventing respondent from recognizing SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union
as the bargaining agent has been resolved by the time it issued the waivers.
The Petition for Certiorari relative to the May 17, 2002 certification election
was denied with finality by this Court on July 11, 2007. 68 There was no
reason to doubt that SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union was the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative. If respondent did indeed act in good
faith, it would have undergone agreement negotiations with petitioners.
However, respondent incessantly refused to meet with petitioners to discuss
the agreement proposal even after petitioners sent their September 22,
2007 letter. 69 Instead of negotiating the proposed P50.00 wage increase,
respondent granted a P16.00 wage increase on the condition that if a
collective bargaining agreement was to be signed, it would only be effective
the succeeding year. In effect, respondent hindered petitioners' bargaining
power when it made them waive the bargaining efforts for 2007 and 2008.
cTDaEH

II

The National Labor Relations Commission did not err in granting the
benefits for 2007 and 2008 to the employees who did not sign the waiver.
After SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union was again declared as the
exclusive bargaining representative in the August 20, 2008 certification
election, the 2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement was created to cover
2009 to 2013. 70 Since the 2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement did not
include the years 2007 and 2008, the alleged purpose of the waivers, which
was to prevent double compensation, was already served. 71 It would be
unfair for the employees to still not receive the benefits for 2007 and 2008
simply because they refused to sign a waiver that was already moot.
However, there is no need for the continuation of the wage increase for
2007 and 2008 since the 2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement contains
wage increase provisions for 2009 to 2013. As explained in Samahang
Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 72 if a proposal is not printed in the collective bargaining
agreement, it cannot be demanded:
The CBA is the law between the contracting parties — the
collective bargaining representative and the employer-company.
Compliance with a CBA is mandated by the expressed policy to give
protection to labor. In the same vein, CBA provisions should be
"construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the
courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving
due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and
purpose which it is intended to serve." This is founded on the dictum
that a CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public
interest. It goes without saying, however, that only provisions
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted and complied with.
Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in
the CBA, it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no claim
whatsoever to its implementation. 72 (Citations omitted)
If petitioners wanted the wage increase for 2007 and 2008 to be
carried on, the proper recourse would have been to demand that this be
included in the 2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement. cSaATC

III

Respondent is liable to pay moral and exemplary damages. In Nueva

Ecija Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission: 73
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights 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; and disrupt industrial
peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-
management relations. As the conscience of the government, it is the
Courts sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor rights.
For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral
and exemplary damages on private respondent. 74
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated January 30, 2015 and the Resolution dated July 27, 2015 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 05950 are SET ASIDE. Respondent Universal Robina
Corporation, Sugar Division-Southern Negros Development Corporation is
GUILTY of unfair labor practice and is ORDERED to pay each of the
petitioners the wage increase of P16.00 for the years 2007 and 2008; and to
pay SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union moral damages in the amount of
P100,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Del Castillo and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Brion, * J., is on leave.
Footnotes
* On leave.

1. Rollo , pp. 15-59. The Petition was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2. Id. at 61-70. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 05950, was penned by
Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate
Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Eighteenth
Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.

3. Id. at 73-75. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Renato C.

Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and
Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Eighteenth Division, Court of Appeals,
Cebu City.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Id. at 70.
5. Id. at 63.

6. Id. at 157.
7. Id. at 62-63.

8. Id. at 144.

9. Id. at 148.
10. Id. at 176.

11. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
12. Id. at 153, Letter of SONEDCO dated August 15, 2003.

13. Id. at 177-179.

14. Id. at 64.

15. Id. at 24.

16. Id. at 25.

17. Id. at 207.

18. Id. at 64.

19. Id.
20. Id. at 25.

20. Id. at 64.

21. Id.
22. Id. at 69.

23. Id. at 64-65.

24. Id.

25. Id. at 107-124. The Decision was penned by Labor Arbiter Romulo P.
Sumalinog.
26. Id. at 120.

27. Id. at 93-104. The Decision dated October 29, 2010, penned by Commissioner
Aurelio D. Menzon and concurred in by Commissioners Julie C. Rendoque
and Violeta Ortiz-Bantug.
28. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

29. Id. at 99.

30. Id. at 103.

31. Id. at 61-70.

32. Id. at 15-59.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 33. Id. at 273.

34. Id. at 284-293.

35. Id. at 28.

36. Id. at 28-29.

37. Id. at 30.

38. Id. at 34.

39. Id.
40. Id. at 284-292, Comment.

41. Id. at 288.

42. Id. at 289.

43. Id.

44. Id. at 67-68.

4 5 . Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. , 657 Phil. 342, 361
(2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].

46. 657 Phil. 342 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
47. Id. at 361.

48. Rollo , pp. 198-236.

49. Id. at 202.

50. Id. at 203.

50. 245 Phil. 293 (1988) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].

51. Id. at 299.

52. Rollo , p. 205.

53. Id.
54. Id. at 256-262.

55. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
56. Id. at 260-261.

57. Id. at 150.

58. Id. at 150-152.

59. Id. at 153.

60. Rollo , p. 187.

61. Id. at 187-188.

62. 254 Phil. 46 (1989) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 63. Id. at 55.

64. Rollo , pp. 144-147.

65. Id. at 148.

66. Rollo , p. 186.

67. Id. at 197.

68. Id. at 176.

69. Id. at 187-188.

70. Id. at 69.

71. Id.

72. 356 Phil. 480 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].

72. Id. at 490-491.

73. 380 Phil. 44-60 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].

74. Id. at 57-58.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com