5. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION and NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.
G.R. No. 91025. December 19, 1990. MEDIALDEA, J.
Facts:

 Petitioner Union Filipro Employees (UFE) is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all
rank and file employees of Nestle Phil. Inc. (NPI).
 UFE filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor against NPI on the ground of
Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and raising the issue of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
deadlock.
 National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) invited the parties for a conference for
the purpose of settling the dispute but NPI failed to attend and assailed the proponents of
the said notice of strike.
 The respective CBAs in the 4 units of Nestle, in Alabang-Cabuyao, Makati, Cagayan de Oro
and Cebu/Davao work locations had all expired. 2 of the said work locations were
represented by UFE respectively at Alabang/Cabuyao and Makati.
 UFE, prior to the expiration of the CBAs for Makati and Alabang/Cabuyao, submitted its
proposals to NPI which the latter expressed its readiness to negotiate.
 Thereafter, NPI terminated the employment of all UFE union officers and all members of
negotiating panel who participated in a strike at Makati, Alabang, Cabuyao and Cagayan De
Oro.
 The union filed a complaint of illegal dismissal. LA upheld the validity of the dismissal which
is later on affirmed by NLRC en banc. However, the union officers asserted their authority to
represent the regular rank and file employees being the duly elected officers of said union.
 On Oct. 18, 1988, UFE filed a motion asking Sec. of Justice to assume jurisdiction over the
dispute of deadlock in collective bargaining between parties because of failure of NCMB to
amicably settle the dispute due to irreconcilable conflicts.
 Sec. of Justice, Drilon, directed that the issue be submitted to NLRC for compulsory
arbitration. NLRC promulgated a resolution granting wage increase and ordering both
parties to execute and implement a collective bargaining agreement for a duration of 5
years.
Issues:
1. Whether the NLRC acted without jurisdiction in rendering the resolution – NO
2. Whether NLRC had acted with grave abuse of discretion and committed serious errors in fact
and in law when it ruled that the CBA is effective only upon the promulgation of the assailed
resolution – NO
3. Whether NLRC erred in denying the union's demand for contract signing bonus and modified
union shop in the assailed resolution – NO
Ruling:
1. No.

 The assumption of jurisdiction by the Sec. of Labor over labor disputes causing or likely to
cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest is in the nature
of a police power for in this case the company affected with public interest is one of the
largest manufacturers of food products. Through this, prolonged strike or lockout is inimical
to the national economy.
 Corollarily, it was the Sec. Of Labor's certification order for compulsory arbitration which
directed NLRC to promulgate an immediate resolution for an already delayed CBA.
 Hence, when sitting in a compulsory arbitration certified by Sec. of Labor, NLRC s not sitting
as a judicial court but as an administrative body charged with the duty to implement the
order of the Secretary.
 Thus, its function is only to formulate the terms and conditions of the CBA and not to go
beyond the order.
2. Arts. 253 and 253-A as amended by RA 6715 are clear. To quote; "... if any agreement on
such other provisions of the CBA entered within 6 months from the date of expiry of the term of
such other provisions as fixed in the CBA, shall retroact to the day immediately following such
date. If any such agreement is entered beyond 6 months, the parties shall agree on the duration
of retroactivity thereof."

 In view of this, the Court upholds the pronouncement of the NLRC holding the CBA to be
signed by the parties is effective upon the promulgation of the assailed resolution by
NLRC.
 The assailed resolution was promulgated on June 5, 1989 which is outside the 6-month
period from June 30, 1987, the expiry date of the past CBA.
 Based on the foregoing provision since no agreement to that effect was made NLRC did
not abuse its discretion in giving the said CBA prospective effect.
3. The contention of the union is wrong.

 The Court ruled that NLRC is in the best position to formulate a CBA which is equitable
to all concerned due to its expertise in settling disputes.
 Hence it is imbued with competence to appraise and evaluate the evidence and
positions presented by the parties.
 Absent showing of the grave abuse of discretion, the findings of NLRC should not be
disturbed.
Petition is hereby dismissed and the decision of NLRC is affirmed except insofar as the ruling
absolving NPI of ULP is set aside.