SARA LEE PHILIPPINES, INC.

vs.
EMILINDA D. MACATLANG, ET AL.
June 4, 2014
 Art. 223. (229N) Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the
Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days
from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal
may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
a. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the
part of the Labor Arbiter;
b. If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or
coercion, including graft and corruption;
c. If made purely on questions of law; and d. If serious errors in
the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or
irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an
appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting
of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount
equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed
from. (Emphasis supplied)
ARIS filed Notice Conciliation:
of Permanent 5,984 employees Aris to pay
Closure conducted a 419Million
strike

For: October 9,1995

5,984 employees
LABOR filed complaints FAPI was
ARBITER against Illegal incorporated
Dismissal

October 26,1995
 Petitioners filed for Notice of Appeal
LABOR ARBITER with Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond
and to Admit Reduced Amount
They posted 4.5Million bond

3,453,664,710.86
Separation pay and Other
monetary benefits

NLRC granted
reduction of Appeal
CA directed an Bond to a total of
additional 1Billion 9 Million
Appeal Bond

Macatlang, et.al filed

Petition for Certiorari:
Insufficiency of Cash
Bond
 ISSUE:

Whether or not the Bond may be

reduced.
 COURT RULING

YES.
REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF
APPEAL PER ARTICLE 223 (229):
1. Payment of Appeal Fees
2. Filing of the memorandum of appeal
3. Payment of the required cash or surety
bond
 COURT RULING
The requirement that the employer post a cash or
surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently
intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in
the case, they will receive the money judgment in
their favor upon the dismissal of the employer's
appeal. It was intended to discourage employers
from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their
obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful
claims.
NLRC may dispense of the posting of bond when the
judgment award is:
1. Not stated
2. Based on a patently erroneous computation
 COURT RULING
YES.
The Rules only allow the filing of a motion to
reduce bond on two conditions:
1. That there is meritorious ground
2. A bond in a reasonable amount is posted

All motions to reduce bond that are to be filed with

the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a
cash or surety bond equivalent to 10% of the
monetary award appealed from and shall exclude
damages and attorney’s fees.
 COURT RULING
YES.
3,450,000,000.00 – Monetary Award
- 119,680,000.00 – Damages
- 419,000,000.00 – Paid Commitment
- 9,000,000.00 – Bond posted
2,902,320,000.00
x 25%
725,000,000.00 – Reduced amount of
bond to be posted by the
Corporations
 CARMELITO L. PALACOL, ET AL.
vs.
PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of the
Bureau of Labor Relations,
MANILA CCBPI SALES FORCE UNION,
and COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
(PHILIPPINES), INC.

October 12, 1987:
Coca-Cola Bottlers
granted a general
salary increase to
be paid in lump
sum
October 12, 1987:
CCBPI Sales Force Union
submitted a RATIFIED and
AUTHORIZED CBA TO
DEDUCT:
1. UNION DUES of P
10/payday or P 20/month
2. 10% of the lump sum
pay by way of Special
Assessment

672 out of 800 members AUTHORIZED and

RATIFIED the 10% which was obtained
though a secret referendum held in separate
local membership meetings on various dates.
 Subsequently, 355 Coca-Cola Bottlers filed an
members of the action for interpleader to
Union withdrew know where to remit the
their authorization special assessment

Bureau of Labor Med-Arbiter directed the

Relations reversed the company to remit the
Med-Arbiter’s Order amount to the employees
 ISSUE:

Whether or not deduction of the 10%

special assessment by the Union was
made in accordance with the
requirements provided by law
 COURT RULING
NO.
The applicable provisions are clear. The Union itself
admits that both paragraphs (n) and (o) of Article 241
apply. Paragraph (n) refers to "levy" while paragraph
(o) refers to "check-off" of a special assessment. Both
provisions must be complied with. Under paragraph
(n), the Union must submit to the Company a written
resolution of a majority of all the members at a general
membership meeting duly called for the purpose. In
addition, the secretary of the organization must record
the minutes of the meeting which, in turn, must
include, among others, the list of all the members
present as well as the votes cast.
 COURT RULING
Art. 241(n) Requirements (levy):
1. Written Resolution of majority of
members
2. General Membership meeting
3. Secretary shall record
a. the minutes of the meeting
b. List of the members present
c. votes cast
d. Purpose and recipient of the special
 COURT RULING
Art. 241(n) Requirements (levy):
1.Minutes
WrittenofResolution of majority
local membership of only
meeting
members
No general membership meeting
2. General
The UnionMembership
Director, not meeting
the secretary,
3. Secretary
recorded shall
the record
minutes of meeting
a. the No
minutes
list of of the meeting
members present
b. List ofNo
the members present
record of votes cast
c. votes cast
The purpose was stated but the fees for services
d. Purpose
rendered by theand recipient
union of the special
officers/consultants falls
 COURT RULING
Art. 241(o) Requirements
(check-off):
1. Individual written authorization
signed by the employee
2. The authorization should state:
a. The amount
b. Purpose of the deduction
c. Beneficiary of the deduction
 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
EMPLOYEES UNION (NUBE)
vs
SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
AND THE STANDARD CHARTERED
BANK
 Before the renegotiation of
CBA, the Union requested to
exclude the Bank’s Lawyer in
the negotiation to which the
Bank acceded.
DivinaGracia
(Union)
The Union declared
a deadlock and filed
a Notice of Strike deadlock as both parties failed to
before the NCMB
Diokno also suggested to
exclude Umali Jr.(NUBE
President) but Umali Jr.
was retained as part of the
negotiating panel
Diokno
(Bank)
After various proposals and
counter-proposals, there was a
agree on most of the economic
provisions.
Both parties alleged
Unfair Labor
Practice (ULP)

SOLE assumed jurisdiction

over the complaints and
dismissed the ULP complaint
but ordered the parties to
execute a collective
bargaining agreement
incorporating the dispositions
contained in the order
 ISSUES:

1. Whether or not there

was interference by the Bank

2. Whether or not the bank

committed “surface bargaining”
 COURT RULING
1. NONE
Article 248(a) of the Labor Code, considers it an unfair
labor practice when an employer interferes, restrains
or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization or the right to form association. The right to
self-organization necessarily includes the right to collective
bargaining. Parenthetically, if an employer interferes in the
selection of its negotiators or coerces the Union to exclude
from its panel of negotiators a representative of the Union,
and if it can be inferred that the employer adopted the said
act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise to right to
self-organization or on the right to collective bargaining of
the employees, ULP under Article 248(a) in connection
with Article 243 of the Labor Code is committed.
 COURT RULING

The circumstances that occurred during the negotiation

do not show that the suggestion made by Diokno to
Divinagracia is an anti-union conduct from which it can
be inferred that the Bank consciously adopted such act to
yield adverse effects on the free exercise of the right to
self-organization and collective bargaining of the
employees, especially considering that such was
undertaken previous to the commencement of the
negotiation and simultaneously with Divinagracia’s
suggestion that the bank lawyers be excluded from its
negotiating panel. It was clear that the ULP was only an
afterthought.
 COURT RULING
2. NO. Surface bargaining is defined as “going
through the motions of negotiating” without any legal
intent to reach an agreement.”
The minutes of the meetings show that both the
Bank and the Union exchanged economic and non-
economic proposals and counter-proposals which show
that the Bank had no intention of violating its duty to
bargain with the Union.
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 under Article 248(g) for violation of the duty to
bargain.