BANKARD, INC.

, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION-

FIRST DIVISION, PAULO BUENCONSEJO,BANKARD EMPLOYEES UNION-
AWATU, Respondents, G.R. No. 171664, March 6, 2013

PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.

TOPIC: Unfair labor practice

FACTS: On June 26, 2000, respondent Bankard Employees Union-AWATU (Union)

filed before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) its first Notice of
Strike (NOS), docketed as NS-06-225-00, 5 alleging commission of unfair labor practices
by petitioner Bankard, Inc. (Bankard), to wit: 1) job contractualization; 2)
outsourcing/contracting-out jobs; 3) manpower rationalizing program; and 4)
discrimination.

On July 3, 2000, the initial conference was held where the Union clarified the issues
cited in the NOS. On July 5, 2000, the Union held its strike vote balloting where the
members voted in favor of a strike. On July 10, 2000, Bankard asked the Office of the
Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute or to certify the same to
the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. On July 12, 2000, Secretary Bienvenido
Laguesma (Labor Secretary) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
issued the order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC. 6

On July 25, 2000, the Union declared a CBA bargaining deadlock. The following day,
the Union filed its second NOS, docketed as NS-07-265-00, 7 alleging bargaining in bad
faith on the part of Bankard. Bankard then again asked the Office of the Secretary of
Labor to assume jurisdiction, which was granted. Thus, the Order, dated August 9,
2000, certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC, was issued. 8

The Union, despite the two certification orders issued by the Labor Secretary enjoining
them from conducting a strike or lockout and from committing any act that would
exacerbate the situation, went on strike on August 11, 2000. 9

ISSUE:
1. Whether job contractualization or outsourcing or contracting-out is an unfair labor
practice on the part of the management.

2. Whether there was bad faith on the part of the management when it bargained with
the Union.

HELD: YES.  The petition is GRANTED. Contracting out of services is an exercise of

business judgment or management prerogative. Absent any proof that management
acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of
judgment by an employer.40Furthermore, bear in mind that ULP is punishable with both
civil and/or criminal sanctions.41 As such, the party so alleging must necessarily prove it
by substantial evidence. The Union, as earlier noted, failed to do this. Bankard merely
validly exercised its management prerogative. Not shown to have acted maliciously or
arbitrarily, no act of ULP can be imputed against it.

SAN FERNANDO COCA-COLA RANK-AND-FILE UNION (SACORU), represented

by its President, ALFREDO R. MARAÑON, Petitioner vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCBPI), Respondent,.,.G.R. No. 200499,. OCTOBER 4, 2017

PONENTE: CAGUIOA, J

TOPIC: Unfair labor practice

FACTS: On May 29, 2009, the private respondent company, Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines., Inc. ("CCBPI") issued notices of termination to twenty seven (27) rank-and-
file, regular employees and members of the San Fernando Rank-and-File
Union ("SACORU'), collectively referred to as "union members", on the ground of
redundancy due to the ceding out of two selling and distribution systems,
the Conventional Route System ("CRS') and Mini Bodega System ("MB") to the Market
Execution Partners ("MEPS''), better known as "Dealership System". The termination of
employment was made effective on June 30, 2009, but the union members were no
longer required to report for work as they were put on leave of absence with pay until
the effectivity date of their termination. The union members were also granted individual
separation packages, which twenty-two (22) of them accepted, but under protest.

To SACORU, the new, reorganized selling and distribution systems adopted and
implemented by CCBPI would result in the diminution of the union membership
amounting to union busting and to a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) provision against contracting out of services or outsourcing of regular positions;
hence, they filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) on June 3, 2009 on the ground of unfair labor practice, among others. On June
11, 2009, SACORU conducted a strike vote where a majority decided on conducting a
strike.

On June 23, 2009, the then Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), Marianito D. Roque, assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute by certifying
for compulsory arbitration the issues raised in the notice of strike. He ordered,

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, and pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code
of the Philippines, as amended, this Office hereby CERTIFIES the labor dispute at
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. to the National Labor Relations
Commission for compulsory arbitration.

Accordingly, any intended strike or lockout or any concerted action is automatically

enjoined. If one has already taken place, all striking and locked out employees shall,
within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of this Order, immediately return to work and
the employer shall immediately resume operations and re-admit all workers under the
same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. The parties are likewise
enjoined from committing any act that may further exacerbate the situation."

Meanwhile, pending hearing of the certified case, SACORU filed a motion for execution
of the dispositive portion of the certification order praying that the dismissal of the union
members not be pushed through because it would violate the order of the DOLE
Secretary not to commit any act that would exacerbate the situation.
On August 26, 2009, however, the resolution of the motion for execution was ordered
deferred and suspended; instead, the issue was treated as an item to be resolved jointly
with the main labor dispute.

CCBPI, for its part, argued that the new business scheme is basically a management
prerogative designed to improve the system of selling and distributing products in order
to reach more consumers at a lesser cost with fewer manpower complement, but
resulting in greater returns to investment. CCBPI also contended that there was a need
to improve its distribution system if it wanted to remain viable and competitive in the
business; that after a careful review and study of the existing system of selling and
distributing its products, it decided that the existing CRS and MB systems be ceded out
to the MEPs or better known as "Dealership System" because the enhanced MEPs is a
cost-effective and simplified scheme of distribution and selling company products; that
CCBPI, through the simplied system, would derive benefits such as: (a) lower cost to
serve; (b) fewer assets to manage; (c) zero capital infusion.

SACORU maintained that the termination of the 27 union members is a circumvention

of the CBA against the contracting out of regular job positions, and that the theory of
redundancy as a ground for termination is belied by the fact that the job positions are
contracted out to a "third party provider"; that the termination will seriously affect the
union membership because out of 250 members, only 120 members will be left upon
plan implementation that there is no redundancy because the sales department still
exists except that job positions will be contracted out to a sales contractor using
company equipment for the purpose of minimizing labor costs because contractual
employees do not enjoy CBA benefits; that the contractualization program of the
company is illegal because it will render the union inutile in protecting the rights of its
members as there will be more contractual employees than regular employees; and that
the redundancy program will result in the displacement of regular employees which is a
clear case of union busting.

Further, CCBPI argued that in the new scheme of selling and distributing products
through MEPs or "Dealership [System]", which is a contract of sale arrangement, the
ownership of the products is transferred to the MEPs upon consummation of the sale
and payment of the products; thus, the jobs of the terminated union members will
become redundant and they will have to be terminated as a consequence; that the
termination on the ground of redundancy was made in good faith, and fair and
reasonable criteria were determined to ascertain what positions were to be phased out
being an inherent management prerogative; that the terminated union members were in
fact paid their separation pay benefits when they were terminated; that they executed
quitclaims and release; and that the quitclaims and release being voluntarily signed by
the terminated union members should be declared valid and binding against them

ISSUE:

a. Whether CCBPI validly implemented its redundancy program;

b. Whether CCBPI's implementation of the redundancy program was an unfair labor

practice; and

c. Whether CCBPI should have enjoined the effectivity of the termination of the
employment of the 27 affected union members when the DOLE Secretary assumed
jurisdiction over their labor dispute.

HELD: YES. CCBPI violated the return-to-work order. Based on the foregoing, from the
date the DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction over a dispute until its resolution, the
parties have the obligation to maintain the status quo while the main issue is being
threshed out in the proper forum - which could be with the DOLE Secretary or with the
NLRC. This is to avoid any disruption to the economy and to the industry of the
employer - as this is the potential effect of a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest - while the DOLE Secretary or the NLRC is
resolving the dispute.

ALLAN M. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES

UNION (MWEU), NAMELY, EDUARDO B. BORELA, BUENAVENTURA QUEBRAL,
ELIZABETH COMETA, ALEJANDRO TORRES, AMORSOLO TIERRA, SOLEDAD
YEBAN, LUIS RENDON, VIRGINIA APILADO, TERESITA BOLO, ROGELIO
BARBERO, JOSE CASAÑAS, ALFREDO MAGA, EMILIO FERNANDEZ, ROSITA
BUENAVENTURA, ALMENIO CANCINO, ADELA IMANA, MARIO MANCENIDO,
WILFREDO MANDILAG, ROLANDO MANLAPAZ, EFREN MONTEMAYOR, NELSON
PAGULAYAN, CARLOS VILLA, RIC BRIONES,AND CHITO
BERNARDO, Respondents. G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016

PONENTE: DEL CASTILLO, J.:

TOPIC: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

FACTS: In an April 11, 2007 letter, 5 MWEU through Cometa informed petitioner that the
union was unable to fully deduct the increased P200.00 union dues from his salary due
to lack of the required December 2006 check-off authorization from him. Petitioner was
warned that his failure to pay the union dues would result in sanctions upon him.
Quebral informed Borela, through a May 2,2007 letter, 6 that for such failure to pay the
union dues, petitioner and several others violated Section l(g), Article IX of the MWEU's
Constitution and By-Laws.7 In turn, Borela referred the charge to the MWEU grievance
cornrnittee for investigation.

On May 21, 2007, a notice of hearing was sent to petitioner, who attended the
scheduled hearing. On June 6, 2007, the MWEU grievance committee recommended
that petitioner be suspended for 30 days.

On May 21, 2007, a notice of hearing was sent to petitioner, who attended the
scheduled hearing. On June 6, 2007, the MWEU grievance committee recommended
that petitioner be suspended for 30 days.

In a June 26, 2007 letter 10 to Borela, petitioner and Ms co-respondents took exception to
the imposition and indicated their intention to appeal the same to the General
Membership Assembly in accordance with Section 2(g), Article V of the union's
Constitution and By-Laws,11 which grants them the right to appeal any arbitrary
resolution, policy and rule promulgated by the Executive Board to the General
Membership Assembly. In a June 28, 2007 reply, 12 Borela denied petitioner's appeal,
stating that the prescribed period for appeal had expired.
ISSUE:

1. IN DECLARING THAT THE PRESENCE OF INTER/INTRA- UNION

CONFLICTS NEGATES THE COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
AGAINST A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS OFFICERS, AND IN
AFFIRMING THAT THE NLRC PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CASE FOR
ALLEGED LACK OF JURISDICTION.
2. IN NOT RULING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UNDER ARTICLE 249(a) AND (b) OF THE LABOR CODE.
3. IN DECLARING THAT THE THREATS MADE BY A UNION OFFICER AGAINST
MEMBERS OF A RIVAL UNION IS (sic) MERELY AN "INTERFERENCE" AND
DO NOT AMOUNT TO "RESTRAINT' OR "COERCION".
4. IN DECLARING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE IN PROVING RESPONDENTS' SPECIFIC ACTS OF UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES.
5. IN NOT RULING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE TO
PETITIONER FOR MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEY'S
FEES.

HELD: YES. The right of self-organization-includes the right to organize or affiliate with
a labor union or determine which of two or more unions in an establishment to join, and
to engage in concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining
through representatives of their own choosing, or for their mutual aid and
protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or enhancement of their rights and interests.

CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS

PETITIONER, VS. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC., RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 190515,
June 06 : 2011]

PONENTE: CARPIO MORALES, J.

TOPIC: INFRA-UNION DISPUTES

FACTS: This resolves the motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for
reconsideration filed by respondent, Cirtek Electronics, Inc., of the Court's Decision
dated November 15, 2010.

Respondent-movant avers that petitioner, in filing the petition for certiorari under Rule
65, availed of the wrong remedy, hence, the Court should have dismissed the petition
outright.  It goes on to aver that the Court erred in resolving a factual issue ” whether the
August 24, 2005 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was validly entered into ”, which is
not the office of a petition for certiorari.

Respondent-movant further avers that the MOA 1 signed by the remaining officers of
petitioner Union and allegedly gratified by its members should have been given
credence by the Court.

Furthermore, respondent-movant maintains that the Secretary of Labor cannot insist on

a ruling beyond the compromise agreement entered into by the parties; and that, as
early as February 5, 2010, petitioner Union had already filed with the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) a resolution of disaffiliation from the Federation of Free
Workers resulting in the latter's lack of personality to represent the workers in the
present case.

ISSUE:

 whether the August 24, 2005 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was validly entered
into 

HELD: NO. A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to
secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their
employee-members. A local union does not one its existence to the federation with
which it is affiliated.  It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its
creation to the will of its members.  The mere act of affiliation does not divest the
local union of its own personality, neither does it give the mother federation the
license to act independently of the local union.  It only gives rise to a contract of
agency where the former acts in representation of the latter, (emphasis and
underscoring supplied) Whether then, as respondent claims, FFW "went against the will
and wishes of its principal" (the member-employees) by pursuing the case despite the
signing of the MOA, is not for the Court, nor for respondent to determine, but for the
Union and FFW to resolve on their own pursuant to their principal-agent relationship.

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO CASIO, ROLANDO

IGOT, MARIO FAMADOR, NELSON LIM, FELICISIMO BOOC, PROCOPIO
OBREGON, JR., and ANTONIO ANINIPOK, Respondents, and VIRGILIO PINO,
PAULINO CABREROS, MA. LUNA P. JUMAOAS, DOMINADOR BOOC, FIDEL
VALLE, BARTOLOME AUMAN, REMEGIO CABANTAN, LORETO GONZAGA,
EDILBERTO MENDOZA and ANTONIO PANILAG, Respondents. G.R. No. 149552 .,
March 10, 2010

PONENTE: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

TOPIC: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

FACTS: The labor union Ilaw at Buklod ng Mangagawa (IBM)-Local 31 Chapter (Local
31) was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of GMC
in Lapu-Lapu City. On November 30, 1991, IBM-Local 31, through its officers and board
members, namely, respondents Virgilio Pino, 4 Paulino Cabreros, Ma. Luna P. Jumaoas,
Dominador Booc, Bartolome Auman, Remegio Cabantan, Fidel Valle, Loreto Gonzaga,
Edilberto Mendoza and Antonio Panilag (Pino, et al.), entered into a Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with GMC. The effectivity of the said CBA was retroactive
to August 1, 1991.5

The CBA contained the following union security provisions:

Section 3. MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP – All employees/workers employed by

the Company with the exception of those who are specifically excluded by law and by
the terms of this Agreement must be members in good standing of the Union within
thirty (30) days upon the signing of this agreement and shall maintain such membership
in good standing thereof as a condition of their employment or continued employment.

Section 6. The Company, upon written request of the Union, shall terminate the services
of any employee/worker who fails to fulfill the conditions set forth in Sections 3 and 4
thereof, subject however, to the provisions of the Labor Laws of the Philippines and
their Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Union shall absolve the Company from
any and all liabilities, pecuniary or otherwise, and responsibilities to any employee or
worker who is dismissed or terminated in pursuant thereof. 6

Casio, et al. were regular employees of GMC with daily earnings ranging from ₱173.75
to ₱201.50, and length of service varying from eight to 25 years. 7 Casio was elected
IBM-Local 31 President for a three-year term in June 1991, while his co-respondents
were union shop stewards.

In a letter8 dated February 24, 1992, Rodolfo Gabiana (Gabiana), the IBM Regional
Director for Visayas and Mindanao, furnished Casio, et al. with copies of the Affidavits
of GMC employees Basilio Inoc and Juan Potot, charging Casio, et al. with "acts
inimical to the interest of the union." Through the same letter, Gabiana gave Casio, et
al. three days from receipt thereof within which to file their answers or counter-affidavits.
However, Casio, et al. refused to acknowledge receipt of Gabiana’s letter.

Subsequently, on February 29, 1992, Pino, et al., as officers and members of the IBM-
Local 31, issued a Resolution 9 expelling Casio, et al. from the union. Pertinent portions
of the Resolution are reproduced below:

Whereas, Felicisimo Booc, Rolando Igot, Procopio Obregon, Jr., Antonio Aninipok,
Mario Famador, Nelson Lim and Ernesto Casio, through Ernesto Casio have refused to
acknowledge receipt of the letter-complaint dated February 24, 1992, requiring them to
file their answer[s] or counter-affidavits as against the charge of "acts inimical to the
interest of the union" and that in view of such refusal to acknowledge receipt, a copy of
said letter complaint was dropped or left in front of E. Casio;
Whereas, the three (3)[-]day period given to file their answer or counter-affidavit have
already lapsed prompting the union Board to investigate the charge ex parte;

Whereas, after such ex parte investigation the said charge has been more than
adequately substantiated by the affidavits/witnesses and documentary exhibits
presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED as it is hereby RESOLVED, that Ernesto Casio,

Felicisimo Booc, Rolando Igot, Procopio Obregon, Jr., Antonio Aninipok, Mario Famador
and Nelson Lim be expelled as union member[s] of good standing effectively
immediately.

RESOLVED FURTHER, to furnish copy of this Resolution to the GMC Management for
their information and guidance with the recommendation as it is hereby recommended
to dismiss the above-named employees from work.

Gabiana then wrote a letter10 dated March 10, 1992, addressed to Eduardo Cabahug
(Cabahug), GMC Vice-President for Engineering and Plant Administration, informing the
company of the expulsion of Casio, et al. from the union pursuant to the Resolution
dated February 29, 1992 of IBM-Local 31 officers and board members. Gabiana
likewise requested that Casio, et al. "be immediately dismissed from their work for the
interest of industrial peace in the plant."

Gabiana followed-up with another letter 11 dated March 19, 1992, inquiring from
Cabahug why Casio, et al. were still employed with GMC despite the request of IBM-
Local 31 that Casio, et al. be immediately dismissed from service pursuant to the closed
shop provision in the existing CBA. Gabiana reiterated the demand of IBM-Local 31 that
GMC dismiss Casio, et al., with the warning that failure of GMC to do so would
constitute gross violation of the existing CBA and constrain the union to file a case for
unfair labor practice against GMC.

Pressured by the threatened filing of a suit for unfair labor practice, GMC acceded to
Gabiana’s request to terminate the employment of Casio, et al. GMC issued a
Memorandum dated March 24, 1992 terminating the employment of Casio, et al.
effective April 24, 1992 and placing the latter under preventive suspension for the
meantime.

On March 27, 1992, Casio, et al., in the name of IBM-Local 31, filed a Notice of Strike
with the NCMB-Regional Office No. VII (NCMB-RO). Casio, et al. alleged as bases for
the strike the illegal dismissal of union officers and members, discrimination, coercion,
and union busting. The NCMB-RO held conciliation proceedings, but no settlement was
reached among the parties.12

Casio, et al. next sought recourse from the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) Regional Arbitration Branch VII by filing on August 3, 1992 a Complaint against
GMC and Pino, et al. for unfair labor practice, particularly, the termination of legitimate
union officers, illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and moral and exemplary damages.
Their Complaint was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-VII-08-0639-92. 13

Finding that NLRC Case No. RAB-VII-08-0639-92 did not undergo voluntary arbitration,
the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but endorsed the same to
the NCMB-RO. Prior to undergoing voluntary arbitration before the NCMB-RO,
however, the parties agreed to first submit the case to the grievance machinery of IBM-
Local 31. On September 7, 1994, Casio, et al. filed their Complaint with Pino, the Acting
President of IBM-Local 31. Pino acknowledged receipt of the Complaint and assured
Casio, et al. that they would be "seasonably notified of whatever decision and/or action
the Board may have in the instant case." 14 When the IBM-Local 31 Board failed to hold
grievance proceedings on the Complaint of Casio, et al., NCMB Voluntary Arbitrator
Canonoy-Morada assumed jurisdiction over the same. The Complaint was docketed as
VA Case No. AC 389-01-01-95.

ISSUE: Whereas, the three (3)[-]day period given to file their answer or counter-affidavit
have already lapsed prompting the union Board to investigate the charge ex parte;
Whereas, after such ex parte investigation the said charge has been more than
adequately substantiated by the affidavits/witnesses and documentary exhibits
presented.

HELD: NO. In sum, the Court finds that GMC illegally dismissed Casio, et al. because
not only did GMC fail to make a determination of the sufficiency of evidence to support
the decision of IBM-Local 31 to expel Casio, et al., but also to accord the expelled union
members procedural due process, i.e., notice and hearing, prior to the termination of
their employment. An employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to the twin reliefs of
full backwages and reinstatement. If reinstatement is not viable, separation pay is
awarded to the employee. In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed
employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one
month salary for every year of service. Under Republic Act No. 6715, employees who
are illegally dismissed are entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their actual compensation
was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement but if reinstatement
is no longer possible, the backwages shall be computed from the time of their illegal
termination up to the finality of the decision. Thus, Casio, et al. are entitled to
backwages and separation pay considering that reinstatement is no longer possible
because the positions they previously occupied are no longer existing, as declared by
GMC.