SONEDCO WORKERS FREE LABOR UNION ET AL., v. UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORP.

G.R. No. 220383, October 5, 2016 (Main Decision) & July 5, 2019 (Resolution)

FACTS:

In 2002, Universal Robina Corporation Sugar Division-Southern Negros Development Corporation

(URC-SONEDCO) and Philippine Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU-
TUCP), then the exclusive bargaining representative of URC-SONEDCO's rank-and-file employees,
entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (2002 CBA). Under the 2002 CBA, 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.

Days after the 2002 CBA was signed, a certification election was conducted. SONEDCO Workers Free
Labor Union won and replaced PACIWU-TUCP as the exclusive bargaining representative.

URC-SONEDCO consistently refused to negotiate a new CBA with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor
Union, despite several demands from SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union.

In 2006, the 2002 CBA expired with no new collective bargaining agreement being signed. Respondent
repeatedly refused to meet and bargain with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union, the exclusive
bargaining agent of its rank-and-file employees.

In 2007, while there was no CBA in effect, URC-SONEDCO offered, among other benefits, a
₱16.00/day wage increase to their employees. To receive the benefits, employees had to sign a waiver
stating that the new CBA shall only be effective January 1, 2008. 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.

In 2008, URC-SONEDCO offered the same arrangement. It extended an additional ₱16.00/day wage
increase to employees who would agree that any CBA negotiated for that year would only be effective
on January 1, 2009. Several members of SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union again refused to waive
their rights. Consequently, they did not receive the wage increase which already amounted to a total of
₱32.00/day, beginning 2009.

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. They argued
that the requirement of a waiver prior to the release of the wage increase constituted interference to
the employees' right to self-organization, collective bargaining, and concerted action. They asked that
they be granted a ₱16.00/day wage increase for 2007 and an additional ₱l6.00/day wage increase for
2008.8 SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union also demanded a continuing wage increase of
₱32.00/day "from January 1, 2009 onwards."

Both the NLRC and the CA found URC-SONEDCO not guilty of unfair labor practice. Nonetheless, they
ordered URC-SONEDCO to give petitioners the same benefits their co-workers received in 2007 and
2008. However, SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union's claim for the 2009 wage increase was denied.
Since a new CBA was already in effect by 2009, this CBA governed the relationship between the
management and the union.

In their Motion for Partial Reconsideration, petitioners ask for four (4) awards: 1) a P16.00/day wage
increase for 2007; 2) another P16.00/day wage increase for 2008; 3) the 2009 wage increase, which is
a "continuing wage increase," 21 of P32.00/day from January 1, 2009 to present, and 4) attorney's fees.
 The Court already granted the wage increases for 2007 and 2008 in its October 5, 2016 Decision.

This 2017 Resolution stems from the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by SONEDCO Workers
Free Labor Union. The concerned SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union members are asking that the
wage increase given to their fellow employees be awarded to them as well. Their co-workers of the
same rank are allegedly earning P32.00/day more than they are receiving.

ISSUES:

2016 MAIN DECISION

1. Whether or not respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice (ULP).
2. Whether or not 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 CBA
3. Whether or not respondent is liable to pay moral and exemplary damages.

2017 RESOLUTION
4. Whether or not a P32.00/day wage increase beginning January 1, 2009 to present should be awarded
to petitioners

RULING:

1. Yes, respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice.

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:
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;
xxx xxx xxx
(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.
xxx xxx xxx
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
xxx xxx xxx

Under this provision, an employer is guilty of unfair labor practice when it fails in its duty to bargain in good
faith.

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.

When petitioners held a conference on May 26, 2003, respondent refused to attend. 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. 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 petitioners' demands to
negotiate. 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[.]

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. The September 22,
2007 letter, sent with the agreement proposal, also went unheeded.

2. Yes, 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 CBA.

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. 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
CBA contains wage increase provisions for 2009 to 2013. As explained in Samahang Manggagawa sa
Top Form Manufacturing v. National Labor Relations Commission, 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 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.

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.

3. Yes, respondent is liable to pay moral and exemplary damages.

Yes. In Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme
Court held:
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.

4. Yes, a P32.00/day wage increase beginning January 1, 2009 to present should be awarded to
petitioners.

Generally, the CBA controls the relationship between the parties. Any benefit not included in it is not
demandable. However, in light of the peculiar circumstances in this case, the requested wage increase
should be granted.

The wage increase was integrated in the salary of those who signed the waivers. When the affiants
waived their rights, respondent rewarded them with a P32.00/day wage increase that continues to this
day. The respondent company granted this benefit to its employees to induce them to waive their
collective bargaining rights. This Court has declared this an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, it is illegal
to continue denying the petitioners the wage increase that was granted to employees who signed the
waivers. To rule otherwise will perpetuate the discrimination against petitioners. All the consequences
of the unfair labor practice must be addressed.

The grant of the P32.00/day wage increase is not an additional benefit outside the 2009 CBA. By
granting this increase to petitioners, this Court is eliminating the discrimination against them, which was
a result of respondent's unfair labor practice.