COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN, 

petitioner, VS
ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF LETRAN and
ELEONOR AMBAS, respondents.
G.R. No. 141471               September 18, 2000

Facts:
During the renegotiation of the respondent unions CBA with the
petitioner, Ambas emerged as the newly elected President of the
union. Ambas wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but
petitioner claimed that the CBA was already prepared for signing by
the parties. However, the union members rejected the said CBA.  The
petitioner accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before
the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the petitioner and
was reversed on appeal with the NLRC. The parties agreed to
disregard the unsigned CBA and to start negotiation on new five-year
CBA. Ambas protested after being informed of the changes in her
work schedule and requested management to submit the issue to a
grievance machinery under the old CBA.  The union filed a notice to
strike.  The petitioner then ceased negotiations when it received news
that another labor organization had filed a petition for certification.
The union finally struck, but the Secretary of Labor and Employment
ordered them to return to work and for petitioner to accept them
back.  The Secretary of Labor and Employment later rendered
judgment that the petitioner had been guilty of unfair labor practice.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the former.

Issue:
Whether petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to
bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing
negotiations for a new CBA

Held:
The Supreme Court found the petition unmeritorious.
The petitioner’s failure to act upon the submitted CBA proposal within
the ten-day period exemplified in Art. 250 of the Labor Code is a clear
violation of the governing procedure of collective bargaining.  As the
Court has held in Kiok Loy vs. NLRC, the company’s refusal to make
counter-proposal to the union’s proposed CBA is an indication of bad
faith. Moreover, the succeeding events are obvious signs that the
petitioner had merely been employing delaying tactics to the passage
of the proposed CBA.  Moreover, in order to allow the employer to
validly suspend the bargaining process, there must be a valid petition
for certification election raising a legitimate representation
issue.  Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification election
does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the
employer.
 THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION et al v. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.,
LTD., FGU INSURANCE GROUP et al
G.R. No. L-25291. January 30, 1971

Facts:
The petitioners, while still members of the Federation of Free
Workers (FFW), entered into separate collective bargaining
agreements with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., and the FGU
Insurance Group. Two of the officers of the Unions tried to dissuade
the Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU), to no avail. The officers soon
left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of
the Department of Justice and were thereafter hired as part of the
negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective bargaining with
the Unions. Negotiations for the collective bargaining resulted to a
deadlock and nd the Unions went on strike for unfair labor practice
and picketed the offices of the Insular Life. The acting manager and
president sent individual letters to the striking employees urging them
to report for work or obtain their replacement. The strikers called off
their strike to return to their jobs. The CIR prosecutor filed a complaint
for unfair labor practice against the Companies for interfering with the
members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to concerted
action. After the trial, CIR dismissed the Unions’ complaint for lack of
merit.

Issues: Whether the Companies are guilty of ULP when they sent
individual letters to the strikers with the promise of additional benefits,
and notifying them to return to work, or lose their jobs.

Held:
The Companies contended that by sending those letters, it
constituted a legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression. That
contention is untenable. The Companies are guilty of unfair labor
practice when they sent individual letters to the strikers. It is an act of
interference with the right to collective bargaining through dealing
with the strikers individually instead of through their collective
bargaining representatives. Further, it is also an act of interference for
the employer to send individual letters to the employees notifying
them to return to their jobs, otherwise, they would be replaced.
Individual solicitation of the employees urging them to cease union
activity or cease striking consists of unfair labor practice.
Furthermore, when the Companies offered to “bribe” the strikers with
“comfortable cots, free coffee, and movies, overtime work pay” so
they would abandon their strike and return to work, it was guilty of
strike-breaking and/or union busting which constitute unfair labor
practice.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, Petitioner,
v. The CONFESOR, Respondents
G.R. NO. 114974 : June 16, 2004

Facts:
Before the commencement of the negotiation for the new CBA, the
Union suggested to the Bank’s HRM and head of the negotiating
panel, that the bank lawyers should be excluded from the negotiating
team. The Bank acceded. The head of the negotiating team for the
bank suggested that the President of the NUBE, the federation to
which the Union was affiliated, be excluded from the Union’s
negotiating panel. However, he was retained as a member thereof.
There was deadlock in the negotiations. Both parties alleged ULP.
Bank alleged that the Union violated its no strike- no lockout clause
by filing a notice of strike before the NCMB. Considering that the filing
of notice of strike was an illegal act, the Union officers should be
dismissed. Union alleged ULP when the bank interfered with the
Union’s choice of negotiator. It argued that, damage or injury to the
public interest need not be present in order for ULP to prosper. The
Union contended that the Bank went through the motions of collective
bargaining without the intent to reach an agreement.

Issue:
Whether the bank committed surface bargaining.

Held:
NO. Surface bargaining is defined as “going through the motions of
negotiating” without any legal intent to reach an agreement.” The
Union alleges that the Bank violated its duty to bargain; hence,
committed ULP when it engaged in surface bargaining. As borne by
the minutes of the meetings, the Bank refused to make a list of items
it agreed to include in the economic package. It does not show that
the Bank had any intention of violating its duty to bargain. Records
show that after the Union sent its proposal to the Bank and the latter
replied with a list of its counter-proposals. The Union has not been
able to show that the Bank had done acts, both at and away from the
bargaining table, which tend to show that it did not want to reach an
agreement with the Union or to settle the differences between it and
the Union. Admittedly, the parties were not able to agree and reached
a deadlock. However, it is herein emphasized that the duty to bargain
“does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the
making of a concession.” Hence, the parties’ failure to agree did not
amount to ULP for violation of the duty to bargain. Union, did not
send a written request for the issuance of a copy of the data about
the Bank’s rank and file employees. Moreover, the fact that the Bank
made use of the aforesaid guestimates, amounts to a validation of the
data it had used in its presentation.
 K-mart Corporation, Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations
Board, Respondent, 626 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1980)

Facts: K-Mart, maintains distribution centers in the country. The

Board certified Truckdrivers and Helpers Local 696 (the Union) to
represent the workers. Collective bargaining began with no
agreement. The company promised to make its comprehensive wage
offer when it received the Union's fringe benefits proposal. The Union
asked for the locations of K-Mart's other distribution centers and the
dates and amounts of the latest wage increases at those centers. K-
Mart withheld the locations for six months, and never did furnish the
wage information. The Union filed complaints with the Board, alleging
that K-Mart breached its duty to bargain in good faith and unfairly
refused to supply relevant information. ALJ found for the Union on
both contentions, and the Board adopted those findings. K-Mart
appeals from the Board's decision, and the Board seeks enforcement
of its order.
Issue:
When does an employer cross the line separating tough negotiating
from bad faith surface bargaining?

Discussion:
We affirm the Board's findings. Surface bargaining is defined as
"going through the motions of negotiating," without any real intent to
reach an agreement. It violates the Act's requirement that parties
negotiate in "good faith." It is prohibited because, the bargaining
status of a union can be destroyed by going through the motions of
negotiating. There will be employers who are tempted to engage in
the forms of collective bargaining without the substance.
In this case, the ALJ pointed the evidence to support the inference of
bad faith: (1) the wage proposals actually put forward by K-Mart; (2)
K-Mart's delay in making its proposals; and (3) K-Mart's refusal to
supply requested information. Before reviewing each contention, we
note the inherent problem in relying on a party's proposals to support
a finding of bad faith. Allowing the Board to review a party's
bargaining position comes "dangerously close" to denying the parties
the freedom to negotiate private contracts. This court has recognized
that, while the bargaining position may provide evidence of bad faith,
there must be additional substantial evidence to support the finding.
In this case, we can consider the regressive nature of the wage
proposals made by the company and the dropping of existing terms
favorable to the union. The requested information was relevant to the
bargaining sessions, and the company's refusal to supply it was an
unfair labor practice. The refusal and the other evidence discussed
above provide substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of
bad faith bargaining. The order of the Board is to be enforced.
 PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioner VS PHILIPPINE
GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS and PHILCOM CORPORATION,
respondent
G.R. No. 144315             July 17, 2006

Facts:
The CBA between petitioner and the respondent expired. The parties
started negotiations for the renewal of their CBA. While negotiations
were ongoing, PEU filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB-NCR. The
company suspended the ongoing CBA negotiation by bargaining
deadlock. The union went for another strike. At a conciliation
conference, the parties agreed to consolidate 2 Notices of Strike filed
by the union and to maintain the status quo during the pendency of
the proceedings. While the union and the company were meeting, the
union officers and members staged a strike at the company premises.
The company immediately filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor
and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute. Acting
Labor Secretary Trajano: enjoining any strike or lockout, whether
threatened or actual, directing the parties to cease and desist from
committing any act that may exacerbate the situation. Secretary of
Labor: The Union's Manifestation/Motion to Strike out Portions of and
Attachments in Philcom's Position Paper is hereby denied for lack of
merit. The Union's charges of unfair labor practice against the
Company are hereby dismissed. CA: Violations of CBAs, except
those gross in character, are mere grievances resolvable through the
appropriate grievance machinery or voluntary arbitration as provided
in the CBAs.

Issue/s:

Whether there was unfair labor practice.

Held:

Unfair labor practices of the employer are enumerated in Article 248

of the Labor Code. In this case, do not fall under any of the prohibited
acts defined and enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor Code. The
issues of misimplementation or non-implementation of employee
benefits, non-payment of overtime and other monetary claims,
inadequate transportation allowance, water, and other facilities, are
all a matter of implementation or interpretation of the economic
provisions of the CBA between Philcom and PEU subject to the
grievance procedure. The Union failed to convincingly show that
there is flagrant and/or malicious refusal by the Company to comply
with the economic provisions stipulated in the CBA.
 AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE
JACOBO C. CLAVE, et al, Respondents.
G.R. No. L-51641. June 29, 1982

Facts:
American President Lines (APL) entered into a contract with the
Maritime Security Agency for the latter to guard and protect APL’s
vessels. It was stipulated in the contract that its term was one year
commencing from the date of its execution and it may be terminated
by either parties upon 30 days’ notice to the other. The agency was
the one who hired and assigned the guards who kept watching over
APL’s vessels. A lump sum would be paid by the petitioner to the
agency who in turn determined and paid the compensation of the
individual watchmen. Upon prior notice given by the petitioner to the
Marine Security Agency, the contract was terminated on January 4,
1961 after it had run its term. The Union protested the termination
and alleged that the termination was caused by the Union’s demands
for union recognition or collective bargaining agreement.

Issue:
Whether the American President Lines was guilty of ULP by refusing
to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the watchmen
and discriminated against them in respect to their tenure of
employment by terminating their contract because of their union
activities.

Held:
No. An unfair labor practice may be committed only within the context
of an employer-employee relationship. In the case at bar, there was
no such thing to speak of. In determining the existence of employer-
employee relationship, the following elements are generally
considered, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power to control the employee's conduct - although the latter
is the most important element. It is the agency that recruits, hires, and
assigns the work of its watchmen. With respect to wages, it is the
agency that quantifies and pays the wages to the individual
watchmen. Neither does the ALP have any power to dismiss the
security guards. Since the petitioner has to deal with the agency, and
not the individual watchmen, on matters pertaining to the contracted
task, it stands to reason that the petitioner does not exercise any
power over the watchmen's conduct. Always, the agency stands
between the petitioner and the watchmen; and it is the agency that is
answerable to the petitioner for the conduct of its guards.
 THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
EMPLOYEES UNION, Petitioner, v. NLRC, et al, Respondents.
G.R. No. 125038. November 6, 1997

Facts:
The case at bar arose from the issuance of a non-executive job
evaluation program (JEP) lowering the starting salaries of future
employees, resulting from the changes made in the job grades and
structures, which was unilaterally implemented by the Bank. The
Union alleged that it was in violation of the existing CBA and thus
constituted unfair labor practice. The Union demanded the
suspension of the implementation of the JEP and proposed that the
same be instead taken up or included in their upcoming CBA
negotiations. The Bank replied that the JEP was issued in compliance
with its obligation under the CBA. This prompted the Union to
undertake concerted activities to protest the implementation of the
JEP. The Union refused to concede to the demand of the Bank
unless the latter agreed to suspend the implementation of the JEP.
The Bank filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Union
allegedly for engaging in the contrived activities against the ongoing
CBA negotiations. It averred that such concerted activities, despite
the ongoing CBA negotiations, constitute unfair labor practice.

Issue: Whether there was an unfair labor practice

Held:
Accordingly, this Court has recognized and affirmed the prerogative
of management to implement a job evaluation program or a
reorganization for as long as it is not contrary to law, morals or public
policy. Considering however the factual antecedents in this case, or
the lack of a complete presentation thereof, the court is constrained
to refrain from ruling outright in favor of the Bank. While it would
appear that remanding the case would mean a further delay in its
disposition, the court is not inclined to sacrifice equity and justice for
procedural technicalities or expediency. The order dismissing the
complaint for ULP with prejudice leaves much to be desired. Anent
the question on whether or not the labor arbiter has jurisdiction to
order the parties to return to and continue with the collective
bargaining negotiations, there is a commentary to the effect that the
Court may, in addition to the usual cease and desist orders, issue an
affirmative order to the employer to "bargain" with the bargaining
agent, as the exclusive representative of its employees, with respect
to the rate of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of
employment. On this aspect, respondent NLRC stands to be
reversed. The challenged disposition of respondent National Labor
Relations Commission is hereby AFFIRMED.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, Petitioner,
v. The CONFESOR, Respondents
G.R. NO. 114974 : June 16, 2004

Facts:
Before the commencement of the negotiation for the new CBA, the
Union suggested to the Bank’s HRM and head of the negotiating
panel, that the bank lawyers should be excluded from the negotiating
team. The Bank acceded. The head of the negotiating team for the
bank suggested that the President of the NUBE, the federation to
which the Union was affiliated, be excluded from the Union’s
negotiating panel. However, he was retained as a member thereof.
There was deadlock in the negotiations. Both parties alleged ULP.
Bank alleged that the Union violated its no strike- no lockout clause
by filing a notice of strike before the NCMB. Considering that the filing
of notice of strike was an illegal act, the Union officers should be
dismissed. Union alleged ULP when the bank interfered with the
Union’s choice of negotiator. It argued that, damage or injury to the
public interest need not be present in order for ULP to prosper. The
Union contended that the Bank went through the motions of collective
bargaining without the intent to reach an agreement.

Issue:
Whether the bank committed surface bargaining.

Held:
NO. Surface bargaining is defined as “going through the motions of
negotiating” without any legal intent to reach an agreement.” The
Union alleges that the Bank violated its duty to bargain; hence,
committed ULP when it engaged in surface bargaining. As borne by
the minutes of the meetings, the Bank refused to make a list of items
it agreed to include in the economic package. It does not show that
the Bank had any intention of violating its duty to bargain. Records
show that after the Union sent its proposal to the Bank and the latter
replied with a list of its counter-proposals. The Union has not been
able to show that the Bank had done acts, both at and away from the
bargaining table, which tend to show that it did not want to reach an
agreement with the Union or to settle the differences between it and
the Union. Admittedly, the parties were not able to agree and reached
a deadlock. However, it is herein emphasized that the duty to bargain
“does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the
making of a concession.” Hence, the parties’ failure to agree did not
amount to ULP for violation of the duty to bargain. Union, did not
send a written request for the issuance of a copy of the data about
the Bank’s rank and file employees. Moreover, the fact that the Bank
made use of the aforesaid guestimates, amounts to a validation of the
data it had used in its presentation.
 SCOTY'S DEPARTMENT STORE, ET AL., petitioner, vs. NENA
MICALLER, respondent
G.R. No. L-8116             August 25, 1956

Facts:
Nena Micaller was employed in the Scoty's Department Store. Nena
was the best seller of Scoty’s for three years. She organized a union,
which later affiliated with National Labor Union (NLU). NLU sent a
petition containing ten demands and Nena was called by the
management for questioning who the members of the union were, her
union membership and activities. She was even made to sign a paper
of withdrawal from the union. The union gave a notice of strike. Upon
receipt of this notice, Scoty’s hired temporary employees equal in
number to the old members. The new employees were affiliated with
another labor union. Micaller filed charges of unfair labor practice
against her above employers alleging that she was dismissed by
them because of her membership in the National Labor Union and
that, prior to her separation, said employers had been questioning
their employees regarding their membership in said union and had
interfered with their right to organize under the law.
The employers denied the charge. They claim that the complainant
was dismissed from the service because of her misconduct and
serious disrespect to the management and her co-employees.

Issue: Whether the petitioners are guilty of Unfair Labor practice

Held:
YES. Scoty’s subjected their employees to a series of questioning
membership in the union is a question of fact which the SC cannot
look into. The industrial court has made a careful analysis of the
evidence and has found the petitioners have really subjected
complaint and her co-employees to a series of questioning regarding
their membership in the union or their union activities which in
contemplation of law are deemed acts constituting unfair labor
practice [Section 4, (a) (4), Republic Act No. 875.

Many American cases that may be resorted to where been found

guilty of unfair labor practice under similar circumstances and was
given the corresponding sanction. One of such cases, which in our
opinion is on all fours with the present, is NLRB vs. Harris-Woodson
Co. (CCA-4, 1947, 179 F 2d 720) where the following was held: .
As to the Board's finding of interference, there is abundant evidence
of the questioning of employees as to membership in the union and of
anti-union expressions by the company's superintendent made in
such a way as to discourage union membership.
PHILIPPINE STEAM NAVIGATION CO., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE
OFFICERS GUILD, ET AL., respondents.
G.R. Nos. L-20667 and 20669 October 29, 1965

Facts:
Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in inter-island shipping.
Philippine Marine Officers Guild, herein otherwise called PMOG, is a
labor union representing some of PHILSTEAM's officers. The Cebu
Seamen's Association (CSA), is another labor union that represents
some of PHILSTEAM's officers. PMOG sent PHILSTEAM a set of
demands with a request for collective bargaining. PHILSTEAM
required the latter to first prove its representation of a majority of
PHILSTEAM's employees before its demands will be considered.
PHILSTEAM started interrogating and investigating its captains, deck
officers, and engineers, to find out directly from them if they had
joined PMOG or authorized PMOG to represent them. PMOG replied
insisting its former demands. PMOG filed a notice of strike. Two
conferences were held at DOLE but to no avail. Meanwhile CSA sent
petitioner its own set of demands. The latter recognized the latter as
having majority representation. On August 24, 1954, PHILSTEAM
and CSA signed a CBA. On the same date, PMOG declared a strike.
The RP President certified the dispute to CIR.

Issue:
Whether the petitioner committed ULP

Held:
Yes. The court has found that PHILSTEAM's interrogation of its
employees had in fact interfered with, restrained and coerced the
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization (Petition,
Annex A, p. 31). Such finding being upon questions of fact, the same
cannot be reversed herein, because it is fully supported by
substantial evidence. The rule in this jurisdiction is that subjection by
the company of its employees to a series of questionings regarding
their membership in the union or their union activities, in such a way
as to hamper the exercise of free choice on their part, constitutes
unfair labor practice. PHILSTEAM's aforestated interrogation
squarely falls under this rule.
 PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION,
et al, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC.
and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
GR. No. L-31195June 5, 1973
Facts:
Petitioner decided to stage a mass demonstration to express their
grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police. The
planned demonstration was confirmed by the union but it was
stressed out that the demonstration was not a strike against the
company but was in fact an exercise of the laborers' inalienable
constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and
freedom for petition for redress of grievances. The company asked
them to cancel the demonstration and was backed up with the threat
of the possibility that the workers would lose their jobs if they pushed
through with the rally. The company reiterated their appeal that while
the workers may be allowed to participate, those from the 1st and
regular shifts should not absent themselves to participate, otherwise,
they would be dismissed. The rally took place and the officers of the
PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a violation of the ‘No Strike
and No Lockout’ clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. The
lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the
PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for
reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court of Industrial
Relations for being filed two days late.

Issue:
Whether the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA

Held:
No. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy
of human rights over property rights is recognized.
The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice.
Because the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its
employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against
alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8)
petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint
on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom
petition for redress of grievances. The Supreme Court set aside as
null and void the orders of Court of Industrial Relations. The Supreme
Court also directed the re-instatement of the herein eight (8)
petitioners, with full back pay from the date of their separation from
the service until re-instated, minus one day’s pay and whatever
earnings they might have realized from other sources during their
separation from the service.
UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES — DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES UNIONS — KILUSANG MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA-
KMU), petitioner, vs. NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED,
respondent.

Facts:
Petitioner was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-
and-file employees of Nestlé. Union informed respondent company of
the intent to open a new CBA for the year 2001-2004. Dialogue
ensued but the parties failed to reach any agreement on the
economic conditions of the CBA; even conciliation proceedings failed.
Nestle refused to bargain, setting a precondition for the holding of
collective bargaining negotiations the non-inclusion of the issue of
Retirement Plan. Petitioner filed a Notice of Strike predicated on
Nestlé's alleged unfair labor practices, that is, bargaining in bad faith
by setting pre-conditions in the ground rules and/or refusing to
include the issue of the Retirement Plan in the CBA negotiations.
Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the case and issued an order to
enjoin any strike. The employee members of UFE-DFA-KMU at
Nestlé's Cabuyao Plant went on strike. The case was brought before
CA with the Court ruling grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Secretary of DOLE. In order to finally settle the dispute, then Acting
Secretary of the DOLE issued an order calling for the execution of the
CBA among other things. The Court of Appeals ruled grave abuse of
discretion.

Issue/s:

Whether Nestle was guilty of unfair labor practice

Held:
NO. ART. 248(g) of the Labor Code provides that it shall be unlawful
for an employer to commit the following unfair labor practices: to
violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code.

In the case at bar, except for the assertion put forth by UFE-DFA-
KMU, neither the second Notice of Strike nor the records of these
cases substantiate a finding of Unfair labor practice. It is not enough
that the union believed that the employer committed acts of unfair
labor practice when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima
facie showing to warrant such a belief. Herein, no proof was
presented to exemplify bad faith on the part of Nestlé apart from mere
allegation. Nestlé's inclusion in its Position Paper of its proposals
affecting other matters covered by the CBA negates the claim of
refusal to bargain or bargaining in bad faith. Accordingly, since UFE-
DFA-KMU failed to proffer substantial evidence that would overcome
the legal presumption of good faith on the part of Nestlé.