Colegio De San Juan De

Letran v Association of
Employees and Faculty of
Letran

G.R. No.141471, Sept. 18, 2000

FACTS
Then president of respondent union Association of
Employees and Faculty of Letran, Salvador Abtria initiated
the renegotiation of the last 2 years of the 5 year CBA with
petitioner Letran. The union elected a new set of officers
that year where private respondent Eleanor Ambas
emerged as the newly elected president, she then
proceeded to initiate the renegotiation of the CBA but
Letran claimed that the CBA was already prepared for
signing.
The parties submitted the disputed CBA to a referendum
where it was rejected. Petitioner accused the union officers of
bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC, the Labor Arbiter
ruled for the petitioner but on appeal this decision was
reversed The parties then agreed to disregard the unsigned
CBA and start negotiation on a new 5 year CBA, they
submitted their proposals which was received by the Board of
Trustees of the petitioner. Ambas was then informed of a
change in her work schedule to which she protested and
requested for the issue to be brought to a grievance
machinery under the old CBA.
Due to petitioner’s inaction, the union filed a notice to strike, the parties
then met to discuss the ground rules on the negotiation but the petitioner
stopped negotiations upon learning that a new group of employees filed for
a petition for certification election – because of this, the union finally struck.
Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and ordered all the striking
employees to return to work and for the petitioner to accept them back –
petitioner accepted everyone EXCEPT Ambas prompting them to file
pleadings. Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and ordered all the
striking employees to return to work and for the petitioner to accept them
back – petitioner accepted everyone EXCEPT Ambas prompting them to
file pleadings. Labor Secretary declared the petitioner guilty of unfair labor
practices and ordered the reinstatement of Ambas and back wages, the
petitioner filed an MR which was denied, and then sought for a petition for
review before the CA which dismissed the petition and affirmed the Labor
Sec. decision.
ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty
of unfair labor
practices when it
suspended
negotiations?
HELD:
No.Petition is denied for lack of merit. Petitioner failed to show any
justification for the Court to depart from the ruling of the appellate
court. Petitioner is guilty of violating Art. 250, and 252 of the Labor
Code.
Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining.—The following
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: (a)
When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve
a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its
proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later
than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice.
Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively.—The duty to
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual
obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in
good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with
respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and
conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting
any grievances or questions arising under such agreement
and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if
requested by either party but such duty does not compel any
party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.
Petitioner violated Art. 250 by not filing any reply or counter
proposal when union submitted their proposals. Petitioner
likewise violated Art 252 when it delayed the negotiations
numerous times, and showed complete lack of interest to
negotiate the CBA.