Kiok Loy v.

NLRC

GR. No. L- 54334 January

22, 1986

Cuevas, J.:

Facts:

In a certification election held on October 3, 1978, the Pambansang

Kilusan ng Paggawa (Union for short), a legitimate labor federation, won and
was subsequently certified in a resolution dated November 29, 1978 by the
Bureau of Labor Relations as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file employees of Sweden Ice Cream Plant (Company for short).

The Union furnished the Company with two copies of its proposed
collective bargaining agreement. At the same time, it requested the
Company for its counter proposals. Eliciting no response to the aforesaid
request, the Union again wrote the Company reiterating its request for
collective bargaining negotiations and for the Company to furnish them with
its counter proposals. Both requests were ignored and remained unacted
upon by the Company.

Left with no other alternative in its attempt to bring the Company to

the bargaining table, the Union, on February 14, 1979, filed a Notice of
Strike, with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of unresolved
economic issues in collective bargaining.

Conciliation proceedings then followed during the thirty-day statutory

cooling-off period. But all attempts towards an amicable settlement failed,
prompting the Bureau of Labor Relations to certify the case to the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration.

For failure of the Company Counsel to present Mr. Ching and for filing
several postponement the labor arbiter Andres Fidelino ruled that the
Company is guilty of unjustified refusal to bargain.

Issue:

Is the petition Sweden Ice Cream guilty of unfair labor practice of refusal to
bargain?

Law Involved:

Article 249 of the Labor Code

Case History:

The labor Arbiter ruled that the Company's guilty of unfair labor
practice of refusal to bargain.

NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter that the Company's
guilty of unjustified refusal to bargain.

Ruling:
 The petition lacks merit.

Consequently, its dismissal is in order.

While it is a mutual obligation of the parties to bargain, the employer,
however, is not under any legal duty to initiate contract negotiation.7 The
mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion only when the following
jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (1) possession of the status
of majority representation of the employees representative in accordance
with any of the means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor
Code; (2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain
under Article 251, par. (a) of the New Labor Code... all of which preconditions
are undisputedly present in the instant case.

Petitioner Company is GUILTY of unfair labor practice. It has been

indubitably established that (1) respondent Union was a duly certified
bargaining agent; (2) it made a definite request to bargain, accompanied
with a copy of the proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement, to the
Company not only once but twice which were left unanswered and unacted
upon; and (3) the Company made no counter proposal whatsoever all of
which conclusively indicate lack of a sincere desire to negotiate.8 A
Companys refusal to make counter proposal if considered in relation to the
entire bargaining process, may indicate bad faith and this is specially true
where the Unions request for a counter proposal is left unanswered.9 Even
during the period of compulsory arbitration before the NLRC, petitioner
Companys approach and attitudestalling the negotiation by a series of
postponements, non-appearance at the hearing conducted, and undue delay
in submitting its financial statements, lead to no other conclusion except that
it is unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with the Union. Petitioner
has not at any instance, evinced good faith or willingness to discuss freely
and fully the claims and demands set forth by the Union much less justify its
opposition.

Opinion:

The decision of the Court which state that the Company's guilty of
unfair labor practice of refusal to bargain is proper. The Company's action for
filing several postponement and failure to present Mr. Ching are proof of the
Company's refusal to bargain with the Union.
 General Milling Corporation v. Hon. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 146728

February 11, 2004

Quisimbing, J.:

Facts:

In its two plants located at Cebu City and Lapu-Lapu City, petitioner
General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed 190 workers. They were all
members of private respondent General Milling Corporation Independent
Labor Union (union, for brevity), a duly certified bargaining agent.

GMC and the union concluded a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

which included the issue of representation effective for a term of three
years. The CBA was effective for three years retroactive to December 1,
1988. Hence, it would expire on November 30, 1991.

On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, the union
sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a counter-proposal be
submitted within ten (10) days.

GMC wrote a letter to the unions officers, Rito Mangubat and Victor
Lastimoso. The letter stated that it felt there was no basis to negotiate with a
union which no longer existed, but that management was nonetheless
always willing to dialogue with them on matters of common concern and was
open to suggestions on how the company may improve its operations.

In answer, the union officers wrote a letter dated December 19, 1991
disclaiming any massive disaffiliation or resignation from the union and
submitted a manifesto, signed by its members, stating that they had not
withdrawn from the union.

GMC dismissed Marcia Tumbiga, a union member, on the ground of

incompetence. The union protested and requested GMC to submit the matter
to the grievance procedure provided in the CBA. GMC, however, advised the
union to refer to our letter dated December 16, 1991.[3]

Thus, the union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with the
NLRC, Arbitration Division, Cebu City. The complaint alleged unfair labor
practice on the part of GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2)
interference with the right to self-organization; and (3) discrimination.

Issue:
 Is the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding GMC guilty of unfair labor practice
for violating the duty to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right
of its employees to self-organization.

Law Involved:

Article 249 of the Labor Code

Case History:

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Corporation that a petition for
certification election to determine the support in the corporation.

NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the labor arbiter.

Ruling:

The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should

last for five years. The relation between labor and management should be
undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable
that when the union requested for a renegotiation of the economic terms of
the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective bargaining
agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation within five
(5) years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on December 1, 1988. The
unions proposal was also submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from
the date of effectivity of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said
period. It was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in
good faith with the union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the
union and to bargain anew on the economic terms of the CBA, the company
committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code,

Opinion:

The companys guilty of unfair labor practice when it refuse to send a

counter-in proposal to the union and bargain anew on the economic terms of
the CBA. The stalling of the corporation and making excused of the workers
disaffiliation in order to refuse counter-proposal to the union.
 Associated Labor Union v. Judge Amador E. Gomez et al.
G.R. No. L-25999
February 9, 1967

Sanchez, J.:

Facts:

Associated Labor Union1 and Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu,
Inc., entered into a collective bargaining contract. It was to expire on January
1, 1966. Prior to the contract's expiry, Union and employer started
negotiations for its renewal. Late in February, 1966, while bargaining was in
progress, 12 of Sugeco's employees resigned from the Union. Negotiations
were broken. On March 1, 1966, the Union wrote Sugeco. There, request was
made that unless the 12 resigned employees3 could produce a clearance
from the Union, they be not allowed in the meantime to report for work. On
the same day, Sugeco's attorney rejected the request. The reasons given are
that irreparable injury would ensue, that the bargaining contract had lapsed,
and that the Company could no longer demand from its employees the
requested clearance. Sugeco made it understood that after the 12 men
would have returned into the Union fold, said company would then be "in a
position to negotiate again for the renewal of the collective bargaining
contract."

Also on the same day, March 1, the Union wrote Sugeco, charged the
latter with bargaining in bad faith, and its supervisors with "campaigning for
the resignation of members of this Union". The Union there served notice
"that unless the aforementioned unfair labor practice acts will immediately
be stopped and a collective bargaining agreement be signed between your
company and this union immediately after receipt of this letter, this union
will declare a strike against your management and correspondingly establish
picket lines in any place where your business may be found". On March 3,
1966, counsel for Sugeco wrote the Union stating that with the resignation of
Union members aforesaid, the Union was no longer the representative of the
majority of the employees "for purposes of negotiation and recognition".

Sugeco went to the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Case No. R-9221,
entitled "Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu, Inc., petitioner, vs.
Associated Labor Union, respondent"), praying that the Union be restrained
from alleged illegal picketing activities at its Basak plant, and also from,
picketing Sugeco's offices at Juan Luna street, Cebu City, and its other offices
located elsewhere in the Philippines.

On the same day the Court of First Instance complaint was filed by
Sugeco against the Union the latter lodged with the Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR, for short) a charge for unfair labor practice against Sugeco, its
general manager, Concepelon Y. Lua, and its two supervisors, Nestor Yu and
Mariano Nulla. The Union there averred that said respondents coerced and
exerted pressure upon the union members to resign, as they did resign, from
the Union; and that such resignations were seized upon by Sugeco to refuse
further negotiations with the Union.

Issue:

Is the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of unfair labor practice?

Law Involved:

Industrial Peace Act Section 4(a) and (b)

Case History:

The judge issued ex parte a writ of preliminary injuction.

Ruling:

The broad sweep of the law suggests that the coercion or cajolery of
employees heretofore described, by management or union, is unfair labor
practice.8 Therefore, the alleged act of coercing or instigating union
members to resign therefrom is clearly within the coverage of the
prescription. It is aimed at crippling the Union, throwing it off balance,
destroying its bargaining authority. It is an attack against the Magna Carta of
Labor. By the same token, the charge levelled by Sugeco against the Union
that the latter "is coercing the resigned employees to rejoin the Union" is no
less an unfair labor practice.

A rule buttressed upon statute and reason that frequently reiterated in

jurisprudence is that labor cases involving unfair labor practice are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the ClR. By now, this rule has ripened into
dogma. It thus commands adherence not breach. This Court once pointedly
remarked that "the policy of social justice guaranteed by the Constitution
demands that when cases appear to involve labor disputes courts should
take care in the exercise of their prerogatives and discretion".
Opinion:

In labor cases involving unfair labor practice the Court of Industrial

Relations has the exclusive jurisdiction. I agree to the ruling of the court.

General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union v. Coca-Cola

Bottlers Phls., Inc. (General Santos City)

G.R. No.178647
February 13, 2009

Nachura,J.:

Facts:

In 1990, the Company experienced a significant decline in profitability

due to the Asian economic crisis. To curve the negative effect, it
implemented three (3) waves of an Early Retirement Program (ERP).
Meanwhile, there was a memorandum issued mandating to put on hold all
requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary
positions. Because several availed of the ERP, vacancies were created. This
prompted the Union to negotiate with the Labor Management Committee
(LMC) for filing up of the vacancies. No resolution was reached on the
matter. Faced with the freeze hiring, the company engaged the services of
JLBP Services Corporation that provides manpower services.
 Union filed in 2002 with the Natl Conciliation and Mediation Board
(MCMB) a Notice of Strike on the ground of ULP for contracting-out services
regularly performed by union members. Parties failed to file an amicable
settlement. The Company filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with
DOLE. On 2003, the NLRC ruled that the Company is not guilty of ULP. On
appeal, CA affirmed the decision and found that contract out jobs was a valid
exercise of management prerogative to meet exigent circumstances.
Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Is contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted to ULP.

Law Involved:

Article 249 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

Case History:

NLRC ruled that JLBP is not guilty of unfair labor practice.

Ruling: Petition is denied.

Unfair Labor Practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to
organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers right to self-
organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the
acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practice.

Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was unable to prove its
charge of unfair labor practices. It was the Union that had the burden of
adducing substantial evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor
practice, which burden it failed to discharge.

Opinion:

Substantial evidence to support allegation of unfair labor practice,

failure to proved such allegations the court can dismissed the case for lack of
merit.

De La Salle University v. De La Salle University Employees

Association (DLSUEA-NAFTEU)

G.R. NO. 169254

August 23, 2012

Leonardo-De Castro, J.:

Facts :

This petition involves one of the three notices of strike filed by

respondent De La Salle University Employees Association (DLSUEANAFTEU)
against petitioner De La Salle University due to its refusal to bargain
collectively with it in light of the intra-union dispute between respondents
two opposing factions. The following narration and the circumstances
surrounding the said intra-union conflict between the rival factions of
respondent union and, thereafter, recite the cases relating to the
aforementioned conflict, from the complaint for unfair labor practice to the
subsequent notices of strike, and to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
Secretary of Labor.

In 2001, a splinter group of respondent filed a petition for conduct of

elections with the DOLE alleging that the then incumbent officers of
respondent had failed to call for a regular election since 1985. Respondents
officers claimed that by virtue of RA 6715, which amended the Labor Code,
the term of office of its officers was extended to five years or until 1992
during which a general assembly was held affirming their hold-over tenure
until the termination of collective bargaining negotiations.

Acting on the petitioner, the DOLE-NCR held that the holdover

authority of respondents incumbent set of officers had been extinguished by
virtue of the execution of the CBA and ordered the conduct of elections
subject to pre-election conferences.

Respondent wrote a letter to DLSU President to put on escrow all union

dues/agency fees and whatever money considerations deducted from
salaries of concerned co-academic personnel until the election of union
officials has been scheduled and been held. Petitioner in response, to do
the following: (1) establish a savings account for the Union where all
collected union dues and agency will be deposited and held in trust; and (2)
discontinue normal relations with any group within the Union including the
incumbent set of officers.

Respondents filed a complaint against petitioner for Unfair Labor

Practice (ULP) claiming that petitioner unduly interfered with its internal
affairs. During the pendency of this complaint, respondent file a notice of
strike. LA dismissed the respondent ULP complaint. On appeal, NLRC
affirmed the decision of LA. On respondents petition for certiorari before
the CA, the Court set aside the decision of NLRC. Hence, petitioners
petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Is NLRC gravely abuse its discretion when it held that petitioner were
not guilty of ULP and stating that respondent is devoid of leadership in the
Appropriate Bargaining Unit?

Law Involved:

Article 249 of the Labor Code Section (a) and (g)

Case History:

Labor Arbiter Pati dismissed the complaint for unfair labor

practice against the petitioner for the lack of merit.

Second division of NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor

arbiter.
 The Secretary of Labor found petitioner guilty of unfair labor
practice.

BLR Director Cacdac clarified that there is no void of

respondents leadership.

Ruling:

It is thus very clear.This official determination by the BLR Director

[Cacdac] removes whatever cloud of doubt on the authority of the incumbent
to negotiate for and in behalf of [respondent] as the bargaining agent of all
the covered employees. [Petitioner] is duty bound to negotiate collectively
pursuant to Art. 252 of the Labor Code, as amended.

Citing the case of the Divine Word University of Tacloban v. Secretary of

Labor, petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice in refusing to abide by its
duty to bargain collectively. The refusal of petitioner to bargain is tainted
with bad faith amounting to unfair labor practice. There is no other way to
resolve the issue given the facts of the case and the law on the matter.

Opinion:

The BLR Director Cacdac has already rendered decision that the
respondents leadership is not void. The petitioner should have collectively
bargain to the respondent rather than insisting that the union is void of
leadership. The decision of the court is proper.
 UST Faculty Union v. University of Sto. Tomas

G.R. No. 180892

April 7, 2009.

Velasco, Jr., J,:

Facts :

The UST Faculty Union (USTFU) informed its members of a General

Assembly. One of its agenda is the election of officers. The Secretary
General of UST issued a Memorandum allowing the request of Faculty Clubs
to hold a convocation which the members of the faculty including members
of USTFU attended without the participation of UST administration. Also, an
election of USTFU was conducted by a group called Reformist Alliance.
Learning that the convocation was intended for election, some members
walked out but the election was conducted among those present (Gamilla
Group). Thus, two (2) groups claim to be USTFU namely; (1) Marino Group;
and (2) Gamilla Group.

Marino group filed a compliant for ULP against UST with the Arbitration
Branch. It also filed a complaint before Med-Arbiter praying for the
nullification of the election of the Gamilla Group.

A CBA was entered between Gamilla Group and UST superseding the
existing CBA of UST and USTFU. The Med-Arbiter declared the election of
Gamilla Group as null and void. On appeal, the BLR affirmed the decision of
Med-Arbiter. On appeal before this Court, the Court upheld the ruling of BLR.
With the decision of this Court, the case before the Arbitration Branch of
NLRC was dismissed for lack of merit. USTFU appeal to the NLRC, the NLRC
affirmed the decision of LA. When the case is elevated to CA, the Court
affirmed the decision of NLRC. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether CA committed serious and reversible error when it dismissed

the Petition despite abundance of evidence showing that Unfair Labor
Practices were indeed committed.

Law Involved:

Article 247 and Article 248 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

Case History:

Labor Arbiter explained that alleged Memorandum merely granted the

request of the faculty member to hold such convocation and that the CBA of
the Gamilla Group presented more sufficient evidence that they had been
duly elected as officer of USTFU.

Ruling:
 The general principle is that one who makes an allegation has the
burden of proving it. While, there are exceptions to this general rule, in the
case of ULP, the alleging party has the burden of proving such ULP.

Thus, we ruled in De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor v. NLRC that a

party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial
evidence. Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as
it will offend due processs.

In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor
Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial
evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Opinion:

The court decision is proper. The allegation of ULP should be proved by

substantial evidence by the one who makes an allegation. Failure to present
evidence on the person who makes the allegation, the case must be
dismissed for lack of merit.
VISAYAN STEVEDORE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (VISTRANCO) and
RAFAEL XAUDARO, v. CIR, UNITED WORKERS' & FARMERS' ASSN.
(UWFA) VENANCIO DANOOG,BUENAVENTURA AGARCIO and 137
others,

G.R. No. L-21696

February 25, 1967

CONCEPCION, C.J.

Facts:

VISTRANCO is engaged in the loading and unloading of vessels with a

branch office in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, under the management of
Rafael Xaudaro. Its workers are supplied by the United Workers and Farmers
Association (UWFA) whose men (affiliated to various labor unions) have
regulary worked as laborers of the Company during every milling season
since immediately after World War II up to the milling season immediately
preceding November 11, 1955, when the Company refused to engage the
services of Venancio Danoog, Buenaventura, Agarcio and 137 other persons.

At the behest of the UWFA and the Complainants, a complaint for

unfair labor practice was, accordingly, filed against the Companyand
Xaudaro with the CIR which ruled that the company is guilty of unfair labor
practice hence ordered the company to ceases and desist from such
unfair labor practice and to reinstate the complainants with back wages.
The said order was affirmed by CIR en banc.

Hence this petition for review by certiorari.

Issue:

Is VISTRANCO is guilty of unfair labor practice.

Law Involved:

Unfair Labor Practice non membership or withdrawal from the Union

Case History:

CIR ruled in favor of the UNION

Ruling: Yes.

The said charge is substantially borne out by the evidence of

record, it appearing that the workers not admitted to work
beginning from November, 1955, were precisely those belonging to
the UWFA and the Mr. Xaudaro, the Company Branch Manager, had
told them point-blank that severance of their connection with the UWFA was
the remedy, if they wanted to continue working with the Company.

The order and resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed.

Opinion:

The court is correct that the employer is quilty of unfair labor practice
from non membership or withdrawal from the union. It is the right of the
employee to join union or association as stated in the Philippines.

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JORGE L. ARANETA,

JUDY A.ROXAS, MANUEL B. JOVER , RAMON LLORENTE
and PROGRESSIVEEMPLOYEES UNION, v. CIR and ARANETA
COLISEUM EMPLOYEES ASSN.,

G.R. No. L-39546

November 29, 1977;

FERNANDEZ, J.:

Facts:

Araneta Coliseum Employees Association (ACEA) a legitimate labor

organization in behalf of forty-eight (48) members, instituted a case for
unfair labor practice in the CIR againstProgressive Development Corporation
(PDC), operating the Araneta Coliseum, Jorge Araneta,Judy A. Roxas, Manuel
B. Jover and Ramon Llorente, as officers of the corporation PDC and
Progressive Employees Union (PEU), a labor organization existing in the PDC.

The complaint alleged that the PDC, through its officers, initiated a move to
disauthorize the counsel of the complainant ACEA from appearing in a union
conference with the company; that the supervisors of PDC encouraged, and
assisted in, the formation of the Progressive Employees Union (PEU) and
coerced the employees, particularly the individual complainants, to
disaffiliate from the complainant union and to affiliate with the PEU; that
in July and August 1962 the respondents,petitioners herein, discriminated
against the individual complainants by either not giving them their working
schedules, lessening their number of working days and eventually dismissing
themfrom their employment, because of their refusal to disaffiliate from their
union and join the Progressive Employees Union.The CIR ruled that the
company is guilty of unfair labor practice hence ordered thecompany to
ceases and desist from such unfair labor practice and to reinstate the
complainants with backwages.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners are guilty of unfair labor practice.

Law Involved:

Unfair Labor Practice of Article 260

Case History:
The Court affirmed the ruling of the CIR

Held: Yes.

From the facts of record, it is clear that the individual complainants were
dismissed because they refused to resign from the Araneta Coliseum
Employees Association and to affiliate with the Progressive Employees Union
which was being aided and abetted by the Progressive Development
Corporation. There is reason to believe that had the individual complainants
agreed to resign from the ACEA and to transfer to the PEU, they would not
have been separated from their work and would even have been made
permanent employees. Progressive Employees Union was organized to
camouflage the petitioner corporation's dislike for the Araneta Coliseum
Employees Association and to stave off the latter's recognition.The
petitioners were correctly found to have committed acts constituting unfair
labor practice.

Opinion:

Company Domination is one of the unfair labor practice made by the

employer in order to coerce, or influence employees to transfer from one
union to another affiliated with the Progressive Development Corporation.
The court is correct in ruling against the company and in favor tothe
employees and the union.
ZAMBOANGA WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., v. THE NLRC, NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF LABOR, DIONISIO ESTIOCA and THE STRIKERS,

G.R. No. L-82088

October 13, 1989

GRINO-AQUINO, J.:

Facts:

Dionisio Estioca, supervisor of the company and president of the union, NFL
posted an announcement on the bulletin board of the
employees' coffee shop criticizing the Company for having earmarked the
sum of P250,000 for the inter-department athletic tournament (which
hecalled "a farce and baloony") to be held that year, instead of using the
money to pay the employees' claims for living allowance. He urged the
employees to boycott the sports event.Subsequently he was
terminated by the company for loss of trust and confidence
in him.Thereafter, the union after filing a notice of strike with the Regional
Director of the MOLE in Zamboanga City stuck. Meanwhile the company
asked the MOLE for arbitration. Estioca filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with the NLRC. The Minister of Labor certified the labor dispute to the NLRC
for compulsory arbitration.

In obedience to the Secretary's order, the strikers tried to return to work on

August 19, 1982, but were rebuffed by the Company. Backtracking from its
earlier request for compulsory arbitration, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Minister's order on the pretext that there was nothing
more to arbitrate because the strikers had been dismissed. When its MR was
denied, the Company brought the matter up to SC which ruled that the
company must respect the right of the eighty-one petitioners to resume their
respective positions as of the time the strike was called. Pursuant thereto the
NLRC on September 27, 1988,ordered the Company to readmit the striking
employees including those who had been dismissed.The Company alleged
that the positions of the dismissed strikers had been filled up.In the
meantime, Estioca's complaint for illegal dismissal had also reached the
SC.The SC consolidated the cases and it required the NLRC to hold a formal
hearing to determine the legality of the strike and the dismissal of Estioca
and other incidental questions. Complying with that directive, the NLRC held
hearings where evidence were presented by both sides. Later,NLRC
reiterated its earlier decision.

Issue:

Is the company is guilty of unfair labor practice.

Law Involved:

Article 264 paragraph (6) and Article 248 (4)

Case History:

Labor Arbiter and NLRC affirmed the reinstatement of the Estioca as

personnel supervisor.

Held: Yes.

Celso Abastillas and Lilio Navarro, Comptroller and Production Manager,

respectively called the employees on separate occasions sometime in April
1982 and asked them to withdraw their membership from the union. The
company also dismissed Dionisio Estioca,which is too harsh in view of
Estioca's subsequent apology for his action in posting a bellicose
announcement critical of the Company and based on false or erroneous
information.Union busting, or interference with the formation of a union,
constitutes an unfair labor practice (Art 248, subpar. 4, Labor Code), hence a
valid ground for the declaration of a strike.

Opinion:

Asking employees by the manager of the company to withdraw from the

union is a unfair labor practice by which a valid declaration of a strike. The
court is correct is ruling on this case with the basis of the act of the
production manager.
 ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES v. CIR

109 PHIL 900

October 31, 1960

Paras, J.:

Facts:

Royal Inter-ocean Lines is a foreign corporation licensed to do business

in the Philippines with head office in Hong Kong. Its branch office in Manila
employed Ermidia Mariano who had worked since January 5,1932, until her
discharge on October 23, 1953.

Mariano and the manager of the Manila Branch (Kamerling) developed

strained relationship that led the former to lodge with the managing director
in Hong Kong a complaint against Kamerling. The latter, with the approval of
the head office in Hong Kong, dismissed Mariano. She charged Royal
Interocean and Kamerling with ULP in the CIR which decided in her favor and
ordered her reinstatement, with back pay.

Royal Interocean filed this appeal.

Issue:

Is Royal Interocean was guilty of ULP in having dismissed Mariano because

the latter had filed charges against Kamerling not connected with or
necessarily arising from union activities

Law Involved:
Republic Act No. 875 Section 4 (a)

Case History:

The petitioner and Kamerling is guilty of unfair labor practice and order
respondent reinstatement.

Ruling:

No. Ratio Despite the employees' right to self-organization, the employer still
retains his inherent right to discipline his employees, his normal prerogative
to hire or dismiss them. The prohibition is directed only against the use of
the right to employ or discharge as an instrument of discrimination,
interference or oppression because of one's labor or union activities.

Reasoning The pertinent legal provision is section 4 (a), subsection 5, of RA

875 which reads: "SEC. 4 Unfair Labor Practice, (a) It shall be Disini unfair
labor practice for an employer: . . . (5) To dismiss, discharge, or otherwise
prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having filed charges or for
having given or being about to give testimony under this Act."

The CIR construed this as including all cases where an employee is

dismissed, discharged or otherwise prejudiced or discriminated against by
reason of the filing, by the latter with the court or elsewhere of any charge
against his employer.

From a literal and grammatical point of view, the provision has to be

interpreted in the sense that the charges, the filing of which is the cause of
the dismissal of the employee, must be related to his right to self-
organization, in order to give rise to ULP on the part of the employer. Under
subsection 5 of section 4 (a), the employee's (1) having filed charges or (2)
having given testimony or (3) being about to give testimony, are modified by
"under this Act" appearing after the last item. In other words, the three acts
must have reference to the employees' right to self organization and
collective bargaining, because the element of ULP is interference in such
right. It would be redundant to repeat "under this Act" after each
enumeration connected by the disjunctive conjunction "or".

In this case, Mariano's dismissal has no relation to union activities and the
charges filed by her against the petitioner had nothing to do with or did not
arise from her union activities. .

Opinion:

The court is correct in reversing the decision of the CIR considering

that the dismissal has no relation to union activities and the charges filed by
her against the petitioner had nothing to do with or did not arise from her
union activities. The employer has the prerogative of disciplining the
employee.
WISE AND CO. INC. vs. WISE AND CO. INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU
AND HONORABLE BIENVENIDO G. LAGUESMA, in his capacity as
voluntary Arbitrator

G.R. No. L-87672

October 13, 1989

GANCAYCO, J.:

Facts:

The management issued a Memorandum Circular introducing a profit-sharing

scheme for its managers and supervisors. Respondent Union wrote to
petitioner to ask that the union members be allowed to participate in the
profit-sharing program. The management denied the request on the ground
that such participation was not provided in the CBA

When renegotiation of the CBA was approaching, the management wrote to

the Union that it was willing to consider including the union members in the
profits haring scheme provided that the negotiations would be concluded
prior to December 1987. Sometime later, the company distributed the
profit-sharing benefit not only to the managers and supervisors but also to
all rank-and-file employees not covered by the CBA because they were
excluded from the definition of bargaining unit. This caused the respondent
Union to file a notice of strike alleging that petitioner was guilty of unfair
labor practice because the union were discriminated against in the grant of
the profit sharing benefits

Issue: Is the grant by management of profit sharing benefits to its

non-union member employees is discriminatory against its workers who are
union members and amounts to ULP?

Law Involved:

Collective Bargaining Agreement

Case History:

Voluntary Arbitrator award is set aside and reversed

Ruling: NO. Petition Granted

There can be no discrimination committed by petitioner as the situation of

the union employees are different and distinct from the non-union
employees. Discrimination per se is not unlawful. There can be no
discrimination where the employees concerned are not similarly situated.

The grant by petitioner of profit sharing benefits to employees outside

the "bargaining unit" falls under the ambit of its managerial prerogative.
It appears to habeen done in good faith and without ulterior motive. Moso
when as in this case there is a clause in the CBA whethe employees are
classified into those who are membeof the union and those who are not. In
the case of tunion members, they derive their benefits from the termand
conditions of the CBA contract which constitute tlaw between the
contracting parties.

Both the employand the union members are bound by such agreement.

Opinion:

The court is correct in its ruling that profit sharing benefits to

employees outside the bargaining unit falls under the ambit of managerial
prerogative. The respondent union has no authority to asked for participation
in the profit sharing scheme of the managers and supervisor. The respondent
union is only for the representation of the rank and file employees.
 ROMEO DABUET, GAMIK BARTOLOME, SALVADOR ABESAMIS and
MARIANO MALONZO, and ROCHE PRODUCTS LABOR UNION, v.
ROCHE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ERIC MENTHA, REYNALDO
FORMELOZA, and the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

G.R. No. L-45402

April 30, 1987

PADILLA, J.:

Facts:

The petitioners, all officers of the Roche Products Labor Union, wrote the
respondent company expressing their grievances and seeking formal
conference with management regarding the previous dismissal of the unions
president and vice-president. At the meeting, instead of discussing the
problems affecting the labor union and management, the companys
general manager allegedly berated the petitioners for writing the said
letter and called the letter and the person who prepared it stupid.

Feeling that he was the one alluded to, since he had prepared the letter, the
counsel for the labor union filed a case for Grave Slander against the
general manager. The charge was based on the affidavit executed by the
petitioners.In turn, the company and the manager filed a complaint for
Perjury against petitioners alleging that their affidavit contained false
statements.The company construed the execution by petitioners of the
affidavit as an act of breach of trust and confidence. Hence, they were
suspended and later on dismissed.

Issue: Was respondent company, in terminating the employment of the

petitioners without just and lawful cause, committed an unfair labor
practice.

Law Involved:

Section 4 (a) (1) Industrial Peace Act

Case History:

Compulsory Arbitrator found that petitioners dissmissal is without

justification.

NLRC ordered reinstatement of the petitioner while the Secretary of labor set
aside the NLRC decision and ordered payment of severance pay.

Office of the President ruled that respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice.

Ruling:

YES. Petition Granted

Respondent company had committed unfair labor practice in dismissing

the petitioners without just and valid cause. Their dismissal, under the
circumstances, amounted to interference with, and restraint or coercion of,
the petitioners in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities
for their mutual aid and protection Breach of trust and confidence, the
grounds alleged for petitioners' dismissal, "must not be indiscriminately used
as a shield to dismiss an employee arbitrarily.

Opinion:

The court is correct in ruling that respondent committed unfair labor

practice in dismissing the petitioner without just and valid cause. The act of
the respondent company constitute interference with, restraint or coercion
of, the petitioners in the exercise of ther right to engaged in concerted
activities.
 JUDRIC CANNING CORPORATION, v.THE HONORABLE AMADO G.
INCIONG, in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Labor, THE
HONORABLE FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Director of
Region IV, Ministry of Labor, UNITED LUMBER & GENERAL WORKERS
OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULGWP), NORMA PINEDA, LEONILA MORALES,
TERESITA BALMACEDA, VICKY PENALOSA, ADELINA VALENZUELA and
JUANITA REPOSAR
G.R. No. L-51494
August 19, 1982

CONCEPCION JR., J.:1wph1.

Facts:

Private respondents Norma Pineda, Vicky Penalosa, Leonila Morales,

Teresita Balmaceda, Adelina Valenzuela, and Juanita Reposar are employees
of the petitioner corporation and are members of the United Lumber and
General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP). On August 19, 1978, the said
complainants were allegedly not allowed to report for work due to their union
activities in soliciting membership in a union yet to be organized in the
company and their time cards were removed from the rack. As a result, the
said complainants and their labor union filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice against the petitioner with Region IV of the Ministry of Labor,
seeking the reinstatement of the complainants with full backwages.

Petitioner denied having locked out the complainants and claims that
the said complainants failed to report for work and abandoned their
positions. The petitioner also denied having knowledge of the union activities
of the complainants until August 30, 1978, when it was served notice of a
petition for direct certification filed by the complainant union.

Issue:

Is the petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice

Law Involved:

Article 248 (a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines

Case History:

Regional Director IV of the Ministry of Labor ordered reinstatement of the

private respondent and petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice.

Deputy Minister affirmed the Regional Director decision and ruling.

Ruling:

Under Art. 248 (a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in their exercise of their right to self
organization is an unfair labor practice on the part of the employer.
Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an
employers to initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere the formation
or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial
or other support to it. In this particular case, the private respondents were
dismissed, or their services were terminated, because they were soliciting
signatures in order to form a union within the plant.

Opinion:
 I agreed with the court decision that petitioner is guilty of unfair labor
practice in interfering administration of any labor organization. The petitioner
does not want the private respondent to form union in the company. Such act
is clearly a violation of the right to form union which is an unfair labor
practice.
CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, CORNELIO L. PANGILINAN,
LEO TROPACIO, OLIMPIO GUMIN, JUANITO SUBA, ROLANDO SANTOS,
RUBEN BUELA, ODILON LISING, REYNALDO DAYRIT, ROGELIO
MANGUERRA, ORLANDO NACU, DIOSILINO PERDON, ERNESTO
GALANG, ORLANDO PANGILINAN, JESUS SEMBRANO, RENATO
CASTANEDA, EDILBERTO BINGCANG, ERNESTO CAPIO, RUFO A.
BUGAYONG, RICARDO S. DOMINGO, TERESITO CULLARIN, ISRAEL
VINO, ERNESTO RAMIREZ, ROMEO S. GINA, ARNEL CALILUNG, PEDRO
A. SANTOS, RODOLFO CAPITLY, BUENAVENTURA B. PUNO, EDILBERTO
QUIAMBAO, FERNANDO LISING, ERNESTO M. TUAZON, MARCELO
LANGUNSAD, MARCELINO VALERIO, SERAFIN PAWA, JESUS S.
DAQUIGAN, and ISMAEL CAYANAN, v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC), and e.g. GOCHANGCO, INC.,

G.R. No. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162

May 30, 1988

SARMIENTO, J.:

Facts:

The majority of the rank and file employees of respondent firm

organized the e.g. Gochangco Workers Union as an affiliate of the CLLC. On
January 23, 1980, the union filed a petition for certification election under
R03-LRD (MA) Case No. 178-80.

The CLLC national president wrote the general manager of respondent

firm informing him of the organization of the union and requesting for a labor
management conference to normalize employer-employee relations.

The, union sent a written notice to respondent firm requesting

permission for certain member officers and members of the union to attend
the hearing of the petition for certification election. The management
refused to acknowledge receipt of said notice.

Private respondent preventively suspended the union officers and

members who attended the hearing namely: Cornelio Pangilinan, president;
Leo Tropics, vice- president; Olimpio Gumin, treasurer; Buenaventura Puno,
director; Reynaldo Dayrit, sgt-at-arms; Ernesto Ramirez; Ernesto Galang;
Odilon Lising; Jesus Daquigan; and Edilberto Quiambao. The common ground
alleged by private respondent for its action was "abandonment of work on
February 27, 1980." On the same date, all the gate passes of all the above-
mentioned employees to Clark Air Base were confiscated by a Base guard.

Petitioner filed for unfair labor practice of the private respondent.

Issue:

Is private respondent guilty of unfair labor practice

Law Involved:

Unfair Labor Practice of the Employer

Case History:

Labor arbiter decision for the reinstatement of the petitioner.

NLRC set aside and reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Ruling:

We are convinced that the respondent company is indeed guilty of an

unfair labor practice. It is no coincidence that at the time said respondent
issued its suspension and termination orders, the petitioners were in the
midst of a certification election preliminary to a labor management
conference, purportedly, "to normalize employer-employee relations." It was
within the legal right of the petitioners to do so, the exercise of which was
their sole prerogative, and in which management may not as a rule
interfere. In this connection, the respondent company deserves our
strongest condemnation for ignoring the petitioners' request for permission
for some time out to attend to the hearing of their petition before the med-
arbiter. It is not only an act of arrogance, but a brazen interference as well
with the employees right to self-organization, contrary to the prohibition of
the Labor Code against unfair labor practices.

Opinion:

The court is correct in deciding that private respondent is guilty of

unfair labor practice in dismissing the petitioner in creating a labor union in
the company premise.
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-
NATU, FGU INSURANCE GROUP WORKERS and EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION-NATU, and INSULAR LIFE BUILDING EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION-NATU, , v.THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., FGU
INSURANCE GROUP, JOSE M. OLBES and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS,

G.R. No. L-25291

January 30, 1971

CASTRO, J.:

Facts:

The Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies for a modified

renewal of their respective collective bargaining contracts which were then
due to expire on September 30, 1957. The parties mutually agreed and to
make whatever benefits could be agreed upon retroactively effective.

Thereafter, in the months of September and October 1957 negotiations were

conducted on the Union's proposals, but these were snagged by a deadlock
on the issue of union shop, as a result of which the Unions filed on January
27, 1958 a notice of strike for "deadlock on collective bargaining." Several
conciliation conferences were held under the auspices of the Department of
Labor wherein the conciliators urged the Companies to make reply to the
Unions' proposals en toto so that the said Unions might consider the
feasibility of dropping their demand for union security in exchange for other
benefits. However, the Companies did not make any counter-proposals but,
instead, insisted that the Unions first drop their demand for union security,
promising money benefits if this was done. Thereupon, and prior to April 15,
1958, the petitioner Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU
dropped this particular demand, and requested the Companies to answer its
demands, point by point, en toto. But the respondent Insular Life Assurance
Co. still refused to make any counter-proposals. In a letter addressed to the
two other Unions by the joint management of the Companies, the former
were also asked to drop their union security demand, otherwise the
Companies "would no longer consider themselves bound by the commitment
to make money benefits retroactive to October 1, 1957." By a letter dated
April 17, 1958, the remaining two petitioner unions likewise dropped their
demand for union shop. April 25, 1958 then was set by the parties to meet
and discuss the remaining demands.

From April 25 to May 6, 1958, the parties negotiated on the labor demands
but with no satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of salary
increases. On May 13, 1958 the Unions demanded from the Companies final
counter-proposals on their economic demands, particularly on salary
increases. Instead of giving counter-proposals, the Companies on May 15,
1958 presented facts and figures and requested the Unions to submit a
workable formula which would justify their own proposals, taking into
account the financial position of the former. Forthwith the Unions voted to
declare a strike in protest against what they considered the Companies'
unfair labor practices.

The respondents contend that the sending of the letters, exhibits A and B,
constituted a legitimate exercise of their freedom of speech.

Issue:

Is the respondent guilty of unfair labor practice.

Law Involved:

Is sending letter directed to striking employees not a ground of unfair

labor practice.

Case History:

CIR held petitioner strike as economic strike.

Ruling:

We do not agree. The said letters were directed to the striking employees
individually by registered special delivery mail at that without being
coursed through the Unions which were representing the employees in the
collective bargaining.

"The act of an employer in notifying absent employees individually during a

strike following unproductive efforts at collective bargaining that the plant
would be operated the next day and that their jobs were open for them
should they want to come in has been held to be an unfair labor practice, as
an active interference with the right of collective bargaining through dealing
with the employees individually instead of through their collective
bargaining representatives."

Indeed, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer operating under a

collective bargaining agreement to negotiate or to attempt to negotiate with
his employees individually in connection with changes in the agreement. And
the basis of the prohibition regarding individual bargaining with the strikers is
that although the union is on strike, the employer is still under obligation to
bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative.

Indeed, some such similar actions are illegal as constituting unwarranted

acts of interference. Thus, the act of a company president in writing letters to
the strikers, urging their return to work on terms inconsistent with their union
membership, was adjudged as constituting interference with the exercise of
his employees' right to collective .

Moreover, since exhibit A is a letter containing promises of benefits to the

employees in order to entice them to return to work, it is not protected by
the free speech provisions of the Constitution. The letters, exhibits A and B,
should not be considered by themselves alone but should be read in the light
of the preceding and subsequent circumstances surrounding them. The
letters should be interpreted according to the " totality of conduct doctrine,"
whereby the culpability of an employer's remarks were to be evaluated not
only on the basis of their implicit implications, but were to be appraised
against thebackground of and in conjunction with collateral circumstances.

Under this 'doctrine' expressions of opinion by an employer which, though

innocent in themselves, frequently were held to be culpable because of the
circumstances under which they were uttered, the history of the particular
employer's labor relations or anti-union bias or because of their connection
with an established collateral plan of coercion or interference."

Opinion:

Petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice in interfering with the labor

organization to strike and picket due to deadlock agreement of the parties.
The sending of letter to employees is an unfair labor practice act whe such
act interferes with the labor organizaton.

COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CEEA)

represented by its union president CECILIA TALAVERA, GEORGE
ARSOLA, MARIO DIAGO AND SOCORRO BONCAYAO, v. THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, COMPLEX
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, IONICS CIRCUIT, INC., LAWRENCE
QUA, REMEDIOS DE JESUS, MANUEL GONZAGA, ROMY DELA
ROSA, TERESITA ANDINO, ARMAN CABACUNGAN,GERRY
GABANA, EUSEBIA MARANAN and BERNADETH GACAD.

COMPLEX ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, v. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION, COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION (CEEA), represented by Union President, CECILIA
TALAVERA,
G.R. No. 121315. July
19, 1999

KAPUNAN, J.:

Facts:

Complex Electronics Corporation was a subcontractor of electronic

products. Its customers were foreign-based companies with different
product lines. One of its customers is the Lite-On Philippines Electronics Co.
Complex received a message from Lite-On Philippines requiring it to
lower its price by 10%. Complex informed Lite-On that such request was
not feasible as they were already incurring losses at the present prices of
their products. Complex informed the employees that it was left with no
alternative but to close down the operations of the Lite-On Line. The
company promised that it would follow the law by giving 1 month notice
and retrenchment pay.

Sometime later, the machinery, equipment and materials being

used for production at Complex were pulled-out from the company premises
and transferred to the premises of Ionics Circuit, Inc. in Laguna. The
following day, Complex totally closed its operation. The Complex Employees
Union filed a complaint for ULP, illegal closure/illegal lockout and money
claims. It claims that business has not ceased at Complex but was
merely transferred to Ionics, a runaway shop, which is an act
constituting ULP. To prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop, petitioner
prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop, petitioner asserts that Complex
owns the majority of the shares comprising the increased capital stock of
Ionics. The Union alleged that the reason for the closure of the
establishment was due to the union activities of the employees.

Issue: Whether Complex Electronics Corp. committed ULP

Law Involved:

Unfair labor practice

Case History:

Labor Arbiter ordered reinstatement of the petitioner.

NLRC set aside and vacated the decision of the Labor Arbiter

Ruling: NO

Resorting to a runaway shop is ULP. A runaway shop is defined as an

industrial plant moved by its owners from one location to another to escape
union labor regulations or state laws, but the term is also used to describe a
plant removed to a new location in order to discriminate against employees
at the old plant because of their union activities. It is one wherein the
employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its
business for anti-union purposes.
In this case, Ionics was not set up for the purpose of transferring the
business of Complex. At the time the labor dispute arose, Ionics was
already existing as an independent company. It cannot, therefore, be said
that the temporary closure in Complex and its subsequent transfer of
business to Ionics was for anti-union purposes.

We, likewise, disagree with the Union that there was in this case an illegal
lockout/illegal dismissal. Lockout is the temporary refusal of employer to
furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. It may be
manifested by the employer's act of excluding employees who are union
members.

Opinion:

The court is correct that run away shop is unfair labor practice.
However, the act of the petitioner in this case did not constitute unfair labor
practice. There was a valid exercise of runaway because it was not for the
purpose of transfering business.

TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION, v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION, LAMBERTO SANTOS, PEDRO ESTERAL, ROMAN CHICO,
JOSELITO ESTANISLAO, JOSE DELGADO, JUANITO ARGUELLES,
RICARDO CAJOLES, and JOSEFINO PAGUYO,
G.R. No. 75037
April 30, 1987

GUTIERREZ, JR.:

Facts:

Tanduay Distillery, Inc. (TDI) and Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU)
entered into a CBA which contained a union security clause, which
provided:All workers who are or may during the effectivity of this Contract,
become members of the Union in accordance with its Constitution and By-
Laws shall, as a condition of their continued employment, maintain
membership in good standing in the Union for the duration of the
agreement.

While the CBA was still in effect, a number of the TDLU, joined another
union, the Kaisahan Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and organized
its local chapter in TDI.

The TDLU required those who disaffiliated to explain why they should
not be punished for disloyalty. TDLU created a committee to investigate
its erring members. The committee recommended that the disaffiliating
members be expelled and that they should be terminated from service in
pursuant to the union security clause. Acting on said request, the
company terminated the employment of the disaffiliating union members.

Issue: Whether the dismissal of the disaffiliating members pursuant to a

security clause constitutes ULP

Law Involved:

Union Security Clause in the CBA

Case History:

Labor Arbiter denied the termination of the employees in the TDI and
ordered reinstatement.

NLRC upheld the decision of the labor arbiter.

Ruling: NO

The private respondents cannot escape the effects of the security clause of
their own applicable CBA. Union Security Clauses in CBA, if freely and
voluntarily entered into, are valid and binding. Thus, the dismissal of an
employee by the company pursuant to a labor unions demand in
accordance with a union security agreement does not constitute ULP.

The respondent employer did nothing but to put in force their agreement
when it separated the herein complainants upon the recommendation
of said union. Such a stipulation is not only necessary to maintain loyalty
and preserve the integrity of the union but is allowed by the Magna Charta of
Labor when it provided that while it is recognized that an employee shall
have the right to selforganization, it is at the same time postulated that such
right shall not injure the right of the labor organization to prescribe its own
rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.

In Villar v. Inciong, we held that "petitioners, although entitled to

disaffiliation from their union and to form a new organization of their own
must however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the union
under the security clause of the CBA"

Opinion:

The court is correct in ruling that union security clause is a valid

justification for dismissal of the petitioners. The parties are bind in the
stipulation or provision of the CBA. The CBA is valid ground for the penalty of
dismissal of the employee
 CONFEDERATED SONS OF LABOR, v. ANAKAN LUMBER COMPANY, UNITED WORKERS'
UNION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,

G.R. No. L-12503 April 29, 1960

CONCEPCION, J.:

Facts:

This is an unfair labor practice case instituted at the instance of the

Confederated Sons of Labor against the Anakan Lumber Company and the
United Workers' Union The amended complaint filed with the Court of
Relations charged said respondents with unfair labor practices committed by
Anakan Lumber Company through dominating, assisting and interferring
with the administration of the respondent United Workers' Union and by
contributing financial and other support to it and in discriminating in
regards to hire or tenure of employment for the purpose of encouraging
membership in the respondent United Workers' Union and/or
discouraging membership in the complainant Confederated Sons of Labor or
because of union membership or activity by dismissing and in fact did
dismiss without cause all its workers affiliated with the complainant
union and replaced by new ones.

Also the United Workers'Union in causing the respondent Anakan Company

to discriminate against the workers mentioned in Paragraph IV of the
foregoing complaint in violation of Section 4 (a), subparagraph 4 of the Act
by demanding from the respondent Anakan Lumber Company the dismissal
of said workersfrom their work therein, or in discriminating against them
to whom membership in the respondent United Workers' Union have
been terminated on grounds other than the usual terms and conditions
of membership made available to other members by expelling them as
members from the said Union in violation of the respondent union's
Constitution and By-laws and who were subsequently dismissed by the
respondent Anakan Lumber Company on demand by the respondent
United Workers' Union, in violation of Section 4(b), subparagraph 2 Of
Republic Act No. 875.

It appears that respondent union has a membership of more than 1,000

laborers and employees of the company, with whom it entered, on January
23, 1955, into a contract entitled "Collective Bargaining and Closed Shop
Agreement". Subsequently, 46 employees of the company and members of
respondent union joined petitioner herein, which is another labor
organization. As a consequence, said 46 employees were expelled from
respondent union, pursuant to its constitution and by-laws. Thereafter,
respondent union demanded from the company the dismissal of these 46
employees, upon the authority of Article II of said "Collective Bargaining and
Closed Shop Agreement", and claiming to act in pursuance of such Article II
and in compliance with the aforementioned agreement, the company
dismissed said 46 employees. Inasmuch as they are members of petitioner
herein, the latter caused this unfair labor practice proceedings to be
instituted.

Thus, review for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether the company was bound to expel the aforementioned 46

employees under the provisions of said Article II of its
collectivebargaining agreement with respondent union

Law Involved:

Unfair labor Practice

Case History:

CIR dismiss the charge of union domination against the company. Upon the
merits of the case presiding judge absolved union while finding company
guilty of unfair labor practices in dismissing 46 employees thereof and
ordering said company "to cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor
practice and to reinstate the 46 employees concerned, with back
wages from the date of their separation from its service until reinstated."

Ruling:

That the UNION shall have the exclusive right, and privilege to supply
the COMPANY with such laborers, employees and workers as are necessary
in the logging, mechanical, sawmill, office, logponds, motor pools,
security guards and all departments in its many phases of operations,
excepting such positions which are highly technical and confidential in
character and/or such positions which carry the exercise of authority in the
interest of the COMPANY which exercise is not merely clerical or
routinary within thecontemplation of the law, and that the COMPANY agrees
to employ or hire in any of its departments only such person or persons who
are members of the UNION.

No. it is erroneous to consider such a closed shop agreement. Closed-Shop

agreement is an agreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only
members of the contracting union who must continue to remain members
in good standing to keep their job. (National Labor Union vs.
Aguinaldo's Echague, Inc., 51 Off. Gaz. No. 6, p. 2899, cited in Bacolod-
Murcia Milling Co., Inc. and Alfredo T. Garcia vs. National Employees-
Workers Security Union, 53 Off. Gaz., 615; Emphasis ours.)

Opinion:

The court is correct that the union has the right to dismiss the
employee on the ground of union closed shop agreement in the CBA.
 NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
vs.
INSULAR-YEBANA TOBACCO CORPORATION,

G.R. No. L-15363 July 31, 1961

LABRADOR, J.:

Facts:

The petitioner herein, the National Labor Union, filed charges against the respondent Insular-
Yebana Tobacco Corporation, in Court of Industrial Relations Case No. 798-ULP, alleging
discriminatory dismissal by the respondent of two employees, Juana Torres and Dominador
Gonzales, and charges for discriminatory dismissal of Honorato Gabriel in CIR Case No. 851-ULP.

Issue:

Is the respondent insular Yebana Tobacco Corporation guilty of Unfair

Labor Practice.

Law Involved:

Unfair Labor Practice

Case History:

CIR ruled that there is no unfair labor practice.

Ruling:

We hold that the cases at bar having been instituted expressly as unfair labor practice cases,
pursuant to Section 5 of the Industrial Peace Act, and no unfair labor practice having been proved to
have committed, the Court of Industrial Relations has no power to grant remedy under its general
powers of mediation and conciliation, such as reinstatement or back wages, but must limit itself to
dismissing the charges of unfair labor practice. Conformably thereto, we hold that the majority of the
court below correctly dismissed the charges, without considering the merits of the claim of the two
employees, Juan Torres and Dominador Gonzales, for reinstatement.

Opinion:

The court is correct in ruling that there is no unfair labor practice

committed by the company in the dismissing the employees.
Facts:

Issue:

Law Involved:

Case History:

Ruling:

Opinion:
Facts:

Issue:

Law Involved:

Case History:

Ruling:

Opinion:
Facts:

Issue:

Law Involved:

Case History:

Ruling:

Opinion:
Facts:

Issue:

Law Involved:

Case History:

Ruling:

Opinion:
Facts:

Issue:

Law Involved:

Case History:

Ruling:

Opinion:
Facts:

Issue:

Law Involved:

Case History:

Ruling:

Opinion: