Unfair Labor Practice

1. Minette Baptista, et al. vs. Rosario Villanueva, et al.,

G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013
2. Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs.
Digitel Employees Union (DEU), et al., G.R. No.
184903-04, October 10, 2012
3. Employees Union of Bayer Philippines, FFW, and
Juanito Facundo vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
162943, December 6, 2010
4. Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, Tryco Pharma Corporations,
and/or Wilfredo C. Rivera, G.R. No. 151309, October
15, 2008
5. Norma Mabeza vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, Peter Ng/Hotel Supreme, G.R. No.
118506, April 18, 1997
6. Balmar Farms, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission and Associated Labor Unions (ALU), G.R.
No. 73504, October 15, 1991

69
 Parties and Case Is there Unfair Labor Practice? Final Disposition
Number What are the acts constitutes ULP?
1. Minette Baptista, There is no unfair labor practice For a charge of ULP against a labor organization to
et al. vs. Rosario committed by the labor organization. prosper, the onus probandi rests upon the party alleging it to
Villanueva, et al., prove or substantiate such claims by the requisite quantum
G.R. No. 194709,  Petitioners were expelled from the of evidence. In labor cases, as in other administrative
July 31, 2013 union due to their violation of proceedings, substantial evidence or such relevant evidence
Section 2.5 of Article IX of the CBL as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a
which punishes the act of "urging conclusion is required. Moreover, it is indubitable that all the
or advocating that a member start prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice should
an action in any court of justice or materially relate to the workers' right to self-organization.
external investigative body against
the Union or any of its officer, Unfortunately, petitioners failed to discharge the
without first exhausting all burden required to prove the charge of ULP against the
internal remedies open to him or respondents. Aside from their self-serving allegations,
available in accordance with the petitioners were not able to establish how they were
Constitution and By-Laws of restrained or coerced by their union in a way that curtailed
Union. their right to self-organization. The records likewise failed to
sufficiently show that the respondents unduly persuaded
management into discriminating against petitioners. other
than to bring to its attention their expulsion from the union,
which in turn, resulted in the implementation of their CBA' s
union security clause. As earlier stated, petitioners had the
burden of adducing substantial evidence to support its
allegations of ULP, which burden they failed to discharge. In
fact, both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioners were
unable to prove their charge of ULP against the respondents.

70
 It is axiomatic that absent any clear showing of
abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness, the findings of fact by
the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this
case, are binding and conclusive upon the Court. Having
found none, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from
the challenged decision.
2. Digital The employer Digital The closure of a department is not illegal per se. What
Telecommunication Telecommunications committed makes it unlawful is when the closure is undertaken in bad
s Philippines, Inc. unfair labor practice. faith. In St. John Colleges, Inc. v. St. John Academy Faculty
vs. Digitel and Employees Union,26 bad faith was evidenced by the
Employees Union  Closure of Digiserv and the timing of and reasons for the closure and the timing of and
(DEU), et al., G.R. rehiring of some employees to reasons for the subsequent opening. There, the collective
No. 184903-04, Interactive Technology Solutions, bargaining negotiations between St. John and the Union
October 10, 2012 Inc. (I-tech), a corporate arm of resulted in a bargaining deadlock that led to the filing of a
Digitel notice of strike. The labor dispute was referred to the
Secretary of Labor who assumed jurisdiction. Pending
resolution of the dispute, St. John closed the school
prompting the Union to file a complaint for illegal dismissal
and unfair labor practice. The Union members alleged that
the closure of the high school was done in bad faith in order
to get rid of the Union and render useless any decision of the
SOLE on the CBA deadlocked issues. We held that closure
was done to defeat the affected employees’ security of tenure.

As in St. John, bad faith was manifested by the timing

of the closure of Digiserv and the rehiring of some employees
to Interactive Technology Solutions, Inc. (I-tech), a corporate
arm of Digitel. The assumption order directs employees to

71
 return to work, and the employer to reinstate the employees.
The existence of the assumption order should have prompted
Digitel to observe the status quo. Instead, Digitel proceeded
to close down Digiserv. The Secretary of Labor had to
subsume the second notice of strike in the assumption order.
This order notwithstanding, Digitel proceeded to dismiss the
employees. The timing of the creation of I-tech is dubious. It
was incorporated on 18 January 2005 while the labor
dispute within Digitel was pending. Itech’s primary purpose
was to provide call center/customer contact service, the
same service provided by Digiserv. It conducts its business
inside the Digitel office at 110 E. Rodriguez Jr. Avenue,
Bagumbayan, Quezon City. The former head of Digiserv, Ms.
Teresa Taniega, is also an officer of Itech. Thus, when
Digiserv was closed down, some of the employees presumably
non-union members were rehired by I-tech. Thus, the
closure of Digiserv pending the existence of an assumption
order coupled with the creation of a new corporation
performing similar functions as Digiserv leaves no iota of
doubt that the target of the closure are the union member-
employees. These factual circumstances prove that Digitel
terminated the services of the affected employees to defeat
their security of tenure. The termination of service was not a
valid retrenchment; it was an illegal dismissal of employees.
It needs to be mentioned too that the dismissal constitutes
an unfair labor practice under Article 248(c) of the Labor
Code which refers to contracting out services or functions
being performed by union members when such will interfere

72
 with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization. At the height of the labor dispute,
occasioned by Digitel’s reluctance to negotiate with the
Union, I-tech was formed to provide, as it did provide, the
same services performed by Digiserv, the Union members’
nominal employer.
3. Employees Union The employer Bayer In Silva v. National Labor Relations
of Bayer Philippines, Inc. committed unfair Commission,[56] we explained the correlations of Article 248
Philippines, FFW, labor practice. (1) and Article 261 of the Labor Code to mean that for a ULP
and Juanito case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and for the NLRC
Facundo vs. Bayer  Organizing a company union, to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in
Philippines, Inc., gross violation of the CBA and the complaint must show prima facie the concurrence of two
G.R. No. 162943, violation of their duty to bargain things, namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; and (2) the
December 6, 2010 violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA.

This pronouncement in Silva, however, should not be

construed to apply to violations of the CBA which can be
considered as gross violations per se, such as utter disregard
of the very existence of the CBA itself, similar to what
happened in this case. When an employer proceeds to
negotiate with a splinter union despite the existence of its
valid CBA with the duly certified and exclusive bargaining
agent, the former indubitably abandons its recognition of the
latter and terminates the entire CBA.

Respondents cannot claim good faith to justify their

acts. They knew that Facundos group represented the duly-
elected officers of EUBP. Moreover, they were cognizant of the

73
 fact that even the DOLE Secretary himself had recognized the
legitimacy of EUBPs mandate by rendering an arbitral award
ordering the signing of the 1997-2001 CBA between Bayer
and EUBP. Respondents were likewise well-aware of the
pendency of the intra-union dispute case, yet they still
proceeded to turn over the collected union dues to REUBP
and to effusively deal with Remigio. The totality of
respondents conduct, therefore, reeks with anti-
EUBP animus.
4. Bisig Manggagawa Employer Tryco Pharma did We cannot see how the mere transfer of its members
sa Tryco vs. not commit unfair labor practice. can paralyze the union. The union was not deprived of the
National Labor membership of the petitioners whose work assignments were
Relations  The company acted in bad faith only transferred to another location.
Commission, Tryco during the CBA negotiations
Pharma because it sent representatives More importantly, there was no showing or any
Corporations, without authority to bind the indication that the transfer orders were motivated by an
and/or Wilfredo C. company, and this was the reason intention to interfere with the petitioners right to organize.
Rivera, G.R. No. why the negotiations failed Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers
151309, October right to organize. With the exception of Article 248(f) of the
15, 2008 Labor Code of the Philippines, the prohibited acts are related
to the workers right to self-organization and to the
observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, no
matter how unfair, are not unfair labor practices.

Finally, we do not agree with the petitioners assertion

that the MOA is not enforceable as it is contrary to law. The
MOA is enforceable and binding against the petitioners.
Where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so

74
 voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing,
and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid
and binding undertaking.
5. Norma Mabeza vs. Employer Hotel Supreme The pivotal question in any case where unfair labor
National Labor committed unfair labor practice practice on the part of the employer is alleged is whether or
Relations not the employer has exerted pressure, in the form of
Commission, Peter  Private respondent's scheme of restraint, interference or coercion, against his employee's
Ng/Hotel Supreme, inducing his employees to sign an right to institute concerted action for better terms and
G.R. No. affidavit absolving him from conditions of employment. Without doubt, the act of
118506, April 18, possible violations of the Labor compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that
1997 Code - taints with evident bad the employer observed labor standards provisions of law
faith and deliberate malice when he might have not, together with the act of terminating
petitioner's summary termination or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employer's
from employment scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. The first act clearly
preempts the right of the hotel's workers to seek better terms
and conditions of employment through concerted action.

We agree with the Solicitor General's observation in

his manifestation that "[t]his actuation... is analogous to the
situation envisaged in paragraph (f) of Article 248 of the
Labor Code"[24]which distinctly makes it an unfair labor
practice "to dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
discriminate against an employee for having given or being
about to give testimony" under the Labor Code. For in not
giving positive testimony in favor of her employer, petitioner
had reserved not only her right to dispute the claim and
proffer evidence in support thereof but also to work for better

75
 terms and conditions of employment.

For refusing to cooperate with the private

respondent's scheme, petitioner was obviously held up as an
example to all of the hotel's employees, that they could only
cause trouble to management at great personal
inconvenience. Implicit in the act of petitioner's termination
and the subsequent filing of charges against her was the
warning that they would not only be deprived of their means
of livelihood, but also possibly, their personal liberty.
6. Balmar Farms, Inc. Employer Balmar Farms, Inc BALMAR cannot also invoke good faith in refusing to
vs. National Labor committed unfair labor practice. negotiate with ALU, considering that the latter has been
Relations certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of
Commission and  Refusal to bargain collectively BALMAR rank and file employees. As observed by the
Associated Labor Solicitor General, BALMAR'S pretense that majority of its
Unions (ALU), G.R. rank and file employees disaffiliated simply because of a
No. 73504, October letter it received to that effect, all the more sustains the
15, 1991 finding of bad faith for it is not for the petitioner BALMAR to
question which group is the collective bargaining
representative of its rank and file employees.

Balmar's taking side with the rank and file employee

who allegedly disaffiliated, renders its stand on the matter
highly suspicious.

It can, therefore, be inferred that BALMAR's refusal to

bargain collectively with ALU is a clear act of unfair labor
practice. Article 248 (Labor Code, as amended), enumerates

76
 unfair labor practices committed by employers such as for
them:

(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as

prescribed by this Code;

77