2nd set E13

SMC PTGTWO vs Confessor

GR 111262
262 SCRA 81
FACTS:
On June 28, 1990, petitioner-union San Miguel Corporation Employees Union PTGWO entered into a
CBA with private respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC) to take effect upon the expiration of the
previous CBA or on June 30, 1989.

This CBA provided, among others, that:
ARTICLE XIV
DURATION OF AGREEMENT
Sec. 1. This Agreement which shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors-
in-interest, shall become effective and shall remain in force and effect until June 30, 1992.
Sec. 2. In accordance with Article 253-A of the Labor Code as amended, the term of this Agreement
insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, shall be for five (5) years from July 1, 1989 to June 30,
1994. Hence, the freedom period for purposes of such representation shall be sixty (60) days prior to
June 30, 1994.
Sec. 3. Sixty (60) days prior to June 30, 1992 either party may initiate negotiations of all provisions of this
Agreement, except insofar as the representation aspect is concerned. If no agreement is reached in such
negotiations, this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in force up to the time a subsequent agreement
is reached by the parties.
Meanwhile, effective October 1, 1991, Magnolia and Feeds and Livestock Division were spun-off and
became two separate and distinct corporations: Magnolia Corporation (Magnolia) and San Miguel
Foods, Inc. (SMFI). Notwithstanding the spin-offs, the CBA remained in force and effect.
After June 30, 1992, the CBA was renegotiated in accordance with the terms of the CBA and Article 253-
A of the Labor Code. Negotiations started sometime in July, 1992 with the two parties submitting their
respective proposals and counterproposals.
During the negotiations, the petitioner-union insisted that the bargaining unit of SMC should still include
the employees of the spun-off corporations: Magnolia and SMFI; and that the renegotiated terms of the
CBA shall be effective only for the remaining period of two years or until June 30, 1994.
SMC, on the other hand, contended that the members/employees who had moved to Magnolia and
SMFI, automatically ceased to be part of the bargaining unit at the SMC. Furthermore, the CBA should
be effective for three years in accordance with Art. 253-A of the Labor Code.
Unable to agree on these issues with respect to the bargaining unit and duration of the CBA, petitioner-
union declared a deadlock on September 29, 1990.
(Notice of strikeSecretary assumed jurisdiction)
Secretarys decision: the CBA shall be effective for the period of 3 years from June 30, 1992; and that
such CBA shall cover only the employees of SMC and not of Magnolia and SMFI.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the duration of the renegotiated terms of the CBA is to be effective for three years of
for only two years
2) Whether or not the bargaining unit of SMC includes also the employees of the Magnolia and SMFI.

HELD: We agree with the Secretary of Labor.
Pertinent to the first issue is Art. 253-A of the Labor Code as amended which reads:
Art. 253-A. Terms of a CBA. Any CBA that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the
representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of 5 years. No petition questioning the majority status
of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted
by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the
date of expiry of such five year term of the CBA. All other provisions of the CBA shall be renegotiated not
later than 3 years after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the CBA entered into
within 6 months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such CBA, shall
retroact to the day immediately following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six
months, the parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the
renegotiation of the CBA, the parties may exercise their rights under this Code. (Emphasis supplied.)
The representation aspect refers to the identity and majority status of the union that negotiated the
CBA as the exclusive bargaining representative of the appropriate bargaining unit concerned. All other
provisions simply refers to the rest of the CBA, economic as well as non-economic provisions, except
representation.
The law is clear and definite on the duration of the CBA insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned, but is quite ambiguous with the terms of the other provisions of the CBA. It is a cardinal
principle of statutory construction that the Court must ascertain the legislative intent for the purpose of
giving effect to any statute.
Obviously, the framers of the law wanted to maintain industrial peace and stability by having both
management and labor work harmoniously together without any disturbance. Thus, no outside union
can enter the establishment within 5 years and challenge the status of the incumbent union as the
exclusive bargaining agent. Likewise, the terms and conditions of employment (economic and non-
economic) can not be questioned by the employers or employees during the period of effectivity of the
CBA. The CBA is a contract between the parties and the parties must respect the terms and conditions of
the agreement. Notably, the framers of the law did not give a fixed term as to the effectivity of the
terms and conditions of employment. It can be gleaned from their discussions that it was left to the
parties to fix the period.
The issue as to the term of the non-representation provisions of the CBA need not belaboured. The
parties, by mutual agreement, enter into a renegotiated contract with a term of three (3) years or one
which does not coincide with the said 5-year term, and said agreement is ratified by majority of the
members in the bargaining unit, the subject contract is valid and legal and therefore, binds the
contracting parties.
Thus, we do not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Labor in ruling that the
effectivity of the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be for 3 years.
II. Undeniably, the transformation of the companies was a management prerogative and business
judgment which the courts can not look into unless it is contrary to law, public policy or morals. Neither
can we impute any bad faith on the part of SMC so as to justify the application of the doctrine of
piercing the corporate veil.18 Ever mindful of the employees interests, management has assured the
concerned employees that they will be absorbed by the new corporations without loss of tenure and
retaining their present pay and benefits according to the existing CBAs. 19 They were advised that upon
the expiration of the CBAs, new agreements will be negotiated between the management of the new
corporations and the bargaining representatives of the employees concerned.
Indubitably, therefore, Magnolia and SMFI became distinct entities with separate juridical personalities.
Thus, they can not belong to a single bargaining unit.
Moreover, in determining an appropriate bargaining unit, the test of grouping is mutuality or
commonality of interests. The employees sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent
must have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by
the type of work they performed. 22 Considering the spin-offs, the companies would consequently have
their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of the nature of work, wages, hours of work and other
conditions of employment. Interests of employees in the different companies perforce differ. The nature
of their products and scales of business may require different skills which must necessarily be
commensurated by different compensation packages. The different companies may have different
volumes of work and different working conditions. For such reason, the employees of the different
companies see the need to group themselves together and organize themselves into distinctive and
different groups. It would then be best to have separate bargaining units for the different companies
where the employees can bargain separately according to their needs and according to their own
working conditions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.