8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

1/34

G.R. No. 175492 February 27, 2013

CARLOS L. OCTAVIO,Petitioner,

vs.

PILIPPIN! LONG ISTANC! T!L!P"ON! CO#PAN$,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

!L CASTILLO,J.:

Every Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA s!all provide a grievance mac!inery to "!ic! all

disp#tes arising $rom its implementation or interpretation "ill %e s#%&ected to comp#lsorynegotiations. '!is essential $eat#re o$ a CBA provides t!e parties "it! a simple, inepensive and

epedient system o$ $inding reasona%le and accepta%le sol#tions to disp#tes and !elps in t!e

attainment o$ a so#nd and sta%le ind#strial peace.

Be$ore #s is a Petition $or Revie" on Certiorari)

assailing t!e A#g#st *), +- Decision+

o$ t!eCo#rt o$ Appeals (CA in CA/.R. SP No. 0*123, "!ic! dismissed petitioner Carlos 4.

Octavio5s (Octavio Petition $or Certiorari*assailing t!e Septem%er *, +1 Resol#tion6o$ t!e

National 4a%or Relations Commission (N4RC. Said N4RC Resol#tion a$$irmed t!e A#g#st *,+6 Decision1o$ t!e 4a%or Ar%iter "!ic! dismissed Octavio5s Complaint $or payment o$ salary

increases against respondent P!ilippine 4ong Distance Company (P4D'. 4i7e"ise assailed in

t!is Petition is t!e Novem%er )1, +- Resol#tion-"!ic! denied Octavio8s 9otion $or

Reconsideration.2

Factual Antecedents

On 9ay +3, )000, P4D' and Gabay ng Unyon sa Telekominaksyon ng mga Superbisor (/:'Sentered into a CBA covering t!e period ;an#ary ), )000 to Decem%er *), +) (CBA o$ )000

+). Article

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

2/34

On 9ay *), ++, P4D' and /:'S entered into anot!er CBA covering t!e period ;an#ary ),

++ to Decem%er *), +6 (CBA o$ +++6 "!ic! provided $or t!e $ollo"ing salary

increases= 3 o$ %asic "age or P+,. "!ic!ever is !ig!er $or t!e $irst year (++ ) o$%asic "age or P+,2. "!ic!ever is !ig!er $or t!e second year (+* and, ) o$ %asic "age

or P+,6. "!ic!ever is !ig!er $or t!e t!ird year (+6.0

Claiming t!at !e "as not given t!e salary increases o$ P+,1. e$$ective ;an#ary ), +) and

P+,. e$$ective ;an#ary ), ++, Octavio "rote t!e President o$ /:'S, Adol$o a&ardo(a&ardo.)Acting t!ereon and on similar grievances $rom ot!er /:'S mem%ers, a&ardo "rote

t!e P4D' >#man Reso#rce >ead to in$orm management o$ t!e /:'S mem%ers8 claim $or

entitlement to t!e acrosst!e%oard salary increases.))

Accordingly, t!e /rievance Committee convened on Octo%er 2, ++ consisting o$

representatives $rom P4D' and /:'S. '!e /rievance Committee, !o"ever, $ailed to reac! an

agreement. In e$$ect, it denied Octavio8s demand $or salary increases. '!e Resol#tion

(Committee Resol#tion, reads as $ollo"s=

Octo%er 2, ++

%NION ISS%! &

). 9r. Carlos 4. Octavio, Sales System Analyst I, CCI9Data%ase, "as promoted

to S+ $rom S) last e%r#ary ), ++. >e claimed t!at t!e "!ole P+, ()st yr.

/:'SCBA increase "as not given to !im.

+. >e "as !ired as a pro%ationary employee on Octo%er ), + and "as

reg#lari@ed on ;an#ary ), +). >e claimed t!at 9anagement $ailed to grant !im

t!e /:'SCBA increase last ;an#ary +).

#ANAG!#!NT POSITION &

Iss#e )=

A Promotional Policy= adstment o$ %asic mont!ly salary to t!e minim#m salary

o$ t!e ne" position.

B 9r. Octavio8s salary at t!e time o$ !is promotion and %e$ore t!e concl#sion o$

t!e /:'S CBA "as P),..

C :pon t!e e$$ectivity o$ !is promotion on e%r#ary ), ++, !is %asic mont!lysalary "as adsted to P)*,2*., t!e minim#m salary o$ t!e ne" position.

D In ;#ne ++, t!e /:'SCBA "as concl#ded and 9r. Octavio8s %asic salary

"as recomp#ted to incl#de t!e P+,. )st year increase retroactive ;an#ary++. '!e res#lting %asic salary "as P)+,..

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt11

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

3/34

E Applying t!e a%ovementioned policy, 9r. Octavio8s %asic salary "as adsted

to t!e minim#m salary o$ t!e ne" position, "!ic! is P)*,2*..

Iss#e +=

All reg#lari@ed s#pervisory employees as o$ ;an#ary ) are not entitled to t!e /:'S CBAincrease. >o"ever, as agreed "it! /:'S in t!e grievance case o$ )3 personnel o$ International

4#@on Core Net"or7 9anagement Center, pro%ationary employees "!o "ere !ired o#tside o$

P4D' and reg#lari@ed as s#pervisorsFmanagement personnel on ;an#ary ), ++ s!all %e entitledto /:'S CBA. '!is decision s!all %e applied prospectively and all previo#s similar cases are not

covered.

R!SOL%TION &

A$ter protracted deli%eration o$ t!ese iss#es, t!e committee $ailed to reac! an agreement. >ence,

9anagement position deemed adopted.

#ANAG!#!NT %NION

GGGGGGG(signedGGGGGGG

'ILFR!O A. G%AIA

GGGGGGG(signedGGGGGGG

AOLFO L.FA(ARO

GGGGGGG(signedGGGGGGG

ROSALINA S. R%I)

GGGGGGG(signedGGGGGGG

CONF!SOR A. !SPIRIT%

GGGGGGG(signedGGGGGGG

AL!(ANRO C. FA*IAN

GGGGGGG(signedGGGGGGG

C"ARLITO A. AR!VALO)+

Aggrieved, Octavio $iled %e$ore t!e Ar%itration Branc! o$ t!e N4RC a Complaint $or payment o$said salary increases.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

Octavio claimed entitlement to salary increases per t!e CBAs o$ )000+) and +++6. >e

insisted t!at "!en !e "as reg#lari@ed as a s#pervisory employee on ;an#ary ), +), !e %ecameentitled to receive t!e acrosst!e%oard increase o$ P+,1. as provided $or #nder t!e CBA o$

)000+) "!ic! too7 e$$ect on ;an#ary ), )000. '!en p#rs#ant to t!e CBA o$ +++6, !e

s!o#ld !ave received an additional increase o$ P+,. apart $rom t!e merit increase o$P*,2*. "!ic! "as given !im d#e to !is promotion on e%r#ary ), ++. >o"ever, P4D'

#nilaterally decided to deem as incl#ded in t!e said P*,2*. t!e P+,. acrosst!e%oard

increase $or ++ as stip#lated in t!e CBA o$ +++6. '!is, according to Octavio, amo#nts to

dimin#tion o$ %ene$its. 9oreover, Octavio averred t!at t!e CBA cannot %e t!e s#%&ect o$ $#rt!ernegotiation as it !as t!e $orce o$ la" %et"een t!e parties. inally, Octavio claimed t!at P4D'

committed an act o$ #n$air la%or practice %eca#se, "!ile it granted t!e claim $or salary increase

o$ )3 s#pervisory employees "!o "ere reg#lari@ed on ;an#ary ), ++ and on"ards, it

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt12

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

4/34

discriminated against !im %y re$#sing to grant !im t!e same salary increase. >e t!#s prayed $or

an additional a"ard o$ damages and attorney8s $ees.

P4D' co#ntered t!at t!e iss#es advanced %y Octavio !ad already %een resolved %y t!e :nion9anagement /rievance Committee "!en it denied !is claims t!ro#g! t!e Committee

Resol#tion. 9oreover, t!e grant o$ acrosst!e %oard salary increase $or t!ose "!o "erereg#lari@ed starting ;an#ary ), ++ and t!e ecl#sion t!ereto o$ t!ose "!o "ere reg#lari@ed on

;an#ary ), +), do not constit#te an act o$ #n$air la%or practice as "o#ld res#lt in anydiscrimination or enco#rage or disco#rage mem%ers!ip in a la%or organi@ation. In $act, "!en t!e

:nion9anagement /rievance Committee came #p "it! t!e Committee Resol#tion, t!ey

considered t!e same as t!e most practica%le and reasona%le sol#tion $or %ot! management and#nion. At any rate, t!e said Committee Resol#tion !ad already %ecome $inal and concl#sive

%et"een t!e parties $or $ail#re o$ Octavio to elevate t!e same to t!e proper $or#m. In addition,

P4D' claimed t!at t!e N4RC !as no risdiction to !ear and decide Octavio8s claims.

In a Decision dated A#g#st *, +6, t!e 4a%or Ar%iter dismissed t!e Complaint o$ Octavio and

#p!eld t!e Committee Resol#tion.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

:pon Octavio8s appeal, t!e N4RC, in its Septem%er *, +1 Resol#tion, a$$irmed t!e 4a%or

Ar%iter8s Decision. It #p!eld t!e 4a%or Ar%iter8s $inding t!at Octavio8s salary !ad already %eenadsted in accordance "it! t!e provisions o$ t!e CBA. '!e N4RC $#rt!er r#led t!at it !as no

risdiction to decide t!e iss#es presented %y Octavio, as t!e same involved t!e interpretation and

implementation o$ t!e CBA. According to it, Octavio s!o#ld !ave %ro#g!t !is claim %e$ore t!eproper %ody as provided in t!e +++6 CBA8s provision on grievance mac!inery and

proced#re.

Octavio8s 9otion $or Reconsideration "as li7e"ise dismissed %y t!e N4RC in its Novem%er +),

+1 Resol#tion.)*

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Octavio t!#s $iled a Petition $or Certiorari)6"!ic! t!e CA $o#nd to %e "it!o#t merit. In its

A#g#st *), +- Decision,)1t!e CA declared t!e Committee Resol#tion to %e %inding on

Octavio, !e %eing a mem%er o$ /:'S, and %eca#se !e $ailed to H#estion its validity and

en$orcea%ility.

In !is 9otion $or Reconsideration,

)-

Octavio disclaimed !is alleged $ail#re to H#estion t!eCommittee Resol#tion %y emp!asi@ing t!at !e $iled a Complaint %e$ore t!e N4RC against

P4D'. >o"ever, t!e CA denied Octavio8s 9otion $or Reconsideration in its Novem%er )1, +-

Resol#tion.)2

I++ue+

>ence, Octavio $iled t!is Petition raising t!e $ollo"ing iss#es $or o#r consideration=

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt17

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

5/34

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

6/34

eerted to avoid s#c! an open con$lict. In $#rt!erance o$ t!ese principles, t!e parties agree to

o%serve t!e $ollo"ing grievance proced#res.

Step ). Any employee (or gro#p o$ employees "!o %elieves t!at !e !as a sti$ia%le grievances!all present t!e matter initially to !is division !ead, or i$ t!e division is involved in t!e

grievance, to t!e company o$$icial net !ig!er to t!e division !ead (t!e local manager in t!eprovincial ec!anges not later t!at $i$teen ()1 days a$ter t!e occ#rrence o$ t!e incident giving

rise to t!e grievance. '!e initial presentation s!all %e made to t!e division !ead eit!er %y t!eaggrieved party !imsel$ or %y t!e :nion Ste"ard or %y any Eec#tive O$$icer o$ t!e :nion "!o

is not a mem%er o$ t!e grievance panel.12"phi1'!e initial presentation may %e made orally or

in "riting.

Step +. Any party "!o is not satis$ied "it! t!e resol#tion o$ t!e grievance at Step ) may appeal

in "riting to t!e :nion9anagement /rievance Committee "it!in seven (2 days $rom t!e date

o$ receipt o$ t!e department !ead8s decision.

Step *. I e /r-eae -+ o +ee e-er beau+e o eao6 or e a-ure o eo-ee o e-e e aer, e /r-eae +a be ra+erre o a *oar o

Arb-raor+ or e -a e-+-o. '!e Board s!all %e composed o$ t!ree (* ar%itrators, one to

%e nominated %y t!e :nion, anot!er to %e nominated %y t!e 9anagement, and t!e t!ird to %e

selected %y t!e management and #nion nominees. '!e decision o$ t!e %oard s!all %e $inal and%inding %ot! t!e company and t!e :nion in accordance "it! la". Epenses o$ ar%itration s!all %e

divided eH#ally %et"een t!e Company and t!e :nion.+)(Emp!asis s#pplied

Indisp#ta%ly, t!e present controversy involves t!e determination o$ an employee8s salaryincreases as provided in t!e CBAs. ?!en Octavio8s claim $or salary increases "as re$erred to t!e

:nion9anagement /rievance Committee, t!e clear intention o$ t!e parties "as to resolve t!eir

di$$erences on t!e proper interpretation and implementation o$ t!e pertinent provisions o$ t!eCBAs. And in accordance "it! t!e proced#re prescri%ed t!erein, t!e said committee made #p o$representatives o$ %ot! t!e #nion and t!e management convened. :n$ort#nately, it $ailed to reac!

an agreement. Octavio8s reco#rse p#rs#ant to t!e CBA "as to elevate !is grievance to t!e Board

o$ Ar%itrators $or $inal decision. Instead, nine mont!s later, Octavio $iled a Complaint %e$ore t!eN4RC.

It is settled t!at M"!en parties !ave validly agreed on a proced#re $or resolving grievances and to

s#%mit a disp#te to vol#ntary ar%itration t!en t!at proced#re s!o#ld %e strictly o%served.M++

9oreover, "e !ave !eld time and again t!at M%e$ore a party is allo"ed to see7 t!e intervention o$t!e co#rt, it is a precondition t!at !e s!o#ld !ave availed o$ all t!e means o$ administrative

processes a$$orded !im. >ence, i$ a remedy "it!in t!e administrative mac!inery can still %e

resorted to %y giving t!e administrative o$$icer concerned every opport#nity to decide on amatter t!at comes "it!in !is risdiction, t!en s#c! remedy s!o#ld %e e!a#sted $irst %e$ore t!e

co#rt8s dicial po"er can %e so#g!t. '!e premat#re invocation o$ t!e co#rt8s dicial

intervention is $atal to one8s ca#se o$ action.M+*M'!e #nderlying principle o$ t!e r#le one!a#stion o$ administrative remedies rests on t!e pres#mption t!at "!en t!e administrative

%ody, or grievance mac!inery, is a$$orded a c!ance to pass #pon t!e matter, it "ill decide t!e

same correctly.M+6

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt24

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

7/34

By $ailing to H#estion t!e Committee Resol#tion t!ro#g! t!e proper proced#re prescri%ed in t!e

CBA, t!at is, %y raising t!e same %e$ore a Board o$ Ar%itrators, Octavio is deemed to !ave

"aived !is rig!t to H#estion t!e same. Clearly, !e departed $rom t!e grievance proced#remandated in t!e CBA and denied t!e Board o$ Ar%itrators t!e opport#nity to pass #pon a matter

over "!ic! it !as risdiction. >ence, and as correctly !eld %y t!e CA, Octavio8s $ail#re to assail

t!e validity and en$orcea%ility o$ t!e Committee Resol#tion ma7es t!e same %inding #pon !im.On t!is score alone, Octavio8s reco#rse to t!e la%or tri%#nals %elo", as "ell as to t!e CA, and,

$inally, to t!is Co#rt, m#st t!ere$ore $ail.

At any rate, Octavio cannot claim t!at t!e Committee Resol#tion is not valid, %inding and

concl#sive as to !im $or %eing a modi$ication o$ t!e CBA in violation o$ Article +1*+1o$ t!e4a%or Code. It %ears to stress t!at t!e said resol#tion is a prod#ct o$ t!e grievance proced#re

o#tlined in t!e CBA itsel$. It "as arrived at a$ter t!e management and t!e #nion t!ro#g! t!eir

respective representatives cond#cted negotiations in accordance "it! t!e CBA. On t!e ot!er!and, Octavio never assailed t!e competence o$ t!e grievance committee to ta7e cogni@ance o$

!is case. Neit!er did !e H#estion t!e a#t!ority or credi%ility o$ t!e #nion representatives !ence,

t!e latter are deemed to !ave properly %argained on !is %e!al$ since M#nions are t!e agent o$ itsmem%ers $or t!e p#rpose o$ sec#ring st and $air "ages and good "or7ing conditions.M+-In $ine,

it cannot %e gainsaid t!at t!e Committee Resol#tion is a modi$ication o$ t!e CBA. Rat!er, it only

provides $or t!e proper implementation o$ t!e CBA provision respecting salary increases.

inally, Octavio8s arg#ment t!at t!e denial o$ !is claim $or salary increases constit#tes aviolation o$ Article )+2o$ t!e 4a%or Code is devoid o$ merit. Even ass#ming t!at t!ere !as

%een a dimin#tion o$ %ene$its on !is part, Article ) does not pro!i%it a #nion $rom o$$ering and

agreeing to red#ce "ages and %ene$its o$ t!e employees as t!e rig!t to $ree collective %argaining

incl#des t!e rig!t to s#spend it.+3P4D' averred t!at one o$ t!e reasons "!y Octavio8s salary "asrecomp#ted as to incl#de in !is salary o$ P)*,2*. t!e P+,. increase $or ++ is to avoid

salary distortion. At t!is point, it is "ell to emp!asi@e t!at %argaining s!o#ld not %e eH#ated to anMadversarial litigation "!ere rig!ts and o%ligations are delineated and remedies applied.M+0Instead, it covers a process o$ $inding a reasona%le and accepta%le sol#tion to sta%ili@e la%or

management relations to promote sta%le ind#strial peace.*Clearly, t!e Committee Resol#tion

"as arrived at a$ter considering t!e intention o$ %ot! P4D' and /:'S to $oster ind#strial peace.

All told, "e $ind no error on t!e part o$ t!e 4a%or Ar%iter, t!e N4RC and t!e CA in #nanimo#sly#p!olding t!e validity and en$orcea%ility o$ t!e /rievance Committee Resol#tion dated Octo%er

2, ++.

'"!R!FOR!, t!e petition is !NI!. '!e A#g#st *), +- Decision and Novem%er )1,

+- Resol#tion o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals in CA/.R. SP No. 0*123 are AFFIR#!.

GO$A, INC.,Petitioner, %.GO$A, INC. !#PLO$!!S %NION8FF',3espon$ent.

! C I S I O N

P!RALTA,J.&

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_175492_2013.html#fnt30

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

8/34

'!is petition $or revie" on certiorari #nder R#le 61 o$ t!e R#les o$ Civil Proced#re see7s to

reverse and set aside t!e ;#ne )-, +1 Decision )and Octo%er )+, +1 Resol#tion+o$ t!e Co#rt

o$ Appeals in CA/.R. SP No. 32**1, "!ic! s#stained t!e Octo%er +-, +6 Decision*o$EREORE, dgment is !ere%y rendered declaring t!at t!e Company is NO' g#ilty o$ #n$air

la%or practice in engaging t!e services o$ PESO.

'!e company is, !o"ever, directed to o%serve and comply "it! its commitment as it pertains to

t!e !iring o$ cas#al employees "!en necessitated %y %#siness circ#mstances.6rl)

'!e $acts are simple and appear to %e #ndisp#ted.

Sometime in ;an#ary +6, petitioner /oya, Inc. (Company, a domestic corporation engaged in

t!e man#$act#re, importation, and "!olesale o$ top H#ality $ood prod#cts, !ired contract#al

employees $rom PESO Reso#rces Development Corporation (PESO to per$orm temporary andoccasional services in its $actory in Parang, 9ari7ina City. '!is prompted respondent /oya, Inc.

Employees :nion? (:nion to reH#est $or a grievance con$erence on t!e gro#nd t!at t!econtract#al "or7ers do not %elong to t!e categories o$ employees stip#lated in t!e eisting

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA.1?!en t!e matter remained #nresolved, t!e grievance

"as re$erred to t!e National Conciliation and 9ediation Board (NC9B $or vol#ntaryar%itration.

D#ring t!e !earing on ;#ly ), +6, t!e Company and t!e :nion mani$ested %e$ore

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

9/34

!ired $rom t!e cas#al pool and !as "or7ed in t!e same position at any time d#ring t!e past t"o

(+ years, t!e pro%ationary period s!all %e t!ree (* mont!s.

(% Reg#lar Employee. An employee "!o !as satis$actorily completed !is pro%ationary periodand a#tomatically granted reg#lar employment stat#s in t!e Company.

(c Cas#al Employee, One !ired %y t!e Company to per$orm occasional or seasonal "or7

directly connected "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e Company, or one !ired $or speci$ic pro&ects

o$ limited d#ration not connected directly "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e Company.

It "as averred t!at t!e categories o$ employees !ad %een a part o$ t!e CBA since t!e )02s andt!at d#e to t!is provision, a pool o$ cas#al employees !ad %een maintained %y t!e Company $rom

"!ic! it !ired "or7ers "!o t!en %ecame reg#lar "or7ers "!en #rgently necessary to employ

t!em $or more t!an a year. 4i7e"ise, t!e Company sometimes !ired pro%ationary employees"!o also later %ecame reg#lar "or7ers a$ter passing t!e pro%ationary period. ?it! t!e !iring o$

contract#al employees, t!e :nion contended t!at it "o#ld no longer !ave pro%ationary and

cas#al employees $rom "!ic! it co#ld o%tain additional :nion mem%ers t!#s, rendering in#tileSection ), Article III (:nion Sec#rity o$ t!e CBA, "!ic! states=crala"li%rary

Section ). Condition o$ Employment. As a condition o$ contin#ed employment in t!e Company,

all reg#lar ran7and$ile employees s!all remain mem%ers o$ t!e :nion in good standing and t!at

ne" employees covered %y t!e appropriate %argaining #nit s!all a#tomatically %ecome reg#laremployees o$ t!e Company and s!all remain mem%ers o$ t!e :nion in good standing as a

condition o$ contin#ed employment.

'!e :nion moreover advanced t!at s#staining t!e Companys position "o#ld easily "ea7en and

#ltimately destroy t!e $ormer "it! t!e latters resort to retrenc!ment andFor retirement o$

employees and not $illing #p t!e vacant reg#lar positions t!ro#g! t!e !iring o$ contract#al"or7ers $rom PESO, and t!at a possi%le scenario co#ld also %e created %y t!e Company "!erein

it co#ld MimportM "or7ers $rom PESO d#ring an act#al stri7e.

In co#ntering t!e :nions allegations, t!e Company arg#ed t!at= (a t!e la" epressly allo"scontracting and s#%contracting arrangements t!ro#g! Department o$ 4a%or and Employment

(DO4E Order No. )3+ (% t!e engagement o$ contract#al employees did not, in any "ay,

predice t!e :nion, since not a single employee "as terminated and neit!er did it res#lt in ared#ction o$ "or7ing !o#rs nor a red#ction or splitting o$ t!e %argaining #nit and (c Section 6,

Article I o$ t!e CBA merely provides $or t!e de$inition o$ t!e categories o$ employees and does

not p#t a limitation on t!e Companys rig!t to engage t!e services o$ &o% contractors or its

management prerogative to address temporaryFoccasional needs in its operation.

On Octo%er +-, +6,

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

10/34

and provides $or t!e de$inition, $#nctions and d#ties o$ eac!. 9aterial to t!e case at !and is t!e

de$inition as regards t!e $#nctions o$ a cas#al employee descri%ed as $ollo"s=crala"li%rary

Cas#al Employee One !ired %y t!e CO9PANL to per$orm occasional or seasonal "or7 directlyconnected "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e CO9PANL, or one !ired $or speci$ic pro&ects o$

limited d#ration not connected directly "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e CO9PANL.

?!ile t!e $oregoing agreement %et"een t!e parties did eliminate managements prerogative o$

o#tso#rcing parts o$ its operations, it serves as a limitation on s#c! prerogative partic#larly i$ itinvolves $#nctions or d#ties speci$ied #nder t!e a$oreH#oted agreement. It is clear t!at t!e parties

agreed t!at in t!e event t!at t!e Company needs to engage t!e services o$ additional "or7ers

"!o "ill per$orm Moccasional or seasonal "or7 directly connected "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$t!e CO9PANL,M or Mspeci$ic pro&ects o$ limited d#ration not connected directly "it! t!e reg#lar

operations o$ t!e CO9PANLM, t!e Company can !ire cas#al employees "!ic! is a7in to

contract#al employees. I$ "e note t!e Companys o"n declaration t!at PESO "as engaged to

per$orm Mtemporary or occasional servicesM (See t!e Companys Position Paper, at p. ), t!en it

s!o#ld !ave directly !ired t!e services o$ cas#al employees rat!er t!an do it t!ro#g! PESO.

It is evident, t!ere$ore, t!at t!e engagement o$ PESO is not in 7eeping "it! t!e intent and spirit

o$ t!e CBA provision in H#estion. It m#st, !o"ever, %e stressed t!at t!e rig!t o$ management to

o#tso#rce parts o$ its operations is not totally eliminated %#t is merely limited %y t!e CBA./iven t!e $oregoing, t!e Companys engagement o$ PESO $or t!e given p#rpose is ind#%ita%ly a

violation o$ t!e CBA.2rl)

?!ile t!e :nion moved $or partial reconsideration o$ t!e IS PO?ER ?>IC> ?AS

EKPRESS4L /RAN'ED AND 4I9I'ED BL BO'> PAR'IES IN R:4IN/ '>A' '>E

EN/A/E9EN' O PESO IS NO' IN EEPIN/ ?I'> '>E IN'EN' AND SPIRI' O '>ECBA.)rl)

'>E >ONORAB4E A' '>E EN/A/E9EN' O PESO IS NO' IN

EEPIN/ ?I'> '>E IN'EN' AND SPIRI' O '>E CBA.

))

rl)

On ;#ne )-, +1, t!e CA dismissed t!e petition. In dispensing "it! t!e merits o$ t!e

controversy, it !eld=crala"li%rary

'!is Co#rt does not $ind it ar%itrary on t!e part o$ t!e >on.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

11/34

t!e Company is g#ilty o$ #n$air la%or practice in engaging t!e services o$ PESO, a t!ird party

service provider, #nder eisting CBA, la"s, and rispr#dence.M Bot! iss#es concern t!e

engagement o$ PESO %y t!e Company "!ic! is perceived as a violation o$ t!e CBA and "!ic!constit#tes as #n$air la%or practice on t!e part o$ t!e Company. '!is is easily discerni%le in t!e

decision o$ t!e >on.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

12/34

ar%itrary actions. In t!e case at %enc!, t!e CBA o$ t!e parties !as already provided $or t!e

categories o$ t!e employees in t!e Companysesta%lis!ment. '!ese categories o$ employees

partic#larly "it! respect to cas#al employees serve as limitation to t!e Companys prerogative too#tso#rce parts o$ its operations especially "!en !iring contract#al employees. As stated earlier,

t!e "or7 to %e per$ormed %y PESO "as similar to t!at o$ t!e cas#al employees. ?it! t!e

provision on cas#al employees, t!e !iring o$ PESO contract#al employees, t!ere$ore, is not in7eeping "it! t!e spirit and intent o$ t!eir CBA. (Citations omitte$)+rl)

'!e Company moved to reconsider t!e CA Decision,)*%#t it "as denied)6!ence, t!is petition.

Incidentally, on ;#ly )-, +0, t!e Company $iled a 9ani$estation)1in$orming t!is Co#rt t!at its

stoc7!olders and directors #nanimo#sly voted to s!orten t!e Companys corporate eistence only#ntil ;#ne *, +-, and t!at t!e t!reeyear period allo"ed %y la" $or liH#idation o$ t!e

Companys a$$airs already epired on ;#ne *, +0. Re$erring to /elano v. Co#rt o$ Appeals,)-

P#%lic Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma,)2and Atien@a v.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

13/34

only contractor o$ 4#do. It t!en disposed as $ollo"s= (a t!e complainants "ere considered

reg#lar employees si mont!s $rom t!e $irst day o$ service at C4AS (% t!e complainants, %eing

entitled to t!e CBA %ene$its d#ring t!e reg#lar employment, "ere a"arded sic7 leave, vacationleave, and ann#al "age and salary increases d#ring s#c! period (c respondents s!all pay

attorneys $ees o$ ) o$ t!e total a"ard and (d an interest o$ )+ per ann#m or ) per mont!

s!all %e imposed on t!e a"ard $rom t!e date o$ prom#lgation #ntil $#lly paid. '!e

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

14/34

Ind#%ita%ly, 4#do $orti$ies, not diminis!es, t!e so#ndness o$ t!e H#estioned onda=crala"li%rary

A collective %argaining agreement or CBA re$ers to t!e negotiated contract %et"een a legitimatela%or organi@ation and t!e employer concerning "ages, !o#rs o$ "or7 and all ot!er terms and

conditions o$ employment in a %argaining #nit. As in all contracts, t!e parties in a CBA may

esta%lis! s#c! stip#lations, cla#ses, terms and conditions as t!ey may deem convenient providedt!ese are not contrary to la", morals, good c#stoms, p#%lic order or p#%lic policy. '!#s, "!ere

t!e CBA is clear and #nam%ig#o#s, it %ecomes t!e la" %et"een t!e parties and compliance

t!ere"it! is mandated %y t!e epress policy o$ t!e la".

9oreover, i$ t!e terms o$ a contract, as in a CBA, are clear and leave no do#%t #pon t!e intentiono$ t!e contracting parties, t!e literal meaning o$ t!eir stip#lations s!all control. .+6rl)

In t!is case, Section 6, Article I (on categories o$ employees o$ t!e CBA %et"een t!e Company

and t!e :nion m#st %e read in connction "it! its Section ), Article III (on #nion sec#rity.

Bot! are interconnected and m#st %e given $#ll $orce and e$$ect. Also, t!ese provisions are clearand #nam%ig#o#s. '!e terms are eplicit and t!e lang#age o$ t!e CBA is not s#scepti%le to any

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=49#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=49#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=49#fnt24

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

15/34

ot!er interpretation. >ence, t!e literal meaning s!o#ld prevail. As repeatedly !eld, t!e eercise

o$ management prerogative is not #nlimited it is s#%&ect to t!e limitations $o#nd in la",

collective %argaining agreement or t!e general principles o$ $air play and stice+1Evidently, t!iscase !as one o$ t!e restrictions t!e presence o$ speci$ic CBA provisions#nli7e in San 9ig#el

Corporation Employees :nionP'/?O v. Bersamira,+-De Ocampo v. N4RC,+2Asian Alco!ol

Corporation v. N4RC,+3

and Serrano v. N4RC+0

cited %y t!e Company. 'o reiterate, t!e CBA ist!e norm o$ cond#ct %et"een t!e parties and compliance t!ere"it! is mandated %y t!e epress

policy o$ t!e la".*rl)

?>EREORE, t!e petition is DENIED. '!e assailed ;#ne )-, +1 Decision, as "ell as t!e

Octo%er )+, +1 Resol#tion o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals, "!ic! s#stained t!e Octo%er +-, +6Decision o$ t!e

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

16/34

Thro"!h its decision of eptember 22, 2060,> the '$ denied the petition on proced"raland s"bstanti&e !ro"nds On the merits of the case, the '$ belie&ed that the petitioncannot prosper The '$ clarified that while the law9 allows parties to s"bmit to &ol"ntaryarbitration other labor disp"tes, incl"din! matters fallin! within the ori!inal and ecl"si&e

1"risdiction of the labor arbiters "nder $rticle 26> of the abor 'ode as this 'o"rt

reco!nized in Vivero v. Cort o! Appea"s60, the parties# s"bmission a!reement m"st beepressed in "ne?"i&ocal lan!"a!e t fo"nd no s"ch "ne?"i&ocal lan!"a!e in the$+O4/-T'' '7$ that the parties a!reed to s"bmit money claims or, morespecifically, claims for disability benefits to &ol"ntary arbitration Ta(a) of the '7$ which providesthat "if by reason of thenature of the Dispute, the parties are unable to amiably settle the dispute, either partymayrefer the ase to a !ND#$R% R&I#R#I$N '$!!I##EEB28;hile the '$ did not ?"alify its readin! of the s"b1ect pro&ision of the '7$, it isreasonable to concl"de that it &iewed as optional the referral of a disp"te to the

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

17/34

mandatory arbitration committee when the parties are "nable to amicably settle thedisp"te;e find this a strained interpretation of the '7$ pro&ision The '$ read the pro&isionseparately, or in isolation of the other sections of $rticle 6, especially 6>(h), which, inclear, eplicit lan!"a!e, states that the "referral of all unresolveddisputes from the

Grievane Resolution 'ommittee to the !andatory rbitration 'ommittee shall beun(aivableprere)uisite or ondition preedent for brin*in* any ation, laim, or ause ofation, le*al or other(ise, before anyourt, tribunal, or panel in any +urisdition"- andthat the failure by a party or seaman to so refer the dispute to the presribed disputeresolution mehanism shall bar any le*al or other ation .ead in its entirety, the '7$#s$rticle 6 (Grie&ance /roced"re) "nmista(h) of the '7$ $nd, it sho"ld be added that, in compliance

with ection 29 of the /O3$53' which re?"ires that in cases of claims and disp"tesarisin! from a seafarer#s employment, the parties co&ered by a '7$ shall s"bmit theclaim or disp"te to the ori!inal and ecl"si&e 1"risdiction of the &ol"ntary arbitrator or

panel of &ol"ntary arbitratorsSine the parties used une)uivoal lan*ua*e in their '& for the submission of theirdisputes to voluntary arbitration, (e find that the ' ommitted a reversible error in itsrulin*. It bears stressin* at this point that (e are upholdin* the +urisdition of thevoluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators over the present dispute, not onlybeause of the lear lan*ua*e of the parties/ '& on the matter0 more importantly, (e souphold the voluntary arbitrator/s +urisdition, in reo*nition of the State/s e1presspreferene for voluntary modes of dispute settlement,suh as oniliation and voluntary arbitration as e1pressed in the 'onstitution, the la( andthe rules.. It is settled that (hen the parties have validly a*reed on a proedure forresolvin* *rievanes and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that proedure

should be stritly observed

Ier- Laboraor-e+ !e %-o + Ier- Laboraor-e+

GR 142:24

Fa+&

Petitioner is t!e sole and ecl#sive %argaining agent o$ t!e ran7and$ile employees o$

Respondent. '!ey !ad a CBA.

Prior to t!e epiration o$ t!e CBA, respondent company "as approac!ed %y t!e petitioner,

t!ro#g! its o$$icers. '!e :nion inH#ired a%o#t t!e stand o$ t!e company regarding t!e d#rationo$ t!e CBA "!ic! "as set to epire in a $e" mont!s. Sala@ar told t!e #nion o$$icers t!at t!e

matter co#ld %e %est disc#ssed d#ring t!e $ormal negotiations "!ic! "o#ld start soon.

All t!e ran7and$ile employees o$ t!e company re$#sed to $ollo" t!eir reg#lar t"os!i$t

"or7 sc!ed#le. '!e employees stopped "or7ing and le$t t!eir "or7place "it!o#t sealing t!econtainers and sec#ring t!e ra" materials t!ey "ere "or7ing on.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

18/34

'o minimi@e t!e damage t!e overtime %oycott "as ca#sing t!e company, Sala@ar immediately

as7ed $or a meeting "it! t!e #nion o$$icers. In t!e meeting, Enrico /on@ales, a #nion director,

told Sala@ar t!at t!e employees "o#ld only ret#rn to t!eir normal "or7 sc!ed#le i$ t!e company"o#ld agree to t!eir demands as to t!e e$$ectivity and d#ration o$ t!e ne" CBA. Sala@ar again

told t!e #nion o$$icers t!at t!e matter co#ld %e %etter disc#ssed d#ring t!e $ormal renegotiations

o$ t!e CBA. Since t!e #nion "as apparently #nsatis$ied "it! t!e ans"er o$ t!e company, t!eovertime %oycott contin#ed. In addition, t!e employees started to engage in a "or7 slo"do"n

campaign d#ring t!e time t!ey "ere "or7ing, t!#s s#%stantially delaying t!e prod#ction o$ t!e

company.

Respondent company $iled "it! t!e National N4RC a petition to declare illegal petitioner#nion8s Uovertime %oycottV and U"or7 slo"do"nV "!ic!, according to respondent company,

amo#nted to illegal stri7e. It also $iled "it! O$$ice Secretary o$ 4a%or a petition $or ass#mption

o$ risdiction. Secretary o$ 4a%or Nieves Con$esor iss#ed an ass#mption order over t!e la%ordisp#te.

4a%or Ar%iter Caday s#%mitted !is recommendation to t!e t!en Secretary o$ 4a%or 4eonardo A.#is#m%ing. '!en Secretary #is#m%ing approved and adopted t!e report in !is Order, $inding

illegal stri7e on t!e part o$ petitioner :nion.

I++ue= ?ON t!e 4a%or Secretary !as risdiction to r#le over an illegal stri7e.

"e&

On t!e matter o$ t!e a#t!ority and risdiction o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment to

r#le on t!e illegal stri7e committed %y petitioner #nion, it cannot %e denied t!at t!e iss#es

o$ Uovertime %oycottV and U"or7 slo"do"nV amo#nting to illegal stri7e %e$ore 4a%or Ar%iter

Caday are intert"ined "it! t!e la%or disp#te %e$ore t!e 4a%or Secretary.

'!e appellate co#rt also correctly !eld t!at t!e H#estion o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and

Employment8s risdiction over la%orrelated disp#tes "as already settled in International

P!armace#tical, Inc. vs. >on. Secretary o$ 4a%or and Associated 4a%or :nion (A4: "!ere t!eCo#rt declared=

In t!e present case, t!e Secretary "as eplicitly granted %y Article +-*(g o$ t!e

4a%or Code t!e a#t!ority to ass#me risdiction over a la%or disp#te ca#sing or

li7ely to ca#se a stri7e or loc7o#t in an ind#stry indispensa%le to t!e nationalinterest, and decide t!e same accordingly. Necessarily, t!is a#t!ority to ass#me

risdiction over t!e said la%or disp#te m#st incl#de and etend to all H#estionsand controversies arising t!ere$rom, incl#ding cases over "!ic! t!e la%or ar%iter!as ecl#sive risdiction.

9oreover, Article +)2 o$ t!e 4a%or Code is not "it!o#t, %#t contemplates, eceptions

t!ereto. '!is is evident $rom t!e opening proviso t!erein reading W(ecept as ot!er"ise

provided #nder t!is Code .8 Plainly, Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code "as meant to ma7e%ot! t!e Secretary (or t!e vario#s regional directors and t!e la%or ar%iters s!are risdiction,

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

19/34

s#%&ect to certain conditions. Ot!er"ise, t!e Secretary "o#ld not %e a%le to e$$ectively and

e$$iciently dispose o$ t!e primary disp#te. 'o !old t!e contrary may even lead to t!e a%s#rd and

#ndesira%le res#lt "!erein t!e Secretary and t!e la%or ar%iter concerned may !ave diametricallyopposed r#lings. As "e !ave said, Wit is $#ndamental t!at a stat#te is to %e read in a manner t!at

"o#ld %reat!e li$e into it, rat!er t!an de$eat it.

In $ine, t!e iss#ance o$ t!e assailed orders is "it!in t!e province o$ t!e Secretary as a#t!ori@ed

%y Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code and Article +)2(a and (1 o$ t!e same Code, ta7encon&ointly and rationally constr#ed to s#%serve t!e o%&ective o$ t!e risdiction vested in t!e

Secretary.

Petition denied.

N%'"RAIN + CA

GR 1;3942 a 1;;295

Fa+&

Beca#se o$ t!e collective %argaining deadloc7, petitioner :nion staged a stri7e against t!e >otel,

!erein private respondent. '!is stri7e "as declared illegal %y t!e SC.

I++ue= '!e e$$ects o$ an illegal stri7e on employees.

"e&

Regarding t!e :nion o$$icers and mem%ers8 lia%ilities $or t!eir participation in t!e illegal pic7et

and stri7e, Article +-6(a, paragrap! * o$ t!e 4a%or Code provides t!at Uany #nion o$$icer "!o

7no"ingly participates in an illegal stri7e and any "or7er or #nion o$$icer "!o 7no"inglyparticipates in t!e commission o$ illegal acts d#ring a stri7e may %e declared to !ave lost !is

employment stat#s .V '!e la" ma7es a distinction %et"een #nion o$$icers and mere #nion

mem%ers. :nion o$$icers may %e validly terminated $rom employment $or t!eir participation in

an illegal stri7e, "!ile #nion mem%ers !ave to participate in and commit illegal acts $or t!emto lose t!eir employment stat#s. '!#s, it is necessary $or t!e company to add#ce proo$ o$ t!e

participation o$ t!e stri7ing employees in t!e commission o$ illegal acts d#ring t!e stri7es.

Clearly, t!e +0 :nion o$$icers may %e dismissed p#rs#ant to Art. +-6(a, par. * o$ t!e 4a%or

Code "!ic! imposes t!e penalty o$ dismissal on Uany #nion o$$icer "!o 7no"ingly participatesin an illegal stri7e.V ?e, !o"ever, are o$ t!e opinion t!at t!ere is room $or leniency "it! respect

to t!e :nion mem%ers. It is pertinent to note t!at t!e >otel "as a%le to prove %e$ore t!e N4RCt!at t!e stri7ers %loc7ed t!e ingress to and egress $rom t!e >otel. B#t it is H#ite apparent t!att!e >otel $ailed to speci$ically point o#t t!e participation o$ eac! o$ t!e :nion mem%ers in

t!e commission o$ illegal acts d#ring t!e pic7et and t!e stri7e. or t!is lapse in dgment or

diligence, "e are constrained to reinstate t!e -) :nion mem%ers.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

20/34

#rt!er, "e !eld in one case t!at #nion mem%ers "!o participated in an illegal stri7e %#t "ere

not identi$ied to !ave committed illegal acts are entitled to %e reinstated to t!eir $ormer positions

%#t "it!o#t %ac7"ages.

Cub F---o, I. . *au-+a, e. a., GR No. 1;:40;< (uy 13, 2009

FACTS= Petitioner Cl#% ilipino, Inc. (t!e company is a nonstoc7, non pro$it. ?!ile,

respondents "ere $ormer o$$icers and mem%ers o$ t!e Cl#% ilipino Employees Association (t!e

#nion.

'!e #nion $iled a notice o$ stri7e "it! t!e NC9B on t!e gro#nds o$ %argaining deadloc7 and$ail#re to %argain. A$ter"ards, t!e company $ormally responded to t!e demands o$ t!e #nion

"!en it s#%mitted t!e $irst part o$ its economic co#nterproposal t!en t!e second part.

9ean"!ile, t!e #nion cond#cted a stri7e vote #nder t!e s#pervision o$ t!e Department o$ 4a%orand Employment.

In response to t!e company8s co#nterproposal, t!e #nion sent t!e company its improved

proposal, %#t t!e company re$#sed to improve on its o$$er. '!is prompted t!e #nion to stage astri7e on t!e gro#nd o$ a CBA %argaining deadloc7.

'!e company $iled %e$ore t!e National 4a%or Relations Commission (N4RC a petition to

declare t!e stri7e illegal. '!e company $#rt!er prayed t!at all #nion o$$icers "!o participated in

t!e illegal stri7e %e considered separated $rom t!e service.*'!e la%or ar%iter6 declared t!e stri7e Uproced#rally in$irmJ and t!ere$ore illegal.V N4RC

a$$irmed. >o"ever, CA set aside t!e r#lings o$ t!e N4RC and t!e la%or ar%iter.

ISS%!= ?ON t!e stri7e staged %y respondents "as legal

"!L= In cases o$ %argaining deadloc7s, t!e notice s!all, a+ ar a+ ra-abe,$#rt!er state t!e

#nresolved iss#es in t!e %argaining negotiations and %e accompanied %y t!e "ritten proposals o$t!e #nion, t!e co#nterproposals o$ t!e employer and t!e proo$ o$ a reH#est $or con$erence to

settle di$$erences. In cases o$ #n$air la%or practices, t!e notice s!all, as $ar as practica%le, statet!e acts complained o$, and e$$orts ta7en to resolve t!e disp#te amica%ly.)avvp!i)

Any notice "!ic! does not con$orm "it! t!e reH#irements o$ t!is and t!e $oregoing section s!all

%e deemed as not !aving %een $iled and t!e party concerned s!all %e so in$ormed %y t!e regional

%ranc! o$ t!e Board. (emp!asis s#ppliedIn t!e instant case, t!e #nion cannot %e $a#lted $or its omission. '!e #nion co#ld not !ave

attac!ed t!e co#nterproposal o$ t!e company in t!e notice o$ stri7e it s#%mitted to t!e NC9B as

t!ere "as no s#c! co#nterproposal. 'o recall, t!e #nion $iled a notice o$ stri7e on April -, +)a$ter several reH#ests to start negotiations proved $#tile. It "as only on April ++, +), or a$ter

t"o "ee7s, "!en t!e company $ormally responded to t!e #nion %y s#%mitting t!e $irst part o$ its

co#nterproposal. ?orse, it too7 t!e company anot!er t!ree "ee7s to complete it %y s#%mittingon 9ay )), +) t!e second part o$ its co#nterproposal. '!is "as almost a year a$ter t!e

epiration o$ t!e CBA so#g!t to %e rene"ed.

'!e Implementing R#les #se t!e "ords Uas $ar as practica%le.V In t!is case, attac!ing t!e co#nter

proposal o$ t!e company to t!e notice o$ stri7e o$ t!e #nion "as not practica%le. It "as a%s#rd toepect t!e #nion to prod#ce t!e company8s co#nterproposal "!ic! it did not !ave. One cannot

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

21/34

give "!at one does not !ave. Indeed, compliance "it! t!e reH#irement "as impossi%le %eca#se

no co#nterproposal eisted at t!e time t!e #nion $iled a notice o$ stri7e. '!e la" does not eact

compliance "it! t!e impossi%le. Nemo tenet#r ad impossi%ile.

Saa Ro+a Coa Coa Pa !oyee %-o + Coa Coa *oer+ P-

GR 1;4302803

Fa+&

'!e Sta. Rosa CocaCola Plant Employees :nion (:nion is t!e sole and ecl#sive %argaining

representative o$ t!e reg#lar daily paid "or7ers and t!e mont!ly paid noncommissionearningemployees o$ t!e CocaCola Bottlers P!ilippines, Inc. (Company in its Sta. Rosa, 4ag#na plant.

:pon t!e epiration o$ t!e CBA, t!e :nion in$ormed t!e Company o$ its desire to renegotiate

its terms. '!e CBA meetings commenced on ;#ly +-, )000, "!ere t!e :nion and t!e Company

disc#ssed t!e gro#nd r#les o$ t!e negotiations. '!e :nion insisted t!at representatives

$rom t!e Alyansa ng mga :nyon sa CocaCola %e allo"ed to sit do"n as o%servers in t!eCBA meetings. '!e :nion o$$icers and mem%ers also insisted t!at t!eir "ages %e %ased

on t!eir "or7 s!i$t rates. or its part, t!e Company "as o$ t!e vie" t!at t!e mem%ers o$t!e Alyansa "ere not mem%ers o$ t!e %argaining #nit. '!e Alyansa "as a mere aggregate o$

employees o$ t!e Company in its vario#s plants and is not a registered la%or organi@ation. '!#s,

an impasse ens#ed.

On A#g#st *, )000, t!e :nion, its o$$icers, directors and si s!op ste"ards $iled a UNotice o$Stri7eV "it! t!e NC9B.

'!e :nion decided to participate in a mass action organi@ed %y t!e Alyansa in $ront o$ t!e

Company8s premises. '!#s, t!e :nion o$$icers and mem%ers !eld a pic7et along t!e $rontperimeter o$ t!e plant on Septem%er +), )000. As a res#lt, all o$ t!e )6 personnel o$ t!eEngineering Section o$ t!e Company did not report $or "or7, and 2) prod#ction personnel "ere

also a%sent. As a res#lt, only one o$ t!e t!ree %ottling lines operated d#ring t!e day s!i$t. All t!e

t!ree lines "ere operated d#ring t!e nig!t s!i$t "it! c#m#lative do"ntime o$ $ive (1 !o#rs d#eto lac7 o$ manning, complement and s7ills reH#irement. '!e vol#me o$ prod#ction $or t!e day

"as s!ort %y -, p!ysical cases vers#s %#dget.

On Octo%er )*, )000, t!e Company $iled a UPetition to Declare Stri7e IllegalV

I++ue&?ON t!e stri7e, d#%%ed %y petitioner as pic7eting, is illegal.

"e=

Article +)+(o o$ t!e 4a%or Code de$ines stri7e as a temporary stoppage o$ "or7 %y t!e

concerted action o$ employees as a res#lt o$ an ind#strial or la%or disp#te. In Bangalisan v.

CA, t!e Co#rt r#led t!at Ut!e $act t!at t!e conventional term Wstri7e8 "as not #sed %y t!e stri7ing

employees to descri%e t!eir common co#rse o$ action is inconseH#ential, since t!e s#%stance o$t!e sit#ation, and not its appearance, "ill %e deemed to %e controlling.V

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

22/34

Pic7eting involves merely t!e marc!ing to and $ro at t!e premises o$ t!e employer, #s#ally

accompanied %y t!e display o$ placards and ot!er signs ma7ing 7no"n t!e $acts involved in

a la%or disp#te. As applied to a la%or disp#te, to pic7et means t!e stationing o$ one or more

persons to o%serve and attempt to o%serve. '!e p#rpose o$ pic7ets is said to %e a means o$

peacea%le pers#asion.

'!e %asic elements o$ a stri7e are present in t!is case. '!ey marc!ed to and $ro in $ront o$ t!e

company8s premises d#ring "or7ing !o#rs. '!#s, petitioners engaged in a concerted activity"!ic! already a$$ected t!e company8s operations. '!e mass concerted activity constit#ted a

stri7e.

or a stri7e to %e valid, t!e $ollo"ing proced#ral reH#isites provided %y Art +-* o$ t!e 4a%or

Code m#st %e o%served= (a a notice o$ stri7e $iled "it! t!e DO4E * days %e$ore t!e intendeddate t!ereo$, or )1 days in case o$ #n$air la%or practice (% stri7e vote approved %y a ma&ority

o$ t!e total #nion mem%ers!ip in t!e %argaining #nit concerned o%tained %y secret %allot in a

meeting called $or t!at p#rpose, (c notice given to t!e DO4E o$ t!e res#lts o$ t!e voting at leastseven days %e$ore t!e intended stri7e. '!ese reH#irements are mandatory and t!e $ail#re o$ a

#nion to comply t!ere"it! renders t!e stri7e illegal. It is clear in t!is case t!at petitioners totally

ignored t!e stat#tory reH#irements and em%ar7ed on t!eir illegal stri7e.

Petition denied.

#SF T-re a Rubber + CA

GR 12:;32

Fa+&

Respondent :nion $iled a notice o$ stri7e in t!e NC9B c!arging (P!ildtread "it! #n$air la%or

practice. '!erea$ter, t!ey pic7eted and assem%led o#tside t!e gate o$ P!iltread8s plant. P!iltread,on t!e ot!er !and, $iled a notice o$ loc7o#t. S#%seH#ently, t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or ass#med

risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te and certi$ied it $or comp#lsory ar%itration.

D#ring t!e pendency o$ t!e la%or disp#te, P!iltread entered into a 9emorand#m o$ Agreement

"it! Siam 'yre "!ere%y its plant and eH#ipment "o#ld %e sold to a ne" company, !ereinpetitioner, 3 o$ "!ic! "o#ld %e o"ned %y Siam 'yre and + %y P!iltread, "!ile t!e land on

"!ic! t!e plant "as located "o#ld %e sold to anot!er company, - o$ "!ic! "o#ld %e o"ned

%y P!iltread and 6 %y Siam 'yre.

Petitioner t!en as7ed respondent :nion to desist $rom pic7eting o#tside its plant. As t!erespondent :nion re$#sed petitioner8s reH#est, petitioner $iled a complaint $or innction "it!

damages %e$ore t!e R'C. Respondent :nion moved to dismiss t!e complaint alleging lac7 o$

risdiction on t!e part o$ t!e trial co#rt.

Petitioner asserts t!at its stat#s as an Uinnocent %ystanderV "it! respect to t!e la%or disp#te%et"een P!iltread and t!e :nion entitles it to a "rit o$ innction $rom t!e civil co#rts.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

23/34

Iss#e= ?ON petitioner !as s!o"n a clear legal rig!t to t!e iss#ance o$ a "rit o$ innction #nder

t!e Uinnocent %ystanderV r#le.

"e&

In P!ilippine Association o$ ree 4a%or :nions (PA4: v. Clori%el, t!is Co#rt, t!ro#g! ;#stice;.B.4. Reyes, stated t!e Uinnocent %ystanderV r#le as $ollo"s=

'!e rig!t to pic7et as a means o$ comm#nicating t!e $acts o$ a la%or disp#te is

a p!ase o$ t!e $reedom o$ speec! g#aranteed %y t!e constit#tion. I$ peace$#lly

carried o#t, it cannot %e c#rtailed even in t!e a%sence o$ employeremployeerelations!ip.

'!e rig!t is, !o"ever, not an a%sol#te one. ?!ile peace$#l pic7eting is entitled to protection as

an eercise o$ $ree speec!, "e %elieve t!e co#rts are not "it!o#t po"er to con$ine or locali@e t!e

sp!ere o$ comm#nication or t!e demonstration to t!e parties to t!e la%or disp#te, incl#ding t!ose

"it! related interest, and to ins#late esta%lis!ments or persons "it! no ind#strial connection or!aving interest totally $oreign to t!e contet o$ t!e disp#te. '!#s t!e rig!t may %e reg#lated at

t!e instance o$ t!ird parties or Uinnocent %ystandersV i$ it appears t!at t!e inevita%le res#lt o$ itseercise is to create an impression t!at a la%or disp#te "it! "!ic! t!ey !ave no connection or

interest eists %et"een t!em and t!e pic7eting #nion or constit#te an invasion o$ t!eir rig!ts.

'!#s, an Uinnocent %ystander,V "!o see7s to en&oin a la%or stri7e, m#st satis$y t!e co#rt it is

entirely di$$erent $rom, "it!o#t any connection "!atsoever to, eit!er party to t!e disp#te and,t!ere$ore, its interests are totally $oreign to t!e contet t!ereo$.

In t!e case at %ar, petitioner cannot %e said not to !ave s#c! connection to t!e disp#te. ?e

$ind t!at t!e Unegotiation, contract o$ sale, and t!e post transactionV %et"een P!iltread, asvendor, and Siam 'yre, as vendee, reveals a legal relation %et"een t!em "!ic!, in t!e interesto$ petitioner, "e cannot ignore. 'o %e s#re, t!e transaction %et"een P!iltread and Siam 'yre,

"as not a simple sale "!ere%y P!iltread ceased to !ave any proprietary rig!ts over its sold

assets. On t!e contrary, P!iltread remains as + o"ner o$ private respondent and - o"nero$ S#cat 4and Corporation "!ic! "as li7e"ise incorporated in accordance "it! t!e terms o$ t!e

9emorand#m o$ Agreement "it! Siam 'yre, and "!ic! no" o"ns t!e land "ere s#%&ect plant

is located. '!is, toget!er "it! t!e $act t!at private respondent #ses t!e same plant or $actorysimilar or s#%stantially t!e same "or7ing conditions same mac!inery, tools, and eH#ipment and

man#$act#re t!e same prod#cts as P!iltread, lead #s to sa$ely concl#de t!at private respondent8s

personality is so closely lin7ed to P!iltread as to %ar its entitlement to an innctive "rit.

Petition denied.

P"ILIPPIN! LONG ISTANC! T!L!P"ON! CO. INC., . #ANGGAGA'A NG

=O#%NI=AS$ON SA PILIPINAS a e CO%RT OF APP!ALS,

G.R. No. 1;27:3> (uy 14, 2005

FACTS&

Petitioner P!ilippine 4ong Distance 'elep!one Co., Inc. (P4D' is a domestic

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

24/34

corporation engaged in t!e telecomm#nications %#siness.

Private respondent

9anggaga"a ng om#ni7asyon sa Pilipinas (9P is a la%or #nion o$ ran7 and $ileemployees in P4D'.

'!e mem%ers o$ respondent #nion learned t!at a red#ndancy program "o#ld%e implemented %y t!e petitioner. '!ere#pon it $iled a Notice o$ Stri7e "it! t!e

National Conciliation and 9ediation Board (NC9B on 6 Novem%er ++. '!e Notice$#ndamentally contained t!e $ollo"ing=

:NAIR 4ABOR PRAC'ICES, to "it=

).

P4D'8s a%olition o$ t!e Provisioning S#pport Division, in violation o$ t!e d#ty to%argain collectively "it! 9P in good $ait!.

+.P4D'8s #nreasona%le re$#sal to !onor its commitment %e$ore t!is >onora%le

O$$ice t!at it "ill provide 9P its compre!ensive planFs "it! respect to personneldo"nsi@ingFreorgani@ation and clos#re o$ ec!anges. S#c! re$#sal violates its d#ty to

%argain collectively "it! 9P in good $ait!.

*.

P4D'8s contin#ed !iring o$ Ucontract#alV, UtemporaryV, Upro&ectV and Ucas#alVemployees $or reg#lar &o%s per$ormed %y #nion mem%ers, res#lting in t!e decimation o$

t!e #nion mem%ers!ip and in t!e denial o$ t!e rig!t to sel$organi@ation to t!e concerned

employees.

6.P4D'8s gross violation o$ t!e legal and CBA provisions on overtime "or7 and

compensation.

1.P4D'8s gross violation o$ t!e CBA provisions on promotions and &o% grade re

eval#ation or reclassi$ication.

On )) Novem%er ++, anot!er Notice o$ Stri7e "as $iled %y t!e private respondent,

"!ic! contained t!e $ollo"ing= :NAIR 4ABOR PRAC'ICES, to "it= P4D'8s alleged

restr#ct#ring o$ its /99 Operation Services.

A n#m%er o$ conciliation meetings, cond#cted %y t!e NC9B, National Capital Region,

"ere !eld %et"een t!e parties. >o"ever, t!ese e$$orts proved $#tile.

On +* Decem%er ++, t!e private respondent staged a stri7e. On *) Decem%er ++,

t!ree !#ndred eig!ty t!ree (*3* #nion mem%ers "ere terminated $rom service p#rs#antto P4D'8s red#ndancy program.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

25/34

On + ;an#ary +*, t!e Secretary, Patricia Sto. 'omas, iss#ed an Order6J in NC9B

NCRNS))61+ and NC9BNCRNS))6)++. Portions o$ t!e Order are reprod#ced

!ere#nder=

Accordingly, t!e stri7e staged %y t!e :nion is !ere%y en&oined. All stri7ing "or7ers

are !ere%y directed to ret#rn to "or7 "it!in t"enty $o#r (+6 !o#rs $rom receipt o$ t!isOrder, ecept t!ose "!o "ere terminated d#e to red#ndancy. '!e employer is !ere%y

en&oined to accept t!e stri7ing "or7ers #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailingprior to t!e stri7e. '!e parties are li7e"ise directed to cease and desist $rom committing

any act t!at mig!t "orsen t!e sit#ation.

ISS%!=?>E'>ER '>E S:B;EC' ORDERS O '>E SECRE'ARL O '>E DO4E EKC4:DIN/

RO9 '>E RE':RN'O?OR

ORDER '>E ?ORERS DIS9ISSED D:E 'O '>E RED:NDANCL PRO/RA9

O PE'I'IONER, ARE (ue 30, 2005

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

26/34

FACTS=

Petitioner is a !ospital "it! address at Panay Aven#e corner Sco#t 9ag%an#a Street,

#e@on City. :pon t!e ot!er !and, Respondent is a d#ly registered la%or #nion acting as t!ecerti$ied collective %argaining agent o$ t!e ran7and$ile employees o$ petitioner !ospital.

Respondent sent petitioner a letter reH#esting a negotiation o$ t!eir Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA.

Petitioner, !o"ever, c!allenged t!e #nion8s legitimacy and re$#sed to %argain "it!

respondent. S#%seH#ently petitioner $iled "it! t!e (B4R, Department o$ 4a%or andEmployment, a petition $or cancellation o$ respondent8s certi$icate o$ registration.

or its part, respondent $iled "it! t!e (NC9B, National Capital Region, a notice o$ stri7e.

Respondent alleged t!at petitioner8s re$#sal to %argain constit#tes #n$air la%or practice.

Despite several con$erences and e$$orts o$ t!e designated conciliatormediator, t!e parties

$ailed to reac! an amica%le settlement.

Respondent staged a stri7e.

ormer 4a%or Secretary 4eonardo A. #is#m%ing, no" Associate ;#stice o$ t!is Co#rt,

iss#ed an Order ass#ming risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te and ordering all stri7ing"or7ers to ret#rn to "or7 and t!e management to res#me normal operations, t!#s=

all stri7ing "or7ers are directed to ret#rn to "or7 "it!in t"enty$o#r (+6 !o#rs $rom

t!e receipt o$ t!is Order and t!e management to res#me normal operations and accept

%ac7 all stri7ing "or7ers #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e

stri7e. #rt!er, parties are directed to cease and desist $rom committing any act t!at mayeacer%ate t!e sit#ation.

9oreover, parties are !ere%y directed to s#%mit "it!in ) days $rom receipt o$ t!is Order

proposals and co#nterproposals leading to t!e concl#sion o$ t!e collective %argainingagreement in compliance "it! a$orementioned Resol#tion o$ t!e O$$ice as a$$irmed %y t!e

S#preme Co#rt.

ISS%!=

?!et!er or not Secretary o$ 4a%or cannot eercise !is po"ers #nder Article +-* (g o$ t!e 4a%orCode "it!o#t o%serving t!e reH#irements o$ d#e process.

R%LING=

'!e discretion to ass#me risdiction may %e eercised %y t!e Secretary o$4a%or and Employment "it!o#t t!e necessity o$ prior notice or !earing given to any o$ t!e

parties. '!e rationale $or !is primary ass#mption o$ risdiction can sti$ia%ly rest

on !is o"n consideration o$ t!e eigency o$ t!e sit#ation in relation to t!e national

interests.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

27/34

In la%or disp#tes adversely a$$ecting t!e contin#ed operation o$ s#c! !ospitals, clinics

or medical instit#tions, it s!all %e t!e d#ty o$ t!e stri7ing #nion or loc7ingo#t employer

to provide and maintain an e$$ective s7eletal "or7$orce o$ medical and ot!er !ealt!personnel, "!ose movement and services s!all %e #n!ampered and #nrestricted, as are

necessary to ins#re t!e proper and adeH#ate protection o$ t!e li$e and !ealt! o$ its patients,

most especially emergency cases, $or t!e d#ration o$ t!e stri7e or loc7o#t. In s#c! cases,t!ere$ore, t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment is mandated to immediately

ass#me, "it!in t"enty$o#r (+6 !o#rs $rom 7no"ledge o$ t!e occ#rrence o$ s#c!

a stri7e or loc7o#t, risdiction over t!e same or certi$y it to t!e Commission $orcomp#lsory ar%itration. or t!is p#rpose, t!e contending parties are strictly en&oined to

comply "it! s#c! orders, pro!i%itions andFor innctions as are iss#ed %y t!e Secretary o$

4a%or and Employment or t!e Commission, #nder pain o$ immediate disciplinary action,

incl#ding dismissal or loss o$ employment stat#s or payment %y t!e loc7ingo#t employero$ %ac7"ages, damages and ot!er a$$irmative relie$, even criminal prosec#tion against

eit!er or %ot! o$ t!em.

'!e $oregoing not"it!standing, t!e President o$ t!e P!ilippines s!all not %e precl#ded$rom determining t!e ind#stries t!at, in !is opinion, are indispensa%le to t!e national

interest, and $rom intervening at any time and ass#ming risdiction over any s#c! la%or

disp#te in order to settle or terminate t!e same.

P"I#CO IN%STRI!S, INC., vs."ONORA*L! ACTING S!CR!TAR$ OF LA*OR

(OS! *RILLANT!S a P"I#CO IN%STRI!S LA*OR ASSOCIATION

G.R. No. 120751 #ar 17, 1999

FACTS&On 9arc! 0, )001, t!e private respondent, P!imco Ind#stries 4a%or Association

(PI4A, d#ly certi$ied collective %argaining representative o$ t!e daily paid "or7ers o$ t!epetitioner P>I9CO $iled a notice o$ stri7e "it! t!e NC9B against P>I9CO, a corporationengaged in t!e prod#ction o$ matc!es, a$ter a deadloc7 in t!e collective %argaining and

negotiation. Parties $ailed to resolve t!eir di$$erences PI4A (d#ring t!e conciliation con$erences,

composed o$ *1+ mem%ers, staged a stri7e.

P>I9CO sent notice o$ termination to some 62 "or7ers incl#ding several #nion o$$icers.

Secretary Brillantes ass#med risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te iss#ed a ret#rnto"or7 order.

>ence, petitioner $iles t!is petition.

ISS%!&"!et!er or not t!e p#%lic respondent acted "it! grave a%#se o$ discretion amo#nting to

lac7 or ecess o$ risdiction in ass#ming risdiction over s#%&ect la%or disp#te.

"!L& $!S, t!e petition is impressed "it! merit.

Art. +-*, paragrap! (g o$ t!e 4a%or Code, provides=

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

28/34

(g ?!en, in !is opinion, t!ere eist a la%or disp#te ca#sing or li7ely to ca#se a stri7e or loc7o#t

in an ind#stry indispensa%le to t!e national interest, t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment may

ass#me risdiction over t!e disp#te and decide it or certi$y t!e same to t!e Commission $orcomp#lsory ar%itration . . .

'!e 4a%or Code vests in t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or t!e discretion to determine "!at ind#stries areindispensa%le to t!e national interest. Accordingly, #pon t!e determination %y t!e Secretary o$

4a%or t!at s#c! ind#stry is indispensa%le to t!e national interest, !e "ill ass#me risdiction overt!e la%or disp#te in t!e said ind#stry. :T-+ o?er, o?eer, -+ o ?-ou ay --a-o.

It stressed in t!e case o$4ree telephone 5orkers Union %s.6onorable Minister o! 7abor an$

'mployment, etal.,10t!e limitation set %y t!e legislat#re on t!e po"er o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%orto ass#me risdiction over a la%or disp#te, t!#s=

cannot %e any clearer, t!e coverage %eing limited to Ustri7es or loc7o#ts adversely a$$ecting

t!e national interest. 11

In t!is case at %ar, !o"ever, t!e very admission %y t!e p#%lic respondent dra"s t!e la%or disp#te

in H#estion o#t o$ t!e am%it o$ t!e Secretary8s prerogative, to "it.

?!ile t!e case at %ar appears on its $ace not to $all "it!in t!e strict categori@ation o$ cases

im%#ed "it! Unational interestV, t!is o$$ice %elieves t!at t!e o%taining circ#mstances "arrant t!e

eercise o$ t!e po"ers #nder Article +-* (g o$ t!e 4a%or Code, as amended. 12

Te r-ae re+oe - o ee a6e ay eor o ou o e --+e+ab--y o e

a aory o e a-oa -ere+. I u+ ae bee a?are a a a aory,

ou/ o aue, a +arey be o+-ere a+ a -u+ry @--+e+abe o e a-oa

-ere+ as it cannot %e in t!e same category as Ugeneration and distri%#tion o$ energy, or t!ose#nderta7en %y %an7s, !ospitals, and eportoriented ind#stries.V 13Let, t!e p#%lic respondentass#med risdiction t!ereover.

'o #p!old t!e action o$ t!e p#%lic respondent #nder t!e premises "o#ld %e stretc!ing too $ar t!e

po"er o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or as every case o$ a stri7e or loc7o#t "!ere t!ere areinconveniences in t!e comm#nity, or "or7 disr#ptions in an ind#stry t!o#g! not indispensa%le to

t!e national interest, "o#ld t!en come "it!in t!e Secretary8s po"er. I ?ou be ra-ayao?-/ e Sereary o Labor o -eree - ay Labor -+ue a -+ ea+ure.

'!is is precisely "!y t!e la" sets and de$ines t!e standard= even in t!e eercise o$ !is po"er o$

comp#lsory ar%itration #nder Article +-* (g o$ t!e 4a%or Code, t!e Secretary m#st $ollo" t!ela".

P!TITION GRANT!.

FAR !AST!RN %NIV!RSIT$ B R. NICANOR R!$!S #!ICAL FO%NATION

F!%8NR#FD a LILIA P. L%NA. #.., Pe--oer+, er+u+ F!%8NR#F !#PLO$!!S

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

29/34

ASSOCIATION8ALLIANC! OF FILIPINO 'OR=!RS F!%8NR#F!A8AF'D, e a

Re+oe+., G.R. No. 1;:3;2< Oober 12, 200;

FACTS&

In )006, petitioner E:NR9 (a medical instit#tion organi@ed and eisting #nder t!e

P!ilippine la"s, and respondent #nion (a legitimate la%or organi@ation and is t!e d#lyrecogni@ed representative o$ t!e ran7 and $ile employees o$ petitioner, entered into a CBA t!at

"ill epire on * April )00-. In vie" o$ t!e $ort!coming epiry, respondent #nion sent a letterproposal to petitioner E:NR9 stating t!eir economic and noneconomic proposals $or t!e

negotiation o$ t!e ne" CBA.

Petitioner E:NR9 re&ected respondent #nion8s demands and proposed to maintaint!e same provisions o$ t!e old CBA reasoning t!at d#e to $inancial constraints, it cannot a$$ord

to accede to a n#m%er o$ t!eir demands. In an e$$ort to arrive at a compromise, s#%seH#ent

conciliation proceedings "ere cond#cted %e$ore t!e NC9B, %#t t!e negotiation $ailed.Respondent #nion $iled a Notice o$ Stri7e %e$ore NC9B on t!e gro#nd o$ %argaining deadloc7.

:nion staged a stri7e.

Petitioner E:NR9 $iled a Petition $or t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction or $orCerti$ication o$ 4a%or Disp#te "it! t!e N4RC, #nderscoring t!e $act t!at it is a medical

instit#tion engaged in t!e %#siness o$ providing !ealt! care $or its patients. Secretary o$ 4a%or

granted t!e petition and an Order ass#ming risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te "as iss#ed,

t!ere%y pro!i%iting any stri7e or loc7o#t and en&oining t!e parties $rom committing any acts"!ic! may eacer%ate t!e sit#ation.

Septem%er -, )00-, rancisco Esc#adra, t!e N4RC process server, certi$ied t!at, on

Septem%er 1, )00- at aro#nd 6= P.9., !e attempted to serve a copy o$ t!e Ass#mption o$;#risdiction Order (A;O to t!e #nion o$$icers %#t since no one "as aro#nd at t!e stri7e area, !e

st posted copies o$ t!e said Order at several conspic#o#s places "it!in t!e premises o$ t!e

!ospital.

Stri7ing employees contin#ed !olding a stri7e #ntil )+ Septem%er )00-, claiming t!att!ey !ad no 7no"ledge t!at t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or already ass#med risdiction over t!e pending

la%or disp#te as t!ey "ere not a%le to receive a copy o$ t!e A;O.

Secretary o$ 4a%or iss#ed anot!er Order directing all t!e stri7ing employees to ret#rn to"or7 and t!e petitioner E:NR9 to accept t!em #nder t!e same terms and conditions

prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e. A Ret#rn to ?or7 Agreement "as eec#ted %y t!e disp#ting parties.

S#%seH#ently, petitioner E:NR9 $iled a case %e$ore t!e N4RC, contending t!atrespondent #nion staged t!e stri7e in de$iance o$ t!e A;O, !ence, it "as illegal. 4A declared t!e

stri7e illegal and allo"ed dismissal o$ #nion o$$icers $or cond#cting t!e stri7e in de$iance o$ t!e

A;O. Respondent #nion $iled an Appeal %e$ore t!e N4RC. N4RC a$$irmed in toto t!e Decisiono$ t!e 4A. Respondent #nion $iled 9R, it "as denied. Respondent #nion %ro#g!t a Petition $or

Certiorari %e$ore CA. CA granted t!e Petition and reversed t!e Resol#tions o$ N4RC. Petitioner

$iled 9R %#t it "as denied. >ence t!is petition.

ISS%!= ?!et!er t!e service o$ t!e A;O "as validly e$$ected %y t!e process server so as to %indt!e respondent #nion and !old t!em lia%le $or t!e acts committed s#%seH#ent to t!e iss#ance o$

t!e said Order.

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

30/34

R%LING=

'!e process server resorted to posting t!e Order "!en personal service "as rendered

impossi%le since t!e stri7ing employees "ere not present at t!e stri7e area. '!is mode o$service, !o"ever, is not sanctioned %y eit!er t!e N4RC Revised R#les o$ Proced#re or t!e

Revised R#les o$ Co#rt.

'!e pertinent provisions o$ t!e N4RC Revised R#les o$ Proced#re read=USection -. Service o$ Notices and Resol#tions.

(a Notices or s#mmons and copies o$ orders, s!all %e served on t!e parties to t!e case

personally %y t!e Baili$$ or d#ly a#t!ori@ed p#%lic o$$icer "it!in * days $rom receipt t!ereo$ or%y registered mail Provided t!at in special circ#mstances, service o$ s#mmons may %e e$$ected

in accordance "it! t!e pertinent provisions o$ t!e R#les o$ Co#rt Provided $#rt!er, t!at in cases

o$ decisions and $inal a"ards, copies t!ereo$ s!all %e served on %ot! parties and t!eir co#nsel or

representative %y registered mail Provided $#rt!er, t!at in cases "!ere a party to a case or !isco#nsel on record personally see7s service o$ t!e decision #pon inH#iry t!ereon, service to said

party s!all %e deemed e$$ected #pon act#al receipt t!ereo$ Provided $inally, t!at "!ere parties

are so n#mero#s, service s!all %e made on co#nsel and #pon s#c! n#m%er o$ complainants, as

may %e practica%le, "!ic! s!all %e considered s#%stantial compliance "it! Article ++6(a o$ t!e4a%or Code, as amended.V

An Order iss#ed %y t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or ass#ming risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te isnot a $inal dgment $or it does not dispose o$ t!e la%or disp#te "it! $inality. ConseH#ently,

t!e r#le on service o$ s#mmons and orders, and not t!e proviso on service o$ decisions and $inal

a"ards, governs t!e service o$ t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction Order.:nder t!e N4RC Revised R#les o$ Proced#re, service o$ copies o$ orders s!o#ld %e made

%y t!e process server eit!er personally or t!ro#g! registered mail. >o"ever, d#e to t!e #rgent

nat#re o$ t!e A;O and t!e p#%lic policy #nderlying t!e innction carried %y t!e iss#ance o$ t!e

said Order, service o$ copies o$ t!e same s!o#ld %e made in t!e most epeditio#s and e$$ectivemanner, "it!o#t any delay, ens#ring its immediate receipt %y t!e intended parties as may %e

"arranted #nder t!e circ#mstances. '!#s, personal service is t!e proper mode o$ serving t!e

A;O.Personal service e$$ectively ens#res t!at t!e notice desired #nder t!e constit#tional

reH#irement o$ d#e process is accomplis!ed. I$, !o"ever, e$$orts to $ind t!e party concerned

personally "o#ld ma7e prompt service impossi%le, service may %e completed %y s#%stit#tedservice, t!at is, %y leaving a copy, %et"een t!e !o#rs o$ eig!t in t!e morning and si in t!e

evening, at t!e party8s or co#nsel8s residence, i$ 7no"n, "it! a person o$ s#$$icient age and

discretion t!en residing t!erein (R:4E )+ o$ Rev R#les o$ Co#rt.

S#%stit#ted service derogates t!e reg#lar met!od o$ personal service. It is t!ere$orereH#ired t!at stat#tory restrictions $or e$$ecting s#%stit#ted service m#st %e strictly, $ait!$#lly and

$#lly o%served. ail#re to comply "it! t!is r#le renders a%sol#tely void t!e s#%stit#ted service

along "it! t!e proceedings ta7en t!erea$ter. '!e #nderlying principle o$ t!is rigid reH#irement ist!at t!e person, to "!om t!e orders, notices or s#mmons are addressed, is made to ans"er $or t!e

conseH#ences o$ t!e s#it even t!o#g! notice o$ s#c! action is made, not #pon t!e party

concerned, %#t #pon anot!er "!om t!e la" co#ld only pres#me "o#ld noti$y s#c! party o$ t!epending proceedings.

In t!e case at %ar, pres#mption o$ receipt o$ t!e copies o$ t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction

Order A;O co#ld not %e ta7en $or granted considering t!e adverse e$$ect in case t!e parties $ailed

to !eed to t!e innction directed %y s#c! Order. De$iance o$ t!e ass#mption and ret#rnto"or7

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

31/34

orders o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or a$ter !e !as ass#med risdiction is a valid gro#nd $or t!e loss o$

employment stat#s o$ any stri7ing #nion o$$icer or mem%er. Employment is a property rig!t o$

"!ic! one cannot %e deprived o$ "it!o#t d#e process. D#e process !ere "o#ld demand t!at t!erespondent #nion %e properly noti$ied o$ t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction Order o$ t!e Secretary

o$ 4a%or en&oining t!e stri7e and reH#iring its mem%ers to ret#rn to "or7. '!#s, t!ere m#st %e a

clear and #nmista7a%le proo$ t!at t!e reH#irements prescri%ed %y t!e R#les in t!e manner o$e$$ecting personal or s#%stit#ted service !ad %een $ait!$#lly complied "it!.

9erely posting copies o$ t!e A;O does not satis$y t!e rigid reH#irement $or proper

service o#tlined %y t!e a%ove stated r#les. Needless to say, t!e manner o$ service made %y t!eprocess server "as invalid and irreg#lar. Respondent #nion co#ld not t!ere$ore %e addged to

!ave de$ied t!e said Order since it "as not properly apprised t!ereo$. Accordingly, t!e stri7e

cond#cted %y t!e respondent #nion "as valid #nder t!e circ#mstances.

?>EREORE, premises considered, t!e instant Petition is DENIED. Costs against t!epetitioner

%-er+-y o e Iauae Coe-o + Se o Labor

GR 151379

Fa+&

'!is case stemmed $rom t!e collective %argaining negotiations %et"een petitioner :niversityo$ Immac#late Concepcion, Inc. (:NIo"ever, one item "as le$t #nresolved and t!is "as

t!e incl#sion or ecl#sion o$ some positions in t!e scope o$ t!e %argaining #nit.

'!e :NION it $iled a notice o$ stri7e on t!e gro#nds o$ %argaining deadloc7 and #n$air la%orpractice. D#ring t!e t!irty (* day coolingo$$ period, t"o #nion mem%ers "ere dismissed %ypetitioner. ConseH#ently, t!e :NION "ent on stri7e.

On ;an#ary +*, )001, t!e t!en Secretary o$ 4a%or, 9a. Nieves R. Con$essor, iss#ed an Order

ass#ming risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te.

On 9arc! ), )001, t!e :NION $iled anot!er notice o$ stri7e, t!is time citing as a reasont!e :NI

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

32/34

Anent t!e :nion8s 9otion, "e $ind t!at s#perseding circ#mstances "o#ld not

"arrant t!e p!ysical reinstatement o$ t!e t"elve ()+ terminated employees.

>ence, t!ey are !ere%y ordered placed #nder payroll reinstatement #ntil t!evalidity o$ t!eir termination is $inally resolved.

I++ue&?ON payroll reinstatement, instead o$ act#al reinstatement, is proper.

"e=

?it! respect to t!e Secretary8s Order allo"ing payroll reinstatement instead o$ act#al

reinstatement $or t!e individ#al respondents !erein, an amendment to t!e previo#s Ordersiss#ed %y !er o$$ice, t!e same is #s#ally not allo"ed. Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code

a$orementioned states t!at all "or7ers m#st immediately ret#rn to "or7 and all employers

m#st readmit all o$ t!em #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e orloc7o#t. '!e p!rase U#nder t!e same terms and conditionsV ma7es it clear t!at t!e norm is act#al

reinstatement. '!is is consistent "it! t!e idea t!at any "or7 stoppage or slo"do"n in t!atpartic#lar ind#stry can %e detrimental to t!e national interest.

In ordering payroll reinstatement in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement, t!en Acting Secretary o$ 4a%or;ose S. Brillantes said=

Anent t!e :nion8s 9otion, "e $ind t!at s#perseding circ#mstances "o#ld not "arrant t!e

p!ysical

reinstatement o$ t!e t"elve ()+ terminated employees. >ence, t!ey are !ere%y ordered placed#nder payroll reinstatement #ntil t!e validity o$ t!eir termination is $inally resolved.

As an eception to t!e r#le, payroll reinstatement m#st rest on special circ#mstances t!at renderact#al reinstatement impractica%le or ot!er"ise not cond#cive to attaining t!e p#rposes o$ t!e

la".

'!e Us#perseding circ#mstancesV mentioned %y t!e Acting Secretary o$ 4a%or no do#%t re$erto t!e $inal decision o$ t!e panel o$ ar%itrators as to t!e con$idential nat#re o$ t!e positions

o$ t!e t"elve private respondents, t!ere%y rendering t!eir act#al and p!ysical reinstatement

impractica%le and more li7ely to eacer%ate t!e sit#ation. '!e payroll reinstatement in lie# o$act#al reinstatement ordered in t!ese cases, t!ere$ore, appears sti$ied as an eception to t!e

r#le #ntil t!e validity o$ t!eir termination is $inally resolved. '!is Co#rt sees no grave a%#se o$

discretion on t!e part o$ t!e Acting Secretary o$ 4a%or in ordering t!e same. #rt!ermore, t!e

iss#e !as not %een raised %y any party in t!is case.

Petition denied.

#a-a -ao "oe !e %-o + CA

GR 14051:

Fa+&

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

33/34

'!e :nion $iled a petition $or a certi$ication election, "!ic! "as dismissed %y t!e DO4E.

Despite t!e dismissal o$ t!eir petition, t!e :nion sent a letter to t!e >otel in$orming t!e latter

o$ its desire to negotiate $or a collective %argaining agreement. '!e >otel, !o"ever, re$#sed tonegotiate "it! t!e :nion, citing t!e earlier dismissal o$ t!e :nion8s petition $or certi$ication %y

DO4E.

ailing to settle t!e iss#e, t!e :nion staged a stri7e against t!e >otel. N#mero#s con$rontations

$ollo"ed, $#rt!er straining t!e relations!ip %et"een t!e :nion and t!e >otel. '!e >otel claimst!at t!e stri7e "as illegal and dismissed some employees $or t!eir participation in t!e allegedly

illegal concerted activity. '!e :nion, on t!e ot!er !and, acc#sed t!e >otel o$ illegally dismissing

t!e "or7ers.

A Petition $or Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction #nder Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code "as later

$iled %y t!e :nion %e$ore t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or. '!erea$ter, Secretary o$ 4a%or 'ra&ano iss#ed

an Order directing t!e stri7ing o$$icers and mem%ers o$ t!e :nion to ret#rn to "or7 "it!in

t"enty$o#r (+6 !o#rs and t!e >otel to accept t!em %ac7 #nder t!e same terms and conditions

prevailing prior to t!e stri7e.

A$ter receiving t!e a%ove order t!e mem%ers o$ t!e :nion reported $or "or7, %#t t!e >otel

re$#sed to accept t!em and instead $iled a 9otion $or Reconsideration o$ t!e Secretary8s Order.

Acting on t!e motion $or reconsideration, t!en Acting Secretary o$ 4a%or EspaQol modi$ied t!eone earlier iss#ed %y Secretary 'ra&ano and instead directed t!at t!e stri7ers %e reinstated only in

t!e payroll.

I++ue= ?ON payroll reinstatement is proper in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement #nder Article +-*(go$ t!e 4a%or Code.

"e&

Payroll reinstatement in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement is not sanctioned #nder t!e provision o$ t!e

said article.

'!e Co#rt noted t!e di$$erence %et"een :S' vs. N4RC and t!e instant case. In :S' case t!eteac!ers co#ld not %e given %ac7 t!eir academic assignments since t!e order o$ t!e Secretary

$or t!em to ret#rn to "or7 "as given in t!e middle o$ t!e $irst semester o$ t!e academic year.

'!e N4RC "as, t!ere$ore, $aced "it! a sit#ation "!ere t!e stri7ing teac!ers "ere entitled to a

ret#rn to "or7 order, %#t t!e #niversity co#ld not immediately reinstate t!em since it "o#ld %eimpractica%le and detrimental to t!e st#dents to c!ange teac!ers at t!at point in time.

In t!e present case, t!ere is no similar compelling reason t!at called $or payroll reinstatement as

an alternative remedy. A strained relations!ip %et"een t!e stri7ing employees and management

is no reason $or payroll reinstatement in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement.

:nder Article +-*(g, all "or7ers m#st immediately ret#rn to "or7 and all employers m#st

readmit all o$ t!em #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e or loc7o#t.

'!e Co#rt pointed o#t t!at t!e la" #ses t!e precise p!rase o$ U#nder t!e same terms and

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014 - 2

34/34

conditions,V revealing t!at it contemplates only act#al reinstatement. '!is is in 7eeping "it! t!e

rationale t!at any "or7 stoppage or slo"do"n in t!at partic#lar ind#stry can %e inimical to t!e

national economy.

'!e Co#rt reiterates t!at Article +-*(g "as not "ritten to protect la%or $rom t!e ecesses o$

management, nor "as it "ritten to ease management $rom epenses, "!ic! it normally inc#rsd#ring a "or7 stoppage or slo"do"n. '!is la" "as "ritten as a means to %e #sed %y t!e State to

protect itsel$ $rom an emergency or crisis. It is not $or la%or, nor is it $or management.

Petition granted.