GENERAL MILLING CORPORAION, petitioner, vs. !ON. CO"R OF APPEAL#, GENERAL MILLING CORPORAION IN$EPEN$EN LA%OR "NION &GMC'IL"(, a)* RIO MANG"%A, respondents. $ E C I # I O N +"I#"M%ING, J., Before us is a petition for certiorari assailing the decision [1] dated July 19, 2000, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G! "# $o %0&'&, (hich earlier re)ersed the decision [2] dated January &0, 199' of the $ational *a+or !elations Co,,ission -$*!C. in $*!C Case $o /-0112-90 1he antecedent facts are as follo(s2 3n its t(o plants located at Ce+u City and *apu-*apu City, petitioner General 4illing Corporation -G4C. e,ployed 190 (or5ers 1hey (ere all ,e,+ers of pri)ate respondent General 4illing Corporation 3ndependent *a+or 6nion -union, for +re)ity., a duly certi7ed +argaining agent 8n April 2', 19'9, G4C and the union concluded a collecti)e +argaining agree,ent -CBA. (hich included the issue of representation e9ecti)e for a ter, of three years 1he CBA (as e9ecti)e for three years retroacti)e to :ece,+er 1, 19'' ;ence, it (ould e<pire on $o)e,+er &0, 1991 8n $o)e,+er 29, 1991, a day +efore the e<piration of the CBA, the union sent G4C a proposed CBA, (ith a re=uest that a counter-proposal +e su+,itted (ithin ten -10. days As early as 8cto+er 1991, ho(e)er, G4C had recei)ed collecti)e and indi)idual letters fro, (or5ers (ho stated that they had (ithdra(n fro, their union ,e,+ership, on grounds of religious a>liation and personal di9erences Belie)ing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, G4C did not send any counter-proposal 8n :ece,+er 1?, 1991, G4C (rote a letter to the union@s o>cers, !ito 4angu+at and /ictor *asti,oso 1he letter stated that it felt there (as no +asis to negotiate (ith a union (hich no longer e<isted, +ut that ,anage,ent (as nonetheless al(ays (illing to dialogue (ith the, on ,atters of co,,on concern and (as open to suggestions on ho( the co,pany ,ay i,pro)e its operations 3n ans(er, the union o>cers (rote a letter dated :ece,+er 19, 1991 disclai,ing any ,assi)e disa>liation or resignation fro, the union and su+,itted a ,anifesto, signed +y its ,e,+ers, stating that they had not (ithdra(n fro, the union 8n January 1&, 1992, G4C dis,issed 4arcia 1u,+iga, a union ,e,+er, on the ground of inco,petence 1he union protested and re=uested G4C to su+,it the ,atter to the grie)ance procedure pro)ided in the CBA G4C, ho(e)er, ad)ised the union to Arefer to our letter dated :ece,+er 1?, 1991B [&] 1hus, the union 7led, on July 2, 1992, a co,plaint against G4C (ith the $*!C, Ar+itration :i)ision, Ce+u City 1he co,plaint alleged unfair la+or practice on the part of G4C for2 -1. refusal to +argain collecti)elyC -2. interference (ith the right to self-organiDationC and -&. discri,ination 1he la+or ar+iter dis,issed the case (ith the reco,,endation that a petition for certi7cation election +e held to deter,ine if the union still enEoyed the support of the (or5ers 1he union appealed to the $*!C 8n January &0, 199', the $*!C set aside the la+or ar+iter@s decision Citing Article 2%&-A of the *a+or Code, as a,ended +y !ep Act $o ?F1%, [0] (hich 7<ed the ter,s of a collecti)e +argaining agree,ent, the $*!C ordered G4C to a+ide +y the CBA draft that the union proposed for a period of t(o -2. years +eginning :ece,+er 1, 1991, the date (hen the original CBA ended, to $o)e,+er &0, 199& 1he $*!C also ordered G4C to pay the attorney@s fees [%] 3n its decision, the $*!C pointed out that upon the e9ecti)ity of !ep Act $o ?F1%, the duration of a CBA, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, is 7)e -%. years (hich, in the case of G4C- 3ndependent *a+or 6nion (as fro, :ece,+er 1, 19'' to $o)e,+er &0, 199& All other pro)isions of the CBA are to +e renegotiated not later than three -&. years after its e<ecution 1hus, the $*!C held that respondent union re,ained as the e<clusi)e +argaining agent (ith the right to renegotiate the econo,ic pro)isions of the CBA Conse=uently, it (as unfair la+or practice for G4C not to enter into negotiation (ith the union 1he $*!C li5e(ise held that the indi)idual letters of (ithdra(al fro, the union su+,itted +y 1& of its ,e,+ers fro, Ge+ruary to June 199& con7r,ed the pressure e<erted +y G4C on its e,ployees to resign fro, the union 1hus, the $*!C also found G4C guilty of unfair la+or practice for interfering (ith the right of its e,ployees to self-organiDation Hith respect to the union@s clai, of discri,ination, the $*!C found the clai, unsupported +y su+stantial e)idence 8n G4C@s ,otion for reconsideration, the $*!C set aside its decision of January &0, 199', through a resolution dated 8cto+er ?, 199' 3t found G4C@s dou+ts as to the status of the union Eusti7ed and the allegation of coercion e<erted +y G4C on the union@s ,e,+ers to resign unfounded ;ence, the union 7led a petition for certiorari +efore the Court of Appeals Gor failure of the union to attach the re=uired copies of pleadings and other docu,ents and ,aterial portions of the record to support the allegations in its petition, the CA dis,issed the petition on Ge+ruary 9, 1999 1he sa,e petition (as su+se=uently 7led +y the union, this ti,e (ith the necessary docu,ents 3n its resolution dated April 2?, 1999, the appellate court treated the re7led petition as a ,otion for reconsideration and ga)e the petition due course 8n July 19, 2000, the appellate court rendered a decision the dispositi)e portion of (hich reads2 H;I!IG8!I, the petition is here+y GRANE$ 1he $*!C !esolution of 8cto+er ?, 199' is here+y #E A#I$E, and its decision of January &0, 199' is, e<cept (ith respect to the a(ard of attorney@s fees (hich is here+y deleted, REIN#AE$ [?] A ,otion for reconsideration (as seasona+ly 7led +y G4C, +ut in a resolution dated 8cto+er 2?, 2000, the CA denied it for lac5 of ,erit ;ence, the instant petition for certiorari alleging that2 I 1;I C86!1 8G A##IA*" :IC3"38$ /38*A1I: 1;I C8$"1316138$A* !6*I 1;A1 $8 :IC3"38$ ";A** BI !I$:I!I: BJ A$J C86!1 H31;861 IK#!I""3$G 1;I!I3$ C*IA!*J A$: :3"13$C1*J 1;I GAC1" A$: 1;I *AH 8$ H;3C; 31 3" BA"I: II 1;I C86!1 8G A##IA*" C844311I: G!A/I AB6"I 8G :3"C!I138$ 3$ !I/I!"3$G 1;I :IC3"38$ 8G 1;I $A138$A* *AB8! !I*A138$" C8443""38$ 3$ 1;I AB"I$CI 8G A$J G3$:3$G 8G "6B"1A$13A* I!!8! 8! G!A/I AB6"I 8G :3"C!I138$ A486$13$G 18 *ACL 8! IKCI"" 8G J6!3":3C138$ III 1;I C86!1 8G A##IA*" C844311I: "I!386" I!!8! 3$ $81 A##!IC3A13$G 1;A1 1;I $*!C ;A" $8 J6!3":3C138$ 18 :I1I!43$I 1;I 1I!4" A$: C8$:3138$" 8G A C8**IC13/I BA!GA3$3$G AG!II4I$1 [F] 1hus, in the instant case, the principal issue for our deter,ination is (hether or not the Court of Appeals acted (ith gra)e a+use of discretion a,ounting to lac5 or e<cess of Eurisdiction in -1. 7nding G4C guilty of unfair la+or practice for )iolating the duty to +argain collecti)ely andMor interfering (ith the right of its e,ployees to self-organiDation, and -2. i,posing upon G4C the draft CBA proposed +y the union for t(o years to +egin fro, the e<piration of the original CBA 8n the 7rst issue, Article 2%&-A of the *a+or Code, as a,ended +y !ep Act $o ?F1%, states2 A!1 2%&-A er-. o/ a 0o11e0234e bar5a3)3)5 a5ree-e)2 N Any Collecti)e Bargaining Agree,ent that the parties ,ay enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, +e for a ter, of 7)e -%. years $o petition =uestioning the ,aEority status of the incu,+ent +argaining agent shall +e entertained and no certi7cation election shall +e conducted +y the :epart,ent of *a+or and I,ploy,ent outside of the si<ty-day period i,,ediately +efore the date of e<piry of such 7)e year ter, of the Collecti)e Bargaining Agree,ent All other pro)isions of the Collecti)e Bargaining Agree,ent shall +e renegotiated not later than three -&. years after its e<ecution 1he la( ,andates that the representation pro)ision of a CBA should last for 7)e years 1he relation +et(een la+or and ,anage,ent should +e undistur+ed until the last ?0 days of the 7fth year ;ence, it is indisputa+le that (hen the union re=uested for a renegotiation of the econo,ic ter,s of the CBA on $o)e,+er 29, 1991, it (as still the certi7ed collecti)e +argaining agent of the (or5ers, +ecause it (as see5ing said renegotiation (ithin 7)e -%. years fro, the date of e9ecti)ity of the CBA on :ece,+er 1, 19'' 1he union@s proposal (as also su+,itted (ithin the prescri+ed &-year period fro, the date of e9ecti)ity of the CBA, al+eit Eust +efore the last day of said period 3t (as o+)ious that G4C had no )alid reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith (ith the union Gor refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to +argain ane( on the econo,ic ter,s of the CBA, the co,pany co,,itted an unfair la+or practice under Article 20' of the *a+or Code, (hich pro)ides that2 A!1 20' ")/a3r 1abor 6ra0230e. o/ e-61oyer.. N 3t shall +e unla(ful for an e,ployer to co,,it any of the follo(ing unfair la+or practice2
-g. 1o )iolate the duty to +argain collecti)ely as prescri+ed +y this CodeC
Article 2%2 of the *a+or Code elucidates the ,eaning of the phrase Aduty to +argain collecti)ely,B thus2 A!1 2%2 Mea)3)5 o/ *u2y 2o bar5a3) 0o11e0234e1y N 1he duty to +argain collecti)ely ,eans the perfor,ance of a ,utual o+ligation to ,eet and con)ene pro,ptly and e<peditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agree,ent He ha)e held that the crucial =uestion (hether or not a party has ,et his statutory duty to +argain in good faith typically turnO on the facts of the indi)idual case ['] 1here is no per se test of good faith in +argaining [9] Good faith or +ad faith is an inference to +e dra(n fro, the facts [10] 1he e9ect of an e,ployer@s or a union@s actions indi)idually is not the test of good-faith +argaining, +ut the i,pact of all such occasions or actions, considered as a (hole [11] 6nder Article 2%2 a+o)ecited, +oth parties are re=uired to perfor, their ,utual o+ligation to ,eet and con)ene pro,ptly and e<peditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agree,ent 1he union li)ed up to this o+ligation (hen it presented proposals for a ne( CBA to G4C (ithin three -&. years fro, the e9ecti)ity of the original CBA But G4C failed in its duty under Article 2%2 Hhat it did (as to de)ise a Pi,sy e<cuse, +y =uestioning the e<istence of the union and the status of its ,e,+ership to pre)ent any negotiation 3t +ears stressing that the procedure in collecti)e +argaining prescri+ed +y the Code is ,andatory +ecause of the +asic interest of the state in ensuring lasting industrial peace 1hus2 A!1 2%0 Pro0e*ure 3) 0o11e0234e bar5a3)3)5 N 1he follo(ing procedures shall +e o+ser)ed in collecti)e +argaining2 -a. Hhen a party desires to negotiate an agree,ent, it shall ser)e a (ritten notice upon the other party (ith a state,ent of its proposals 1he other party shall ,a5e a reply thereto not later than ten -10. calendar days fro, receipt of such notice -6nderscoring supplied. G4C@s failure to ,a5e a ti,ely reply to the proposals presented +y the union is indicati)e of its utter lac5 of interest in +argaining (ith the union 3ts e<cuse that it felt the union no longer represented the (or5ers, (as ,ainly dilatory as it turned out to +e utterly +aseless He hold that G4C@s refusal to ,a5e a counter-proposal to the union@s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its +ad faith Hhere the e,ployer did not e)en +other to su+,it an ans(er to the +argaining proposals of the union, there is a clear e)asion of the duty to +argain collecti)ely [12] Gailing to co,ply (ith the ,andatory o+ligation to su+,it a reply to the union@s proposals, G4C )iolated its duty to +argain collecti)ely, ,a5ing it lia+le for unfair la+or practice #erforce, the Court of Appeals did not co,,it gra)e a+use of discretion a,ounting to lac5 or e<cess of Eurisdiction in 7nding that G4C is, under the circu,stances, guilty of unfair la+or practice :id G4C interfere (ith the e,ployees@ right to self- organiDationQ 1he CA found that the letters +et(een Ge+ruary to June 199& +y 1& union ,e,+ers signifying their resignation fro, the union clearly indicated that G4C e<erted pressure on its e,ployees 1he records sho( that G4C presented these letters to pro)e that the union no longer enEoyed the support of the (or5ers 1he fact that the resignations of the union ,e,+ers occurred during the pendency of the case +efore the la+or ar+iter sho(s G4C@s desperate atte,pts to cast dou+t on the legiti,ate status of the union He agree (ith the CA@s conclusion that the ill-ti,ed letters of resignation fro, the union ,e,+ers indicate that G4C had interfered (ith the right of its e,ployees to self-organiDation 1hus, (e hold that the appellate court did not co,,it gra)e a+use of discretion in 7nding G4C guilty of unfair la+or practice for interfering (ith the right of its e,ployees to self- organiDation Ginally, did the CA gra)ely a+use its discretion (hen it i,posed on G4C the draft CBA proposed +y the union for t(o years co,,encing fro, the e<piration of the original CBAQ 1he Code pro)ides2 A!1 2%& $u2y 2o bar5a3) 0o11e0234e1y 78e) 28ere e93.2. a 0o11e0234e bar5a3)3)5 a5ree-e)2. N 3t shall +e the duty of +oth parties to 5eep the status =uo and to continue in full force and e9ect the ter,s and conditions of the e<isting agree,ent during the ?0-day period [prior to its e<piration date] andMor until a ne( agree,ent is reached +y the parties -6nderscoring supplied. 1he pro)ision ,andates the parties to 5eep the status quo (hile they are still in the process of (or5ing out their respecti)e proposal and counter proposal 1he general rule is that (hen a CBA already e<ists, its pro)ision shall continue to go)ern the relationship +et(een the parties, until a ne( one is agreed upon 1he rule necessarily presupposes that all other things are e=ual 1hat is, that neither party is guilty of +ad faith ;o(e)er, (hen one of the parties a+uses this grace period +y purposely delaying the +argaining process, a departure fro, the general rule is (arranted 3n Kiok Loy vs. NLRC, [1&] (e found that petitioner therein, "(eden 3ce Crea, #lant, refused to su+,it any counter proposal to the CBA proposed +y its e,ployees@ certi7ed +argaining agent He ruled that the for,er had there+y lost its right to +argain the ter,s and conditions of the CBA 1hus, (e did not hesitate to i,pose on the erring co,pany the CBA proposed +y its e,ployees@ union - loc5, stoc5 and +arrel 8ur 7ndings in Kiok Loy are si,ilar to the facts in the present case, to (it2 Rpetitioner Co,pany@s approach and attitude N stalling the negotiation +y a series of postpone,ents, non-appearance at the hearing conducted, and undue delay in su+,itting its 7nancial state,ents, lead to no other conclusion e<cept that it is un(illing to negotiate and reach an agree,ent (ith the 6nion #etitioner has not at any instance, e)inced good faith or (illingness to discuss freely and fully the clai,s and de,ands set forth +y the 6nion ,uch less Eustify its o+Eection thereto [10] *i5e(ise, in Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and !ploy!ent, [1%] petitioner therein, :i)ine Hord 6ni)ersity of 1aclo+an, refused to perfor, its duty to +argain collecti)ely 1hus, (e upheld the unilateral i,position on the uni)ersity of the CBA proposed +y the :i)ine Hord 6ni)ersity I,ployees 6nion He said further2 1hat +eing the said case, the petitioner ,ay not )alidly assert that its consent should +e a pri,ordial consideration in the +argaining process By its acts, no less than its action (hich +espea5 its insincerity, it has forfeited (hate)er rights it could ha)e asserted as an e,ployer [1?] Applying the principle in the foregoing cases to the instant case, it (ould +e unfair to the union and its ,e,+ers if the ter,s and conditions contained in the old CBA (ould continue to +e i,posed on G4C@s e,ployees for the re,aining t(o -2. years of the CBA@s duration He are not inclined to gratify G4C (ith an e<tended ter, of the old CBA after it resorted to delaying tactics to pre)ent negotiations "ince it (as G4C (hich )iolated the duty to +argain collecti)ely, +ased on Kiok Loy and Divine Word University of Tacloban, it had lost its statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the ter,s and conditions of the draft CBA proposed +y the union He carefully note, ho(e)er, that as strictly distinguished fro, the facts of this case, there (as no pre-e<isting CBA +et(een the parties in Kiok Loy and Divine Word University of Tacloban $onetheless, (e dee, it proper to apply in this case the rationale of the doctrine in the said t(o cases 1o rule other(ise (ould +e to allo( G4C to ha)e its ca5e and eat it too 6nder ordinary circu,stances, it is not o+ligatory upon either side of a la+or contro)ersy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other But an erring party should not +e allo(ed to resort (ith i,punity to sche,es feigning negotiations +y going through e,pty gestures [1F] 1hus, +y i,posing on G4C the pro)isions of the draft CBA proposed +y the union, in our )ie(, the interests of e=uity and fair play (ere properly ser)ed and +oth parties regained e=ual footing, (hich (as lost (hen G4C th(arted the negotiations for ne( econo,ic ter,s of the CBA 1he 7ndings of fact +y the CA, a>r,ing those of the $*!C as to the reasona+leness of the draft CBA proposed +y the union should not +e distur+ed since they are supported +y su+stantial e)idence 8n this score, (e see no cogent reason to rule other(ise ;ence, (e hold that the Court of Appeals did not co,,it gra)e a+use of discretion a,ounting to lac5 or e<cess of Eurisdiction (hen it i,posed on G4C, after it had co,,itted unfair la+or practice, the draft CBA proposed +y the union for the re,aining t(o -2. years of the duration of the original CBA Gairness, e=uity, and social Eustice are +est ser)ed in this case +y sustaining the appellate court@s decision on this issue :!EREFORE, the petition is :3"43""I: and the assailed decision dated July 19, 2000, and the resolution dated 8cto+er 2?, 2000, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G! "# $o %0&'&, are AGG3!4I: Costs against petitioner #O OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 8;<8; Au5u.2 1=, 1<<= P!ILIPPINE AIRLINE#, INC. &PAL(, petitioner, )s NAIONAL LA%OR RELAION# COMMI##ION, LA%OR AR%IER I#A%EL P. ORIG"ERRA a)* P!ILIPPINE AIRLINE# EMPLO>EE# A##OCIAION &PALEA(, respondents Solon "arcia for petitioner. #dolp$o %. "uer&on for respondent '#L#.
MELO, J.: 3n the instant petition for certiorari, the Court is presented the issue of (hether or not the for,ulation of a Code of :iscipline a,ong e,ployees is a shared responsi+ility of the e,ployer and the e,ployees 8n 4arch 1%, 19'%, the #hilippine Airlines, 3nc -#A*. co,pletely re)ised its 19?? Code of :iscipline 1he Code (as circulated a,ong the e,ployees and (as i,,ediately i,ple,ented, and so,e e,ployees (ere forth(ith su+Eected to the disciplinary ,easures e,+odied therein 1hus, on August 20, 19'%, the #hilippine Airlines I,ployees Association -#A*IA. 7led a co,plaint +efore the $ational *a+or !elations Co,,ission -$*!C. for unfair la+or practice -Case $o $C!-F-20%1-'%. (ith the follo(ing re,ar5s2 S6*# (ith ar+itrary i,ple,entation of #A*Ts Code of :iscipline (ithout notice and prior discussion (ith 6nion +y 4anage,entS -Rollo, p 01. 3n its position paper, #A*IA contended that #A*, +y its unilateral i,ple,entation of the Code, (as guilty of unfair la+or practice, speci7cally #aragraphs I and G of Article 209 and Article 2%& of the *a+or Code #A*IA alleged that copies of the Code had +een circulated in li,ited nu,+ersC that +eing penal in nature the Code ,ust confor, (ith the re=uire,ents of su>cient pu+lication, and that the Code (as ar+itrary, oppressi)e, and preEudicial to the rights of the e,ployees 3t prayed that i,ple,entation of the Code +e held in a+eyanceC that #A* should discuss the su+stance of the Code (ith #A*IAC that e,ployees dis,issed under the Code +e reinstated and their cases su+Eected to further hearingC and that #A* +e declared guilty of unfair la+or practice and +e ordered to pay da,ages -pp F-10, !ecord. #A* 7led a ,otion to dis,iss the co,plaint, asserting its prerogati)e as an e,ployer to presci+e rules and regulations regarding e,ployessT conduct in carrying out their duties and functions, and alleging that +y i,ple,enting the Code, it had not )iolated the collecti)e +argaining agree,ent -CBA. or any pro)ision of the *a+or Code Assailing the co,plaint as unsupported +y e)idence, #A* ,aintained that Article 2%& of the *a+or Code cited +y #A*IA re9ered to the re=uire,ents for negotiating a CBA (hich (as inapplica+le as indeed the current CBA had +een negotiated 3n its reply to #A*Ts position paper, #A*IA ,aintained that Article 209 -I. of the *a+or Code (as )iolated (hen #A* unilaterally i,ple,ented the Code, and cited pro)isions of Articles 3/ and 3 of Chapter 33 of the Code as defecti)e for, respecti)ely, running counter to the construction of penal la(s and ,a5ing punisha+le any o9ense (ithin #A*Ts conte,plation 1hese pro)isions are the follo(ing2 "ec 2 Non(e)clusivity U 1his Code does not contain the entirety of the rules and regulations of the co,pany I)ery e,ployee is +ound to co,ply (ith all applica+le rules, regulations, policies, procedures and standards, including standards of =uality, producti)ity and +eha)iour, as issued and pro,ulgated +y the co,pany through its duly authoriDed o>cials Any )iolations thereof shall +e punisha+le (ith a penalty to +e deter,ined +y the gra)ity andMor fre=uency of the o9ense "ec F Cu!ulative Record U An e,ployeeTs record of o9enses shall +e cu,ulati)e 1he penalty for an o9ense shall +e deter,ined on the +asis of his past record of o9enses of any nature or the a+sence thereof 1he ,ore ha+itual an o9ender has +een, the greater shall +e the penalty for the latest o9ense 1hus, an e,ployee ,ay +e dis,issed if the nu,+er of his past o9enses (arrants such penalty in the Eudg,ent of ,anage,ent e)en if each o9ense considered separately ,ay not (arrant dis,issal ;a+itual o9enders or recidi)ists ha)e no place in #A* 8n the other hand, due regard shall +e gi)en to the length of ti,e +et(een co,,ission of indi)idual o9enses to deter,ine (hether the e,ployeeTs conduct ,ay indicate occasional lapses -(hich ,ay ne)ertheless re=uire sterner disciplinary action. or a pattern of incorrigi+ility *a+or Ar+iter 3sa+el # 8rtiguerra handling the case called the parties to a conference +ut they failed to appear at the scheduled date 3nterpreting such failure as a (ai)er of the partiesT right to present e)idence, the la+or ar+iter considered the case su+,itted for decision 8n $o)e,+er F, 19'?, a decision (as rendered 7nding no +ad faith on the part of #A* in adopting the Code and ruling that no unfair la+or practice had +een co,,itted ;o(e)er, the ar+iter held that #A* (as Snot totally fault freeS considering that (hile the issuance of rules and regulations go)erning the conduct of e,ployees is a Slegiti,ate ,anage,ent prerogati)eS such rules and regulations ,ust ,eet the test of Sreasona+leness, propriety and fairnessS "he found "ection 1 of the Code afore=uoted as San all e,+racing and all enco,passing pro)ision that ,a5es punisha+le any o9ense one can thin5 of in the co,panySC (hile "ection F, li5e(ise =uoted a+o)e, is So+Eectiona+le for it )iolates the rule against dou+le Eeopardy there+y ushering in t(o or ,ore punish,ent for the sa,e ,isde,eanorS -pp &'-&9, Rollo. 1he la+or ar+iter also found that #A* Sfailed to pro)e that the ne( Code (as a,ply circulatedS $oting that #A*Ts assertion that it had furnished all its e,ployees copies of the Code is unsupported +y docu,entary e)idence, she stated that such SfailureS on the part of #A* resulted in the i,position of penalties on e,ployees (ho thought all the (hile that the 19?? Code (as still +eing follo(ed 1hus, the ar+iter concluded that S-t.he phrase ignorance of the la( e<cuses no one fro, co,pliance 7nds application only after it has +een conclusi)ely sho(n that the la( (as circulated to all the parties concerned and e9orts to disse,inate infor,ation regarding the ne( la( ha)e +een e<erted -p &9, Rollo. "he thereupon disposed2 H;I!IG8!I, pre,ises considered, respondent #A* is here+y ordered as follo(s2 1 Gurnish all e,ployees (ith the ne( Code of :isciplineC 2 !econsider the cases of e,ployees ,eted (ith penalties under the $e( Code of :iscipline and re,and the sa,e for further hearingC and & :iscuss (ith #A*IA the o+Eectiona+le pro)isions speci7cally tac5led in the +ody of the decision All other clai,s of the co,plainant union -is. [are] here+y, dis,issed for lac5 of ,erit "8 8!:I!I: -p 00, Rollo. #A* appealed to the $*!C 8n August 19, 19'', the $*!C through Co,,issioner Incarnacion, (ith #residing Co,,issioner Bonto-#ereD and Co,,issioner 4aglaya concurring, found no e)idence of unfair la+or practice co,,itted +y #A* and a>r,ed the dis,issal of #A*IATs charge $onetheless, the $*!C ,ade the follo(ing o+ser)ations2 3ndeed, failure of ,anage,ent to discuss the pro)isions of a conte,plated code of discipline (hich shall go)ern the conduct of its e,ployees (ould result in the erosion and deterioration of an other(ise har,onious and s,ooth relationship +et(een the, as did happen in the instant case 1here is no dispute that adoption of rules of conduct or discipline is a prerogati)e of ,anage,ent and is i,perati)e and essential if an industry, has to sur)i)e in a co,petiti)e (orld But la+or cli,ate has progressed, too 3n the #hilippine scene, at no ti,e in our conte,porary history is the need for a cooperati)e, supporti)e and s,ooth relationship +et(een la+or and ,anage,ent ,ore 5eenly felt if (e are to sur)i)e econo,ically 4anage,ent can no longer e<clude la+or in the deli+eration and adoption of rules and regulations that (ill a9ect the, 1he co,plainant union in this case has the right to feel isolated in the adoption of the $e( Code of :iscipline 1he Code of :iscipline in)ol)es security of tenure and loss of e,ploy,ent U a property rightV 3t is ti,e that ,anage,ent realiDes that to attain e9ecti)eness in its conduct rules, there should +e candidness and openness +y 4anage,ent and participation +y the union, representing its ,e,+ers 3n fact, our Constitution has recogniDed the principle of Sshared responsi+ilityS +et(een e,ployers and (or5ers and has li5e(ise recogniDed the right of (or5ers to participate in Spolicy and decision-,a5ing process a9ecting their rights S 1he latter pro)ision (as interpreted +y the Constitutional Co,,issioners to ,ean participation in S,anage,entST -!ecord of the Constitutional Co,,ission, /ol 33. 3n a sense, participation +y the union in the adoption of the code if conduct could ha)e accelerated and enhanced their feelings of +elonging and (ould ha)e resulted in cooperation rather than resistance to the Code 3n fact, la+or-,anage,ent cooperation is no( Sthe thingS -pp &-0, $*!C :ecision 9 p 109, 8riginal !ecord. !espondent Co,,ission thereupon disposed2 H;I!IG8!I, pre,ises considered, (e ,odify the appealed decision in the sense that the $e( Code of :iscipline should +e re)ie(ed and discussed (ith co,plainant union, particularly the disputed pro)isions [] -1.hereafter, respondent is directed to furnish each e,ployee (ith a copy of the appealed Code of :iscipline 1he pending cases ad)erted to in the appealed decision if still in the ar+itral le)el, should +e reconsidered +y the respondent #hilippine Air *ines 8ther dispositions of the *a+or Ar+iter are sustained "8 8!:I!I: -p %, $*!C :ecision. #A* then 7led the instant petition for certiorari charging pu+lic respondents (ith gra)e a+use of discretion in2 -a. directing #A* Sto share its ,anage,ent prerogati)e of for,ulating a Code of :isciplineSC -+. engaging in =uasi-Eudicial legislation in ordering #A* to share said prerogati)e (ith the unionC -c. deciding +eyond the issue of unfair la+or practice, and -d. re=uiring #A* to reconsider pending cases still in the ar+itral le)el -p F, #etitionC p ',Rollo. As stated a+o)e, the #rincipal issue su+,itted for resolution in the instant petition is (hether ,anage,ent ,ay +e co,pelled to share (ith the union or its e,ployees its prerogati)e of for,ulating a code of discipline #A* asserts that (hen it re)ised its Code on 4arch 1%, 19'%, there (as no la( (hich ,andated the sharing of responsi+ility therefor +et(een e,ployer and e,ployee 3ndeed, it (as only on 4arch 2, 19'9, (ith the appro)al of !epu+lic Act $o ?F1%, a,ending Article 211 of the *a+or Code, that the la( e<plicitly considered it a "tate policy S-t.o ensure the participation of (or5ers in decision and policy-,a5ing processes a9ecting the rights, duties and (elfareS ;o(e)er, e)en in the a+sence of said clear pro)ision of la(, the e<ercise of ,anage,ent prerogati)es (as ne)er considered +oundless 1hus, in Cru& vs. %edina -1FF "C!A %?% [19'9]. it (as held that ,anage,entTs prerogati)es ,ust +e (ithout a+use of discretion 3n San %i*uel +re,ery Sales -orce Union .'T"W/0 vs. /ple -1F0 "C!A 2% [19'9]., (e upheld the co,panyTs right to i,ple,ent a ne( syste, of distri+uting its products, +ut ga)e the follo(ing ca)eat2 "o long as a co,panyTs ,anage,ent prerogati)es are e<ercised in good faith for the ad)ance,ent of the e,ployerTs interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circu,)enting the rights of the e,ployees under special la(s or under )alid agree,ents, this Court (ill uphold the, -at p 2'. All this points to the conclusion that the e<ercise of ,anagerial prerogati)es is not unli,ited 3t is circu,scri+ed +y li,itations found in la(, a collecti)e +argaining agree,ent, or the general principles of fair play and Eustice -University of Sto. To!as vs. NLRC, 190 "C!A F%' [1990]. 4oreo)er, as enunciated in #bbott Laboratories .'$il.01 vs. NLRC -1%0 F1& [19'F]., it ,ust +e duly esta+lished that the prerogati)e +eing in)o5ed is clearly a ,anagerial one A close scrutiny of the o+Eectiona+le pro)isions of the Code re)eals that they are not purely +usiness-oriented nor do they concern the ,anage,ent aspect of the +usiness of the co,pany as in the San %i*uel case 1he pro)isions of the Code clearly ha)e repercusions on the e,ployeeTs right to security of tenure 1he i,ple,entation of the pro)isions ,ay result in the depri)ation of an e,ployeeTs ,eans of li)elihood (hich, as correctly pointed out +y the $*!C, is a property right -Callanta1 vs Carnation '$ilippines1 2nc, 10% "C!A 2?' [19'?]. 3n )ie( of these aspects of the case (hich +order on infringe,ent of constitutional rights, (e ,ust uphold the constitutional re=uire,ents for the protection of la+or and the pro,otion of social Eustice, for these factors, according to Justice 3sagani CruD, tilt Sthe scales of Eustice (hen there is dou+t, in fa)or of the (or5erS -!ployees #ssociation of t$e '$ilippine #!erican Life 2nsurance Co!pany vs. NLRC, 199 "C!A ?2' [1991] ?&%. /erily, a line ,ust +e dra(n +et(een ,anage,ent prerogati)es regarding +usiness operations per se and those (hich a9ect the rights of the e,ployees 3n treating the latter, ,anage,ent should see to it that its e,ployees are at least properly infor,ed of its decisions or ,odes action #A* asserts that all its e,ployees ha)e +een furnished copies of the Code #u+lic respondents found to the contrary, (hich 7nding, to say the least is entitled to great respect #A* posits the )ie( that +y signing the 19'9-1991 collecti)e +argaining agree,ent, on June 2F, 1990, #A*IA in e9ect, recogniDed #A*Ts Se<clusi)e right to ,a5e and enforce co,pany rules and regulations to carry out the functions of ,anage,ent ,it$out ha)ing to discuss the sa,e (ith #A*IA and ,uch less, o+tain the latterTsconfor!ity t$eretoS -pp 11-12, #etitionerTs 4e,orandu,C pp 1'0-1'1, Rollo. #etitionerTs )ie( is +ased on the follo(ing pro)ision of the agree,ent2 1he Association recogniDes the right of the Co,pany to deter,ine ,atters of ,anage,ent it policy and Co,pany operations and to direct its ,anpo(er 4anage,ent of the Co,pany includes the right to organiDe, plan, direct and control operations, to hire, assign e,ployees to (or5, transfer e,ployees fro, one depart,ent, to another, to pro,ote, de,ote, discipline, suspend or discharge e,ployees for Eust causeC to lay-o9 e,ployees for )alid and legal causes, to introduce ne( or i,pro)ed ,ethods or facilities or to change e<isting ,ethods or facilities and the right to ,a5e and enforce Co,pany rules and regulations to carry out the functions of ,anage,ent 1he e<ercise +y ,anage,ent of its prerogati)e shall +e done in a Eust reasona+le, hu,ane andMor la(ful ,anner "uch pro)ision in the collecti)e +argaining agree,ent ,ay not +e interpreted as cession of e,ployeesT rights to participate in the deli+eration of ,atters (hich ,ay a9ect their rights and the for,ulation of policies relati)e thereto And one such ,ater is the for,ulation of a code of discipline 3ndeed, industrial peace cannot +e achie)ed if the e,ployees are denied their Eust participation in the discussion of ,atters a9ecting their rights 1hus, e)en +efore Article 211 of the la+or Code -#: 002. (as a,ended +y !epu+lic Act $o ?F1%, it (as already declared a policy of the "tate, S-d. 1o pro,ote the enlighten,ent of (or5ers concerning their rights and o+ligations as e,ployeesS 1his (as, of course, a,pli7ed +y !epu+lic Act $o ?F1% (hen it decreed the Sparticipation of (or5ers in decision and policy ,a5ing processes a9ecting their rights, duties and (elfareS #A*Ts position that it cannot +e saddled (ith the So+ligationS of sharing ,anage,ent prerogati)es as during the for,ulation of the Code, !epu+lic Act $o ?F1% had not yet +een enacted -#etitionerTs 4e,orandu,, p 00C Rollo, p 212., cannot thus +e sustained Hhile such So+ligationS (as not yet founded in la( (hen the Code (as for,ulated, the attain,ent of a har,onious la+or-,anage,ent relationship and the then already e<isting state policy of enlightening (or5ers concerning their rights as e,ployees de,and no less than the o+ser)ance of transparency in ,anagerial ,o)es a9ecting e,ployeesT rights #etitionerTs assertion that it needed the i,ple,entation of a ne( Code of :iscipline considering the nature of its +usiness cannot +e o)ere,phasiDed 3n fact, its +eing a local ,onopoly in the +usiness de,ands the ,ost stringent of ,easures to attain safe tra)el for its patrons $onetheless, (hate)er disciplinary ,easures are adopted cannot +e properly i,ple,ented in the a+sence of full cooperation of the e,ployees "uch cooperation cannot +e attained if the e,ployees are resti)e on account, of their +eing left out in the deter,ination of cardinal and funda,ental ,atters a9ecting their e,ploy,ent H;I!IG8!I, the petition is :3"43""I: and the =uestioned decision AGG3!4I: $o special pronounce,ent is ,ade as to costs "8 8!:I!I: [G.R. No. 11=8;6. #e62e-ber 7, 1<<8] #AMA!ANG MANGGAGA:A #A OP FORM MAN"FAC"RING "NIE$ :OR?ER# OF !E P!ILIPPINE# &#MFM'":P(, 32. o@0er. a)* -e-ber.,petitioners, vs. NAIONAL LA%OR RELAION# COMMI##ION, !ON. AO#E G. $E BERA a)* OP FORM MAN"FAC"RING P!IL., INC.,respondents. $ E C I # I O N ROMERO, J., 1he issue in this petition for certiorari is (hether or not an e,ployer co,,itted an unfair la+or practice +y +argaining in +ad faith and discri,inating against its e,ployees 1he charge arose fro, the e,ployer@s refusal to grant across-the-+oard increases to its e,ployees in i,ple,enting Hage 8rders $os 01 and 02 of the !egional 1ripartite Hages and #roducti)ity Board of the $ational Capital !egion -!1H#B- $C!. "uch refusal (as aggra)ated +y the fact that prior to the issuance of said (age orders, the e,ployer allegedly pro,ised at the collecti)e +argaining conferences to i,ple,ent any go)ern,ent-,andated (age increases on an across-the-+oard +asis #etitioner "a,ahang 4anggaga(a sa 1op Gor, 4anufacturing N 6nited Hor5ers of the #hilippines -"41G4. (as the certi7ed collecti)e +argaining representati)e of all regular ran5 and 7le e,ployees of pri)ate respondent 1op Gor, 4anufacturing #hilippines, 3nc At the collecti)e +argaining negotiation held at the 4il5y Hay !estaurant in 4a5ati, 4etro 4anila on Ge+ruary 2F, 1990, the parties agreed to discuss unresol)ed econo,ic issues According to the ,inutes of the ,eeting, Article /33 of the collecti)e +argaining agree,ent (as discussed 1he follo(ing appear in said 4inutes2 AA!13C*I /33 Hages "ection 1 N :efer N "ection 2 "tatus =uo "ection & 6nion proposed that any future (age increase gi)en +y the go)ern,ent should +e i,ple,ented +y the co,pany across-the-+oard or non-conditional 4anage,ent re=uested the union to retain this pro)ision since their sincerity (as already pro)en (hen the #2%00 (age increase (as granted across-the-+oard 1he union ac5no(ledges ,anage,ent@s sincerity +ut they are (orried that in case there is a ne( set of ,anage,ent, they can Eust sho( their CBA 1he union decided to defer this pro)isionB [1] 3n their Eoint a>da)it dated January &0, 1992, [2] union ,e,+ers "al)e * Barnes, Iulisa 4endoDa, *ourdes Bar+ero and Concesa 3+aWeD a>r,ed that at the su+se=uent collecti)e +argaining negotiations, the union insisted on the incorporation in the collecti)e +argaining agree,ent -CBA. of the union proposal on Aauto,atic across-the-+oard (age increaseB 1hey added that2 A11 8n the strength of the representation of the negotiating panel of the co,pany and the a+o)e underta5ingMpro,ise ,ade +y its negotiating panel, our union agreed to drop said proposal relying on the underta5ings ,ade +y the o>cials of the co,pany (ho negotiated (ith us, na,ely, 4r Hillia, !eynolds, 4r "a,uel Hong and 4rs !e,edios GeliDardo Also, in the past years, the co,pany has granted to us go)ern,ent ,andated (age increases on across-the-+oard +asisB 8n 8cto+er 1%, 1990, the !1H#B-$C! issued Hage 8rder $o 01 granting an increase of #1F00 per day in the salary of (or5ers 1his (as follo(ed +y Hage 8rder $o 02 dated :ece,+er 20, 1990 pro)iding for a #1200 daily increase in salary As e<pected, the union re=uested the i,ple,entation of said (age orders ;o(e)er, they de,anded that the increase +e on an across-the- +oard +asis #ri)ate respondent refused to accede to that de,and 3nstead, it i,ple,ented a sche,e of increases purportedly to a)oid (age distortion 1hus, pri)ate respondent granted the #1F00 increase under Hage 8rder $o 01 to (or5ersMe,ployees recei)ing salary of #12%00 per day and +elo( 1he #1200 increase ,andated +y Hage 8rder $o 02 (as granted to those recei)ing the salary of #10000 per day and +elo( Gor e,ployees recei)ing salary higher than #12%00 or #10000 per day, pri)ate respondent granted an escalated increase ranging fro, #?99 to #10&0 and fro, #?00 to #1000, respecti)ely [&] 8n 8cto+er 20, 1991, the union, through its legal counsel, (rote pri)ate respondent a letter de,anding that it should Aful7ll its pledge of sincerity to the union +y granting an across-the-+oard (age increases -sic. to all e,ployees under the (age ordersB 1he union reiterated that it had agreed to Aretain the old pro)ision of CBAB on the strength of pri)ate respondent@s Apro,ise and assuranceB of an across-the-+oard salary increase should the go)ern,ent ,andate salary increases [0] "e)eral conferences +et(een the parties not(ithstanding, pri)ate respondent ada,antly ,aintained its position on the salary increases it had granted that (ere purportedly designed to a)oid (age distortion Conse=uently, the union 7led a co,plaint (ith the $C! $*!C alleging that pri)ate respondent@s act of Areneging on its underta5ingMpro,ise clearly constitutes an act of unfair la+or practice through +argaining in +ad faithB 3t charged pri)ate respondent (ith acts of unfair la+or practices or )iolation of Article 20F of the *a+or Code, as a,ended, speci7cally A+argaining in +ad faith,B and prayed that it +e a(arded actual, ,oral and e<e,plary da,ages [%] 3n its position paper, the union added that it (as charging pri)ate respondent (ith A)iolation of Article 100 of the *a+or CodeB [?] #ri)ate respondent, on the other hand, contended that in i,ple,enting Hage 8rders $os 01 and 02, it had a)oided Athe e<istence of a (age distortionB that (ould arise fro, such i,ple,entation 3t e,phasiDed that only Aafter a reasona+le length of ti,e fro, the i,ple,entationB of the (age orders Athat the union surprisingly raised the =uestion that the co,pany should ha)e i,ple,ented said (age orders on an across-the-+oard +asisB 3t asserted that there (as no agree,ent to the e9ect that future (age increases ,andated +y the go)ern,ent should +e i,ple,ented on an across-the-+oard +asis 8ther(ise, that agree,ent (ould ha)e +een incorporated and e<pressly stipulated in the CBA 3t =uoted the pro)ision of the CBA that rePects the parties@ intention to Afully set forthB therein all their agree,ents that had +een arri)ed at after negotiations that ga)e the parties Aunli,ited right and opportunity to ,a5e de,ands and proposals (ith respect to any su+Eect or ,atter not re,o)ed +y la( fro, the area of collecti)e +argainingB 1he sa,e CBA pro)ided that during its e9ecti)ity, the parties Aeach )oluntarily and un=uali7edly (ai)es the right, and each agrees that the other shall not +e o+ligated, to +argain collecti)ely, (ith respect to any su+Eect or ,atter not speci7cally referred to or co)ered +y this Agree,ent, e)en though such su+Eect or ,atter ,ay not ha)e +een (ithin the 5no(ledge or conte,plation of either or +oth of the parties at the ti,e they negotiated or signed this Agree,entB [F] 8n 4arch 11, 1992, *a+or Ar+iter Jose G de /era rendered a decision dis,issing the co,plaint for lac5 of ,erit ['] ;e considered t(o ,ain issues in the case2 -a. (hether or not respondents are guilty of unfair la+or practice, and -+. (hether or not the respondents are lia+le to i,ple,ent Hage 8rders $os 01 and 02 on an across-the-+oard +asis Ginding no +asis to rule in the a>r,ati)e on +oth issues, he e<plained as follo(s2 A1he charge of +argaining in +ad faith that the co,plainant union attri+utes to the respondents is +ereft of any certitude inas,uch as +ased on the co,plainant union@s o(n ad,ission, the latter )acillated on its o(n proposal to adopt an across-the-+oard stand or future (age increases 3n fact, the union ac5no(ledges the ,anage,ent@s sincerity (hen the latter allegedly i,ple,ented !epu+lic Act ?F2F on an across- the-+oard +asis 1hat such union proposal (as not adopted in the e<isting CBA (as due to the fact that it (as the union itself (hich decided for its defer,ent 3t is, therefore, ,isleading to clai, that the ,anage,ent undertoo5Mpro,ised to i,ple,ent future (age increases on an across-the-+oard +asis (hen as the e)idence sho(s it (as the union (ho as5ed for the defer,ent of its o(n proposal to that e9ect 1he alleged discri,ination in the i,ple,entation of the su+Eect (age orders does not inspire +elief at all (here the (age orders the,sel)es do not allo( the grant of (age increases on an across-the-+oard +asis 1hat there (ere e,ployees (ho (ere granted the full e<tent of the increase authoriDed and so,e others (ho recei)ed less and still others (ho did not recei)e any increase at all, (ould not ripen into (hat the co,plainants ter,ed as discri,ination 1hat the i,ple,entation of the su+Eect (age orders resulted into an une)en i,ple,entation of (age increases is Eusti7ed under the la( to pre)ent any (age distortion Hhat the respondents did under the circu,stances in order to deter an e)entual (age distortion (ithout any ar+itral proceedings is certainly co,,enda+le 1he alleged )iolation of Article 100 of the *a+or Code, as a,ended, as (ell as Article K/33, "ection F of the e<isting CBA as herein earlier =uoted is li5e(ise found +y this Branch to ha)e no +asis in fact and in la( $o +ene7ts or pri)ileges pre)iously enEoyed +y the e,ployees (ere (ithdra(n as a result of the i,ple,entation of the su+Eect orders *i5e(ise, the alleged co,pany practice of i,ple,enting (age increases declared +y the go)ern,ent on an across-the-+oard +asis has not +een duly esta+lished +y the co,plainants@ e)idence 1he co,plainants asserted that the co,pany i,ple,ented !epu+lic Act $o ?F2F (hich granted a (age increase of #2%00 e9ecti)e July 1, 19'9 on an across- the-+oard +asis Granting that the sa,e is true, such isolated single act that respondents adopted (ould de7nitely not ripen into a co,pany practice 3t has +een said that Xa sparro( or t(o returning to Capistrano does not a su,,er ,a5e@ Ginally, on the second issue of (hether or not the e,ployees of the respondents are entitled to an across-the-+oard (age increase pursuant to Hage 8rders $os 01 and 02, in the face of the a+o)e discussion as (ell as our 7nding that the respondents correctly applied the la( on (age increases, this Branch rules in the negati)e *i5e(ise, for (ant of factual +asis and under the circu,stances (here our 7ndings a+o)e are ad)erse to the co,plainants, their prayer for ,oral and e<e,plary da,ages and attorney@s fees ,ay not +e grantedB $ot satis7ed, petitioner appealed to the $*!C that, in turn, pro,ulgated the assailed !esolution of April 29, 199& [9] dis,issing the appeal for lac5 of ,erit "till dissatis7ed, petitioner sought reconsideration (hich, ho(e)er, (as denied +y the $*!C in the !esolution dated January 1F, 1990 ;ence, the instant petition for certiorari contending that2 'A' 1;I #6B*3C !I"#8$:I$1" G!8""*J I!!I: 3$ $81 :IC*A!3$G 1;I #!3/A1I !I"#8$:I$1" G63*1J 8G AC1" 8G 6$GA3! *AB8! #!AC13CI" H;I$, 8B/386"*J, 1;I *A11I! ;A" BA!GA3$I: 3$ BA: GA31; H31; 1;I 6$38$ A$: ;A" /38*A1I: 1;I CBA H;3C; 31 IKIC61I: H31; 1;I ;I!I3$ #I13138$I! 6$38$ '%' 1;I #6B*3C !I"#8$:I$1" "I!386"*J I!!I: 3$ $81 :IC*A!3$G 1;I #!3/A1I !I"#8$:I$1" G63*1J 8G AC1" 8G :3"C!343$A138$ 3$ 1;I 34#*I4I$1A138$ 8G $C! HAGI 8!:I! $8" 01 A$: 02 'C' 1;I #6B*3C !I"#8$:I$1" "I!386"*J I!!I: 3$ $81 G3$:3$G 1;I #!3/A1I !I"#8$:I$1" G63*1J 8G ;A/3$G /38*A1I: "IC138$ 0, A!13C*I K/33 8G 1;I IK3"13$G CBA '$' 1;I #6B*3C !I"#8$:I$1" G!A/I*J I!!I: 3$ $81 :IC*A!3$G 1;I #!3/A1I !I"#8$:I$1" G63*1J 8G ;A/3$G /38*A1I: A!13C*I 100 8G 1;I *AB8! C8:I 8G 1;I #;3*3##3$I", A" A4I$:I: 'E' A""643$G, H31;861 A:43113$G 1;A1 1;I #6B*3C !I"#8$:I$1" ;A/I C8!!IC1*J !6*I: 1;A1 1;I #!3/A1I !I"#8$:I$1" A!I G63*1J 8G AC1" 8G 6$GA3! *AB8! #!AC13CI", 1;IJ C844311I: "I!386" I!!8! 3$ $81 G3$:3$G 1;A1 1;I!I 3" A "3G$3G3CA$1 :3"18!138$ 3$ 1;I HAGI "1!6C16!I 8G 1;I !I"#8$:I$1 C84#A$J 'F' 1;I #6B*3C !I"#8$:I$1" I!!I: 3$ $81 AHA!:3$G 18 1;I #I13138$I!" ;I!I3$ AC16A*, 48!A*, A$: IKI4#*A!J :A4AGI" A$: A118!$IJ@" GII" As the Court sees it, the pi)otal issues in this petition can +e reduced into t(o, to (it2 -a. (hether or not pri)ate respondent co,,itted an unfair la+or practice in its refusal to grant across-the- +oard (age increases in i,ple,enting Hage 8rders $os 01 and 02, and -+. (hether or not there (as a signi7cant (age distortion of the (age structure in pri)ate respondent as a result of the ,anner +y (hich said (age orders (ere i,ple,ented Hith respect to the 7rst issue, petitioner union anchors its argu,ents on the alleged co,,it,ent of pri)ate respondent to grant an auto,atic across-the-+oard (age increase in the e)ent that a statutory or legislated (age increase is pro,ulgated 3t cites as +asis therefor, the afore=uoted portion of the 4inutes of the collecti)e +argaining negotiation on Ge+ruary 2F, 1990 regarding (ages, arguing additionally that said 4inutes for,s part of the entire agree,ent +et(een the parties 1he +asic pre,ise of this argu,ent is de7nitely untena+le 1o start (ith, if there (as indeed a pro,ise or underta5ing on the part of pri)ate respondent to o+ligate itself to grant an auto,atic across-the-+oard (age increase, petitioner union should ha)e re=uested or de,anded that such Apro,ise or underta5ingB +e incorporated in the CBA After all, petitioner union has the ,eans under the la( to co,pel pri)ate respondent to incorporate this speci7c econo,ic proposal in the CBA 3t could ha)e in)o5ed Article 2%2 of the *a+or Code de7ning Aduty to +argain,B thus, the duty includes Ae<ecuting a contract incorporating such agree,ents if re=uested +y either partyB #etitioner union@s assertion that it had insisted on the incorporation of the sa,e proposal ,ay ha)e a factual +asis considering the allegations in the afore,entioned Eoint a>da)it of its ,e,+ers ;o(e)er, Article 2%2 also states that the duty to +argain Adoes not co,pel any party to agree to a proposal or ,a5e any concessionB 1hus, petitioner union ,ay not )alidly clai, that the proposal e,+odied in the 4inutes of the negotiation for,s part of the CBA that it 7nally entered into (ith pri)ate respondent 1he CBA is the la( +et(een the contracting parties [10] N the collecti)e +argaining representati)e and the e,ployer- co,pany Co,pliance (ith a CBA is ,andated +y the e<pressed policy to gi)e protection to la+or [11] 3n the sa,e )ein, CBA pro)isions should +e Aconstrued li+erally rather than narro(ly and technically, and the courts ,ust place a practical and realistic construction upon it, gi)ing due consideration to the conte<t in (hich it is negotiated and purpose (hich it is intended to ser)eS [12] 1his is founded on the dictu! that a CBA is not an ordinary contract +ut one i,pressed (ith pu+lic interest [1&] 3t goes (ithout saying, ho(e)er, that only pro)isions e,+odied in the CBA should +e so interpreted and co,plied (ith Hhere a proposal raised +y a contracting party does not 7nd print in the CBA, [10] it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no clai, (hatsoe)er to its i,ple,entation ;ence, petitioner union@s contention that the 4inutes of the collecti)e +argaining negotiation ,eeting for,s part of the entire agree,ent is pointless 1he 4inutes rePects the proceedings and discussions underta5en in the process of +argaining for (or5er +ene7ts in the sa,e (ay that the ,inutes of court proceedings sho( (hat transpired therein [1%] At the negotiations, it is +ut natural for +oth ,anage,ent and la+or to adopt positions or ,a5e de,ands and o9er proposals and counter-proposals ;o(e)er, nothing is considered 7nal until the parties ha)e reached an agree,ent 3n fact, one of ,anage,ent@s usual negotiation strategies is to A< < < agree tentati)ely as you go along (ith the understanding that nothing is +inding until the entire agree,ent is reachedB [1?] 3f indeed pri)ate respondent pro!ised to continue (ith the practice of granting across- the-+oard salary increases ordered +y the go)ern,ent, such pro!ise could only +e de,anda+le in la( if incorporated in the CBA 4oreo)er, +y ,a5ing such pro!ise1 pri)ate respondent ,ay not +e considered in +ad faith or at the )ery least, resorting to the sche,e of feigning to underta5e the negotiation proceedings through e,pty pro,ises As earlier stated, petitioner union had, under the la(, the right and the opportunity to insist on the foreseeable ful7ll,ent of the pri)ate respondent@s pro,ise +y de,anding its incorporation in the CBA Because the proposal (as ne)er e,+odied in the CBA, the pro,ise has re,ained Eust that, a pro,ise, the i,ple,entation of (hich cannot +e )alidly de,anded under the la( #etitioner@s reliance on this Court@s pronounce,ents [1F] in Kiok Loy v. NLRC [1'] is, therefore, ,isplaced 3n that case, the e,ployer refused to +argain (ith the collecti)e +argaining representati)e, ignoring all notices for negotiations and re=uests for counter proposals that the union had to resort to conciliation proceedings 3n that case, the Court opined that A-a. Co,pany@s refusal to ,a5e counter-proposal, if considered in relation to the entire +argaining process, !ay indicate bad fait$ and this is specially true (here the 6nion@s re=uest for a counter-proposal is left unans(eredB Considering the facts of that case, the Court concluded that the co,pany (as Aun(illing to negotiate and reach an agree,ent (ith the 6nionB [19] 3n the case at +ench, ho(e)er, petitioner union does not deny that discussion on its proposal that all go)ern,ent-,andated salary increases should +e on an across-the-+oard +asis (as Adeferred,B purportedly +ecause it relied upon the Aunderta5ingB of the negotiating panel of pri)ate respondent [20] $either does petitioner union deny the fact that Athere is no pro)ision of the 1990 CBA containing a stipulation that the co,pany (ill grant across-the-+oard to its e,ployees the ,andated (age increaseB 1hey si,ply assert that pri)ate respondent co,,itted Aacts of unfair la+or practices +y )irtue of its contractual co!!it!ent !ade durin* t$e collective bar*ainin* process.B [21] 1he ,ere fact, ho(e)er, that the proposal in =uestion (as not included in the CBA indicates that no contractual co!!it!ent thereon (as e)er ,ade +y pri)ate respondent as no agree,ent had +een arri)ed at +y the parties 1hus2 A8+)iously the purpose of collecti)e +argaining is the reaching of an agree,ent resulting in a contract +inding on the partiesC +ut the failure to reach an agree,ent after negotiations continued for a reasona+le period does not esta+lish a lac5 of good faith 1he statutes in)ite and conte,plate a collecti)e +argaining contract, +ut they do not co,pel one 1he duty to +argain does not include the o+ligation to reach an agree,ent < < <B [22] Hith the e<ecution of the CBA, +ad faith +argaining can no longer +e i,puted upon any of the parties thereto All pro)isions in the CBA are supposed to ha)e +een Eointly and )oluntarily incorporated therein +y the parties 1his is not a case (here pri)ate respondent e<hi+ited an indi9erent attitude to(ards collecti)e +argaining +ecause the negotiations (ere not the unilateral acti)ity of petitioner union 1he CBA is proof enough that pri)ate respondent e<erted Areasona+le e9ort at good faith +argainingB [2&] 3ndeed, the ada,ant insistence on a +argaining position to the point (here the negotiations reach an i,passe does not esta+lish +ad faith $either can +ad faith +e inferred fro, a party@s insistence on the inclusion of a particular su+stanti)e pro)ision unless it concerns tri)ial ,atters or is o+)iously intolera+le [20] A1he =uestion as to (hat are ,andatory and (hat are ,erely per,issi)e su+Eects of collecti)e +argaining is of signi7cance on the right of a party to insist on his position to the point of stale,ate A party ,ay refuse to enter into a collecti)e +argaining contract unless it includes a desired pro)ision as to a ,atter (hich is a ,andatory su+Eect of collecti)e +argainingC +ut a refusal to contract unless the agree,ent co)ers a ,atter (hich is not a ,andatory su+Eect is in su+stance a refusal to +argain a+out ,atters (hich are ,andatory su+Eects of collecti)e +argainingC and it is no ans(er to the charge of refusal to +argain in good faith that the insistence on the disputed clause (as not the sole cause of the failure to agree or that agree,ent (as not reached (ith respect to other disputed clausesS [2%] 8n account of the i,portance of the econo,ic issue proposed +y petitioner union, it could ha)e refused to +argain and to enter into a CBA (ith pri)ate respondent 8n the other hand, pri)ate respondent@s 7r, stand against the proposal did not ,ean that it (as +argaining in +ad faith 3t had the right Ato insist on -its. position to the point of stale,ateB 8n the part of petitioner union, the i,portance of its proposal da(ned on it only after the (age orders (ere issued after the CBA had +een entered into 3ndeed, fro, the facts of this case, the charge of +ad faith +argaining on the part of pri)ate respondent (as nothing +ut a +elated reaction to the i,ple,entation of the (age orders that pri)ate respondent ,ade in accordance (ith la( 3n other (ords, petitioner union har+ored the notion that its ,e,+ers and the other e,ployees could ha)e had a +etter deal in ter,s of (age increases had it relentlessly pursued the incorporation in the CBA of its proposal 1he ine)ita+le conclusion is that pri)ate respondent did not co,,it the unfair la+or practices of +argaining in +ad faith and discri,inating against its e,ployees for i,ple,enting the (age orders pursuant to la( 1he Court li5e(ise 7nds un,eritorious petitioner union@s contention that +y its failure to grant across-the-+oard (age increases, pri)ate respondent )iolated the pro)isions of "ection %, Article /33 of the e<isting CBA [2?] as (ell as Article 100 of the *a+or Code 1he CBA pro)ision states2 A"ection % 1he C84#A$J agrees to co,ply (ith all the applica+le pro)isions of the *a+or Code of the #hilippines, as a,ended, and all other la(s, decrees, orders, instructions, Eurisprudence, rules and regulations a9ecting la+orB Article 100 of the *a+or Code on prohi+ition against eli,ination or di,inution of +ene7ts pro)ides that A-n.othing in this Boo5 shall +e construed to eli,inate or in any (ay di,inish supple,ents, or other e,ployee +ene7ts +eing enEoyed at the ti,e of pro,ulgation of this CodeB He agree (ith the *a+or Ar+iter and the $*!C that no +ene7ts or pri)ileges pre)iously enEoyed +y petitioner union and the other e,ployees (ere (ithdra(n as a result of the ,anner +y (hich pri)ate respondent i,ple,ented the (age orders Granted that pri)ate respondent had granted an across-the-+oard increase pursuant to !epu+lic Act $o ?F2F, that single instance ,ay not +e considered an esta+lished co,pany practice #etitioner union@s argu,ent in this regard is actually tied up (ith its clai, that the i,ple,entation of Hage 8rders $os 01 and 02 +y pri)ate respondent resulted in (age distortion 1he issue of (hether or not a (age distortion e<ists is a =uestion of fact [2F] that is (ithin the Eurisdiction of the =uasi-Eudicial tri+unals +elo( Gactual 7ndings of ad,inistrati)e agencies are accorded respect and e)en 7nality in this Court if they are supported +y su+stantial e)idence [2'] 1hus, in %etropolitan +ank and Trust Co!pany1 2nc. v. NLRC1 the Court said2 A1he issue of (hether or not a (age distortion e<ists as a conse=uence of the grant of a (age increase to certain e,ployees, (e agree, is, +y and large, a =uestion of fact the deter,ination of (hich is the statutory function of the $*!C Judicial re)ie( of la+or cases, (e ,ay add, does not go +eyond the e)aluation of the su>ciency of the e)idence upon (hich the la+or o>cials@ 7ndings rest As such, the factual 7ndings of the $*!C are generally accorded not only respect +ut also 7nality pro)ided that its decisions are supported +y su+stantial e)idence and de)oid of any taint of unfairness or ar+itrariness Hhen, ho(e)er, the ,e,+ers of the sa,e la+or tri+unal are not in accord on those aspects of a case, as in this case, this Court is (ell cautioned not to +e as so conscious in passing upon the su>ciency of the e)idence, let alone the conclusions deri)ed therefro,B [29] 6nli5e in a+o)e-cited case (here the :ecision of the $*!C (as not unani,ous, the $*!C :ecision in this case (hich (as penned +y the dissenter in that case, #residing Co,,issioner Idna Bonto-#ereD, unani,ously ruled that no (age distortions ,arred pri)ate respondent@s i,ple,entation of the (age orders 1he $*!C said2 A8n the issue of (age distortion, (e are satis7ed that there (as a ,eaningful i,ple,entation of Hage 8rders $os 01 and 02 1his de+un5s the clai, that there (as (age distortion as could +e sho(n +y the ite,iDed (ages i,ple,entation =uoted a+o)e 3t should +e noted that this ite,iDation has not +een successfully tra)ersed +y the appellants < < <B [&0] 1he $*!C then =uoted the la+or ar+iter@s ruling on (age distortion He 7nd no reason to depart fro, the conclusions of +oth the la+or ar+iter and the $*!C 3t is apropos to note, ,oreo)er, that petitioner@s contention on the issue of (age distortion and the resulting allegation of discri,ination against the pri)ate respondent@s e,ployees are anchored on its du+ious position that pri)ate respondent@s pro,ise to grant an across-the-+oard increase in go)ern,ent-,andated salary +ene7ts rePected in the 4inutes of the negotiation is an enforcea+le part of the CBA 3n the resolution of la+or cases, this Court has al(ays +een guided +y the "tate policy enshrined in the Constitution that the rights of (or5ers and the pro,otion of their (elfare shall +e protected [&1] 1he Court is li5e(ise guided +y the goal of attaining industrial peace +y the proper application of the la( 3t cannot fa)or one party, +e it la+or or ,anage,ent, in arri)ing at a Eust solution to a contro)ersy if the party has no )alid support to its clai,s 3t is not (ithin this Court@s po(er to rule +eyond the a,+it of the la( :!EREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is here+y $I#MI##E$ and the =uestioned !esolutions of the $*!C AFFIRME$ $o costs #O OR$ERE$.