LabRel Batch 3

7/21/2019 LabRel Batch 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labrel-batch-3 1/30

G.R. No. L-43495-99 January 20, 1990

TROPICAL HUT EPLO!EE"# UNION-CG$, JO"E ENCINA", JO"E LUI" TRI%INO, &ELIPE 'URAN,ANUEL ANG!AO, AERTO CAHUCO, NEE"IO %ARRO, TEO'UL&O CAPAGNGAN,(ICTORINO A%ORRO, (I'AL ANTO", 'ALACIO 'AL'E, LUCIO PIA"AN, CANUTO LA%A'AN,TERE"O ROER'E, CONRA'O ENGALAN, "AL(A'OR NER(A, %ERNAR'O ENGALAN,%ONI&ACIO CAGATIN, %ENE'ICTO (AL'E), EU"E%IO "UPILANA", AL&RE'O HAA!AN,A"UERO %ONITO, GA(INO 'EL CAPO, )ACARIA" 'AING, PRU'ENCIO LA'ION, &ULGENCIO%ER"ALUNA, AL%ERTO PERALE", ROEO AGRAO, GO'O&RE'O CAINO", GIL'AR'O

'UA", JORGE "AL'I(AR, GENARO A'RIO, "EGUN'INO *UI)ON, LUI" "AN'O(AL, NE"TOR JAPA!, ROGELIO CUI)ON, RENATO ANTIPA'O, GREGORIO CUE(O, ARTIN %ALA)UELA,CON"TANCIO CHU, CRI"PIN TU%LE, &LORENCIO CHIU, &A%IAN CAHUCO, EILIANO(ILLAOR, RE"TITUTO HAN'A!AN, (ICTORINO E"PE'ILLA, NOEL CHUA, ARAN'OALCORANO, ELEUTERIO TAGUI*, "A"ON CRU'A, 'ANILO CA"TRO, CENON (ALLENA",'ANILO CA$ALING, "IPLICIO GALLERO", PER&ECTO CUI)ON, PROCE"O LAURO", ANICETO%A!LON, E'I"ON AN'RE", RE!NAL'O %AGOHIN, IRENEO "UPANGAN, RO'RIGO CAGATIN,TEO'ORO ORENCIO, ARAN'O LUA!ON, JAIE NER(A, NARCI"O CUI)ON, AL&RE'O 'ELRO"ARIO, E'UAR'O LOREN)O, PE'RO ARANGO, (ICENTE "UPANGAN, JACINTO %ANAL AN'%ONI&ACIO PUERTO, petitioners,vs.TROPICAL HUT &OO' AR*ET, INC., E"TELITA J. +UE, ARTURO 'ILAG, ARCELINO LONTO* JR., NATIONAL A""OCIATION O& TRA'E UNION" NATU, NATIONAL LA%OR RELATION"

COI""ION NLRC, HON. 'IEGO P. ATIEN)A, GERONIO +. +UA'RA, &E'ERICO C.%ORROEO, AN' HON. %LA" &. OPLE, respondents.

Pacifco C. Rosal or petitioners.

Marcelino Lontok, Jr. or private respondents.

Dizon, Vitug & a!ardo La" #$ce or %ropical ut ood Market, 'nc. and (ue.

E'IAL'EA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to set aside the decisions of the publicrespondents Secretary of Labor and National Labor Relations Coission !hich reversed the"rbitrators rulings in favor of petitioners herein.

The follo!ing factual background of this case appears fro the record#

$n %anuary &, '(6), the rank and *le !orkers of the Tropical +ut ood -arket ncorporated, referred toherein as respondent copany, organi/ed a local union called the Tropical +ut 0ployees 1nion, kno!nfor short as the T+01, elected their o2cers, adopted their constitution and by3la!s and iediatelysought a2liation !ith the National "ssociation of Trade 1nions 4N"T1. $n %anuary , '(6), the N"T1accepted the T+01 application for a2liation. ollo!ing such a2liation !ith N"T1, RegistrationCerti*cate No. 557738 !as issued by the 9epartent of Labor in the nae of the Tropical +ut0ployees 1nion : N"T1. t appears, ho!ever, that N"T1 itself as a labor federation, !as notregistered !ith the 9epartent of Labor.

"fter several negotiations !ere conducted bet!een T+013N"T1, represented by its local president andthe national o2cers of the N"T1, particularly gnacio Lacsina, 8resident, 8aci*co Rosal, 0;ecutive <ice38resident and -arcelino Lontok, %r., <ice 8resident, and respondent Tropical +ut ood -arket,ncorporated, thru its 8resident and =eneral -anager, Cesar "/cona, Sr., a Collective >argaining"greeent !as concluded bet!een the parties on "pril ', '(6), the ter of !hich e;pired on -arch', '(?'. Said agreeent@ contained these clear and uneAuivocal ters#

This "greeent ade and entered into this BBBBBBBBBB day of BBBBBBBBBBB, '(6), by and

bet!een#

The Tropical +ut ood -arket, nc., a corporation duly organi/ed and e;isting under andby virtue of the la!s of the Republic of the 8hilippines, !ith principal o2ce at ue/on



City, represented in this "ct by its 8resident, Cesar >. "/cona 4hereinafter referred to asthe Copany

:and:

The Tropical +ut 0ployees 1nion : N"T1, a legitiate labor organi/ation dulyorgani/ed and e;isting in accordance !ith the la!s of the Republic of the 8hilippines, anda2liated !ith the National "ssociation of Trade 1nions, !ith o2ces at San Luis Terraces,0rita, -anila, and represented in this "ct by its undersigned o2cers 4hereinafter

referred to as the 1N$N

)itnesset*#

;;; ;;; ;;;

"rticle

Coverage and 0Dectivity

Sec. '. The C$-8"NE recogni/es the 1N$N as the sole and e;clusive collectivebargaining agent for all its !orkers and eployees in all atters concerning !ages,hours of !ork, and other ters and conditions of eployent.

;;; ;;; ;;;

"rticle

1nion -ebership and 1nion Check3oD

Sec. ' :. . . 0ployees !ho are already ebers of the 1N$N at the tie of the signingof this "greeent or !ho becoe so thereafter shall be reAuired to aintain theirebership therein as a condition of continued eployent.

;;; ;;; ;;;

Sec. :"ny eployee !ho is e;pelled fro the 1N$N for Foining another federation orforing another union, or !ho fails or refuses to aintain his ebership therein asreAuired, . . . shall, upon !ritten reAuest of the 1N$N be discharged by the C$-8"NE.4Rollo, pp. 66?36?G

"nd attached to the "greeent as "ppendi; H"H is a check3oD "uthori/ation or, the ters of !hichare as follo!s#

Ie, the undersigned, hereby designate the N"T$N"L "ssociation of Trade 1nions, of

!hich the TR$8C"L +1T 0-8L$E00S 1N$N is an a2liate as sole collective bargainingagent in all atters relating to salary rates, hours of !ork and other ters and conditionsof eployent in the Tropical +ut ood -arket, nc. and !e hereby authori/e the saidcopany to deduct the aount of our +P .--8esos each every onth as our onthlydues and to deliver the aount to the Treasurer of the 1nion or his duly authori/edrepresentatives. 4Rollo, pp. 6)G36)7

$n -ay &', '(?', respondent copany and T+013N"T1 entered into a ne! Collective >argaining"greeent !hich ended on -arch ', '(?7. This ne! C>" incorporated the previous union3shopsecurity clause and the attached check3oD authori/ation for.

Soetie in %uly, '(?, "rturo 9ilag, incubent 8resident of T+013N"T1, !as appointed by therespondent copany as "ssistant 1nit -anager. $n %uly &7, '(?, he !rote the general ebership of

his union that for reason of his present position, he !as resigning as 8resident of the T+013N"T1eDective that date. "s a conseAuence thereof, his <ice38resident, %ose 0ncinas, assued anddischarged the duties of the presidency of the T+013N"T1.



$n 9eceber '(,'(?, N"T1 received a letter dated 9eceber '5, '(?, Fointly signed by theincubent o2cers of the local union inforing the N"T1 that T+01 !as disa2liating fro the N"T1federation. $n 9eceber &G, '(?, the Secretary of the T+01, Neesio >arro, ade an announceentin an open letter to the general ebership of the T+01, concerning the latter@s disa2liation fro theN"T1 and its a2liation !ith the Confederation of =eneral Iorkers 4C=I. The letter !as passed aroundaong the ebers of the T+013N"T1, to !hich around one hundred and thirty3seven 4'? signaturesappeared as having given their consent to and ackno!ledgent of the decision to disa2liate the T+01fro the N"T1.

$n %anuary ', '(?7, the general ebership of the so3called T+013C=I held its annual election ofo2cers, !ith %ose 0ncinas elected as 8resident. $n %anuary , '(?7, 0ncinas, in his capacity as T+013C=I 8resident, infored the respondent copany of the result of the elections. $n %anuary (, '(?7,8aci*co Rosal, 8resident of the Confederation of =eneral Iorkers 4C=I, !rote a letter in behalf ofcoplainant T+013C=I to the respondent copany deanding the reittance of the union duescollected by the Tropical +ut ood -art, ncorporated to the T+013C=I, but this !as refused by therespondent copany.

$n %anuary '', '(?7, the N"T1 thru its <ice38resident -arcelino Lontok, %r., !rote <idal -antos,reAuiring the latter to assue iediately the position of 8resident of the T+013N"T1 in place of %ose0ncinas, but the position !as declined by -antos. $n the sae day, Lontok, %r., infored 0ncinas in aletter, concerning the reAuest ade by the N"T1 federation to the respondent copany to disiss hi40ncinas in vie! of his violation of Section of "rticle of the Collective >argaining "greeent.0ncinas !as also advised in the letter that N"T1 !as returning the letter of disa2liation on the groundthat#

'. 1nder the restructuring progra N$T of the >ureau of Labor but of the 8hilippineNational Trade 1nion Center in conFunction !ith the N"T1 and other established nationallabor centers, retail clerks and eployees such as our ebers in the Tropical +utpertain to ndustry !hich by consensus, has been assigned already to the Furisdiction of the N"T1J

&. The right to disa2liate belongs to the union ebership !ho : on the basis ofveri*ed reports received by : have not even been consulted by you regarding theatterJ

. "ssuing that the disa2liation decision !as properly reachedJ your letter neverthelessis unacceptable in vie! of "rticle <, Section ', of the N"T1 Constitution !hich providesthat H!ithdra!al fro the organi/ation shall he valid provided three 4 onths notice ofintention to !ithdra! is served upon the National 0;ecutive Council.H 4p. &)', Rollo

n vie! of N"T1@s reAuest, the respondent copany, on the sae day, !hich !as %anuary '','(?7, suspended 0ncinas pending the application for clearance !ith the 9epartent of Labor todisiss hi. $n %anuary '&, '(?7, ebers of the T+013C=I passed a resolution protestingthe suspension of 0ncinas and reiterated their rati*cation and approval of their union@sdisa2liation fro N"T1 and their a2liation !ith the Confederation of =eneral Iorkers 4C=I. t!as 0ncinas@ suspension that caused the *ling of NLRC Case No. LR3&5'' on %anuary '', '(?7

against private respondents herein, charging the of unfair labor practice.

$n %anuary '5,'(?7, upon the reAuest of N"T1, respondent copany applied for clearance !ith theSecretary of Labor to disiss the other o2cers and ebers of T+013C=I. The copany alsosuspended the eDective that day. NLRC Case No. LR3&5&' !as *led by T+013C=I and individualcoplainants against private respondents for unfair labor practices.

$n %anuary '(, '(?7, Lontok, acting as teporary chairan, presided over the election of o2cers ofthe reaining T+013N"T1 in an eergency eeting pending the holding of a special election to becalled at a later date. n the alleged election, "rturo 9ilag !as elected acting T+013N"T1 8residenttogether !ith the other union o2cers. $n ebruary '7, '(?7, these teporary o2cers !ere consideredas having been elected as regular o2cers for the year '(?7.

$n %anuary G, '(?7, petitioner T+013C=I !rote a letter to %uan 8once 0nrile, Secretary of National9efense, coplaining of the unfair labor practices coitted by respondent copany against its



ebers and reAuesting assistance on the atter. The aforeentioned letter contained the signaturesof one hundred forty3three 4'7 ebers.

$n ebruary &7,'(?7, the secretary of T+013N"T1, noti*ed the entire rank and *le eployees of thecopany that they !ill be given forty3eight 47) hours upon receipt of the notice !ithin !hich to ans!erand a2r their ebership !ith T+013N"T1. Ihen the petitioner eployees failed to reply, "rturo9ilag advised the thru letters dated ebruary &6, -arch & and 5, '(?7, that the T+013N"T1 shallenforce the union security clause set forth in the C>", and that he had reAuested respondent copanyto disiss the.

Respondent copany, thereafter, !rote the petitioner eployees deanding the latter@s coent on9ilag@s charges before action !as taken thereon. +o!ever, no coent or reply !as received fropetitioners. n vie! of this, 0stelita ue, 8residentK=eneral -anager of respondent copany, upon9ilag@s reAuest, suspended t!enty four 4&7 !orkers on -arch 5, '(?7, another thirty seven 4? on-arch ), '(?7 and t!o 4& ore on -arch '', '(?7, pending approval by the Secretary of Labor of theapplication for their disissal.

"s a conseAuence thereof, NLRC Case Nos. LR3&(?', LR3G'5 and an unnubered case !ere *led bypetitioners against Tropical +ut ood -arket, ncorporated, 0stelita ue, +ernando Sariento and"rturo 9ilag.

t is signi*cant to note that the Foint letter petition signed by si;ty3seven 46? eployees !as *led !iththe Secretary of Labor, the NLRC Chairan and 9irector of Labor Relations to cancel the !ords N"T1after the nae of Tropical +ut 0ployee 1nion under Registration Certi*cate No. 5577 8. "nother lettersigned by one hundred forty3si; 4'76 ebers of T+013C=I !as sent to the 8resident of the8hilippines inforing hi of the unfair labor practices coitted by private respondents against T+013C=I ebers.

"fter hearing the parties in NLRC Cases Nos. &5'' and &5&' Fointly *led !ith the Labor "rbiter,"rbitrator 9aniel Lucas issued an order dated -arch &', '(?7, holding that the issues raised by theparties becae oot and acadeic !ith the issuance of NLRC $rder dated ebruary &5, '(?7 in NLRCCase No. LR3&6?G, !hich directed the holding of a certi*cation election aong the rank and *le !orkersof the respondent copany bet!een the T+013N"T1 and T+013C=I. +e also ordered# a thereinstateent of all coplainantsJ b for the respondent copany to cease and desist fro coittingfurther acts of disissals !ithout previous order fro the NLRC and for the coplainant Tropical +ut0ployees 1N$N3C=I to *le representation cases on a case to case basis during the freedo periodprovided for by the e;isting C>" bet!een the parties 4pp. ('3(, Rollo.

Iith regard to NLRC Case Nos. LR3&(?', LR3G'5, and the unnubered case, "rbitrator Cleto T.<illatuya rendered a decision dated $ctober '7, '(?7, the dispositive portion of !hich states#

8reises considered, a 90CS$N is hereby rendered ordering respondent copany toreinstate iediately the si;ty three 46 coplainants to their forer positions !ithback !ages fro the tie they !ere illegally suspended up to their actual reinstateent!ithout loss of seniority and other eployent rights and privileges, and ordering therespondents to desist fro further coitting acts of unfair labor practice. The

respondent copany@s application for clearance *led !ith the Secretary of Labor toterinate the subFect coplainants@ services eDective -arch &G and &, '(?7, should bedenied.

S$ $R90R09. 4pp. '7?3'7), Rollo

ro the orders rendered above by "bitrator 9aniel Lucas in NLRC Cases No. LR3&5'' and LR3&5&' andby "rbitrator Cleto <illatuya in NLRC Cases Nos. LR3&(?', LR3G'5, and the unnubered case, allparties thereto, naely, petitioners herein, respondent copany, N"T1 and 9ilag appealed to theNational Labor Relations Coission.

n a decision rendered on "ugust ', '(?5, the National Labor Relations Coission found the private

respondents@ appeals eritorious, and stated, inter alia#

I+0R0$R0, in vie! of the foregoing preises, the $rder of "rbitrator Lucas in NLRCC"S0 N$S. LR3&5'', &5&' and the decision of "rbitrator <illatuya in NLRC C"S0 N$S. LR3



&(?', G'5 and the unnubered Case are hereby R0<0RS09. "ccordingly, the individualcoplainants are deeed to have lost their status as eployees of the respondentcopany. +o!ever, considering that the individual coplainants are not presued to befailiar !ith nor to have anticipated the legal esh they !ould *nd theselves in, aftertheir Hdisa2liationH fro National "ssociation of Trade 1nions and the T+013N"T1, uchless the legal conseAuences of the said action !hich !e presue they have taken in allgood faithJ considering, further, that the thrust of the ne! orientation in labor relations isnot to!ards the punishent of acts violative of contractual relations but rather to!ardsfair adFustents of the resulting coplicationsJ and considering, *nally, the conseAuent

econoic hardships that !ould be visited on the individual coplainants, if the la! !ereto be strictly enforced against the, this Coission is constrained to be agnaniousin this instant, not!ithstanding its obligation to give full force and eDect to the aFesty of the la!, and hereby orders the respondent copany, under pain of being cited forcontept for failure to do so, to give the individual coplainants a second chance byreeploying the upon their voluntary rea2ration of ebership and loyalty to the Tropical +ut 0ployees 1nion3N"T1 and the National "ssociation of Trade 1nions in theevent it hires additional personnel.

S$ $R90R09. 4pp. '&3', Rollo

The petitioner eployees appealed the decision of the respondent National Labor RelationsCoission to the Secretary of Labor. $n ebruary &, '(?6, the Secretary of Labor rendered adecision a2ring the *ndings of the Coission, !hich provided inter alia#

Ie *nd, after a careful revie! of the record, no su2cient Fusti*cation to alter the decisionappealed fro e;cept that portion of the dispositive part !hich states#

. . . this Coission . . . hereby orders respondent copany under pain ofbeing cited for contept for failure to do so, to give the individualcoplainants a second chance by reeploying the upon their voluntaryrea2ration of ebership and loyalty to the Tropical +ut 0ployees1N$N3N"T1 and the National "ssociation of Trade 1nion in the event ithires additional personnel.

Copliance by respondent of the above undertaking is not iediately feasibleconsidering that the sae is based on an uncertain event, i.e., reeployent ofindividual coplainants Hin the event that anageent hires additional personnel,H afterthey shall have rea2red their loyalty to T+013N"T1, !hich is unlikely.

n lieu of the foregoing, and to give coplainants positive relief pursuant to Section (,pleenting nstruction No. '. dated Noveber (, '(?&, respondent is hereby orderedto grant to all the individual coplainants *nancial assistance eAuivalent to one 4'onth salary for every year of service.

I+0R0$R0, !ith the odi*cation as above indicated, the 9ecision of the National LaborRelations Coission is hereby a2red.

S$ $R90R09.4pp. '?3'), Rollo

ro the various pleadings *led and arguents adduced by petitioners and respondents, the follo!ingissues appear to be those presented for resolution in this petition to !it# ' !hether or not thepetitioners failed to e;haust adinistrative reedies !hen they iediately elevated the case to thisCourt !ithout an appeal having been ade to the $2ce of the 8residentJ & !hether or not thedisa2liation of the local union fro the national federation !as validJ and !hether or not thedisissal of petitioner eployees resulting fro their unions disa2liation for the other federation !asillegal and constituted unfair labor practice on the part of respondent copany and federation.

Ie *nd the petition highly eritorious.

The applicable la! then is the Labor Code, 89 77&, as aended by 89 67 on %anuary &', '(?5, !hichstates#



"rt. &&&. "ppeal : . . .

;;; ;;; ;;;

9ecisions of the Secretary of Labor /a0 be appealed to the 8resident of the 8hilippinessubFect to such conditions or liitations as the 8resident ay direct. 40phasis ours

The reedy of appeal fro the Secretary of Labor to the $2ce of the 8resident is not a andatoryreAuireent before resort to courts can be had, but an optional relief provided by la! to parties seekinge;peditious disposition of their labor disputes. ailure to avail of such relief shall not in any !ay servedas an ipedient to Fudicial intervention. "nd !here the issue is lack of po!er or arbitrary oriprovident e;ercise thereof, decisions of the Secretary of Labor ay be Auestioned ina certiorari proceeding !ithout prior appeal to the 8resident 4"rrastre Security "ssociation :T18"S v.$ple, No. L37577, ebruary &G, '()7, '&? SCR" 5)G. Since the instant petition raises the sae issueof grave abuse of discretion of the Secretary of Labor aounting to lack of or in e;cess of Furisdiction indeciding the controversy, this Court can properly take cogni/ance of and resolve the issues raisedherein.

This brings 1s to the Auestion of the legality of the disissal eted to petitioner eployees. n thecelebrated case of Li1ert0 Cotton Mills )orkers 2nion v . Li1ert0 Cotton Mills, L3')?, Septeber 7,'(?5, 66 SCR" 5'&, Ie held that the validity of the disissals pursuant to the union security clause in

the collective bargaining agreeent hinges on the validity of the disa2liation of the local union frothe federation.

The right of a local union to disa2liate fro its other federation is !ell3settled. " local union, being aseparate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its ebers including thefreedo to disa2liate !hen circustances !arrant. This right is consistent !ith the constitutionalguarantee of freedo of association 4<olkschel Labor 1nion v. >ureau of Labor Relations, No. L375)&7, %une '(, '()5, '? SCR" 7&.

"ll eployees enFoy the right to self organi/ation and to for and Foin labor organi/ations of their o!nchoosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for their utualaid or protection. This is a fundaental right of labor that derives its e;istence fro the Constitution. n

interpreting the protection to labor and social Fustice provisions of the Constitution and the labor la!sor rules or regulations, Ie have al!ays adopted the liberal approach !hich favors the e;ercise of laborrights.

Relevant on this point is the basic principle Ie have repeatedly in a2red in any rulings#

. . . The locals are separate and distinct units priarily designed to secure and aintainan eAuality of bargaining po!er bet!een the eployer and their eployee3ebers inthe econoic struggle for the fruits of the Foint productive eDort of labor and capitalJ andthe association of the locals into the national union 48"L1 !as in furtherance of thesae end. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legalrelations !ith their eber. The essential purpose !as the a2liation of the local unionsinto a coon enterprise to increase by collective action the coon bargaining po!er

in respect of the ters and conditions of labor. Eet the locals reained the basic units ofassociation, free to serve their o!n and the coon interest of all, subFect to therestraints iposed by the Constitution and >y3La!s of the "ssociation, and free also torenounce the a2liation for utual !elfare upon the ters laid do!n in the agreeent!hich brought it into e;istence. 4"dason "dason, nc. v. CR, No. L35'&G, %anuary', '()7, '&? SCR" &6)J 0lisco30lirol Labor 1nion 4N"L1 v. Noriel, No. L37'(55,9eceber &(, '(??, )G SCR" 6)'J Liberty Cotton -ills Iorkers 1nion v. Liberty Cotton-ills, nc., supra.

The inclusion of the !ord N"T1 after the nae of the local union T+01 in the registration !ith the9epartent of Labor is erely to stress that the T+01 is N"T1@s a2liate at the tie of the registration.t does not ean that the said local union cannot stand on its o!n. Neither can it be interpreted to

ean that it cannot pursue its o!n interests independently of the federation. " local union o!es itscreation and continued e;istence to the !ill of its ebers and not to the federation to !hich itbelongs.



Ihen the local union !ithdre! fro the old federation to Foin a ne! federation, it !as erelye;ercising its priary right to labor organi/ation for the eDective enhanceent and protection ofcoon interests. n the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation@s constitution preventingdisa2liation of a local union a local ay sever its relationship !ith its parent 48eople@s ndustrial andCoercial 0ployees and Iorkers $rgani/ation 4I v. 8eople@s ndustrial and CoercialCorporation, No. ?6)?, -arch '5, '()&, ''& SCR" 77G.

There is nothing in the constitution of the N"T1 or in the constitution of the T+013N"T1 that the T+01!as e;pressly forbidden to disa2liate fro the federation 4pp. 6&, &)', Rollo, The alleged non3

copliance of the local union !ith the provision in the N"T1 Constitution reAuiring the service of threeonths notice of intention to !ithdra! did not produce the eDect of nullifying the disa2liation for thefollo!ing grounds# *rstly, N"T1 !as not even a legitiate labor organi/ation, it appearing that it !asnot registered at that tie !ith the 9epartent of Labor, and therefore did not possess and acAuire, inthe *rst place, the legal personality to enforce its constitution and la!s, uch less the right andprivilege under the Labor Code to organi/e and a2liate chapters or locals !ithin its group, andsecondly, the act of non3copliance !ith the procedure on !ithdra!al is preised on purely technicalgrounds !hich cannot rise above the fundaental right of self3organi/ation.

Respondent Secretary of Labor, in a2ring the decision of the respondent Coission, concluded thatthe supposed decision to disa2liate !as not the subFect of a free and open discussion and decision onthe part of the T+013N"T1 general ebership 4p. G5, Rollo. This, ho!ever, is contradicted by theevidence on record. -oreover, Ie are inclined to believe "rbitrator <illatuya@s *ndings to the contrary,as follo!s#

. . . . +o!ever, the coplainants refute this allegation by subitting the follo!ing# aLetter dated 9eceber &G, '.(? signed by '7& ebers 40;hs. H> to >35H resolutiondated %anuary '&, '(?7, signed by '7G ebers 40;hs. H+ to +36H letter dated ebruary&6, '(?7 to the 9epartent of Labor signed by '65 ebers 40;hs. H to 3'GHJ d letterdated %anuary G, '(?7 to the Secretary of the National 9efense signed by '77 ebers40;hs. HG to G35H andJ e letter dated -arch 6, '(?7 signed by '76 ebers addressedto the 8resident of the 8hilippines 40;hs. H++ to ++35H, to sho! that in several instances,the ebers of the T+013N"T1 have ackno!ledged their disa2liation fro N"T1. Theletters of the coplainants also indicate that an over!heling aFority have freely andvoluntarily signed their union@s disa2liation fro N"T1, other!ise, if there !as really

deception eployed in securing their signatures as claied by N"T1K 9ilag, it could notbe possible to get their signatures in *ve diDerent docuents. 4p. '77, Rollo

Ie are a!are of the tie3honored doctrine that the *ndings of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor arebinding on this Court if supported by substantial evidence. +o!ever, in the sae !ay that the *ndingsof facts unsupported by substantial and credible evidence do not bind this Court, neither !ill Ie upholderroneous conclusions of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor !hen Ie *nd that the latter coittedgrave abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the labor arbiter 4San -iguel Corporation v. NLRC,L35G&', -arch ', '()7, '&) SCR" ')G. n the instant case, the factual *ndings of the arbitrator !erecorrect against that of public respondents.

urther, there is no erit in the contention of the respondents that the act of disa2liation violated the

union security clause of the C>" and that their disissal as a conseAuence thereof is valid. " perusal of the collective bargaining agreeents sho!s that the T+013N"T1, and not the N"T1 federation, !asrecogni/ed as the sole and e;clusive collective bargaining agent for all its !orkers and eployees in allatters concerning !ages, hours of !ork and other ters and conditions of eployent 4pp. 66?3?G6, Rollo. "lthough N"T1 !as designated as the sole bargaining agent in the check3oD authori/ationfor attached to the C>", this siply eans it !as acting only for and in behalf of its a2liate. TheN"T1 possessed the status of an agent !hile the local union reained the basic principal union !hichentered into contract !ith the respondent copany. Ihen the T+01 disa2liated fro its otherfederation, the forer did not lose its legal personality as the bargaining union under the C>".-oreover, the union security clause ebodied in the agreeents cannot be used to Fustify thedisissals eted to petitioners since it is not applicable to the circustances obtaining in this case. The C>" iposes disissal only in case an eployee is e;pelled fro the union for Foining anotherfederation or for foring another union or !ho fails or refuses to aintain ebership therein. The

case at bar does not involve the !ithdra!al of erely soe eployees fro the union but of the !hole T+01 itself fro its federation. Clearly, since there is no violation of the union security provision in theC>", there !as no su2cient ground to terinate the eployent of petitioners.



8ublic respondents considered the e;istence of "rturo 9ilag@s group as the reaining true and validunion. Ie, ho!ever, are inclined to agree instead !ith the "rbitrator@s *ndings !hen he declared#

. . . . -uch ore, the so3called T+013N"T1 under 9ilag@s group !hich assues to be theoriginal T+013N"T1 has a very doubtful and Auestionable e;istence not to ention thatthe alleged president is perforing supervisory functions and not Auali*ed to be a 1onafde eber of the rank and *le union. 4p. '76, Rollo

Records sho! that "rturo 9ilag had resigned in the past as 8resident of T+013N"T1 because of his

prootion to a anagerial or supervisory position as "ssistant 1nit -anager of respondent Copany.8etitioner %ose 0ncinas replaced 9ilag as 8resident and continued to hold such position at the tie ofthe disa2liation of the union fro the federation. t is therefore iproper and contrary to la! for 9ilagto reassue the leadership of the reaining group !hich !as alleged to be the true union since hebelonged to the anagerial personnel !ho could not be e;pected to !ork for the betterent of therank and *le eployees. >esides, anagers and supervisors are prohibited fro Foining a rank and *leunion 4>inalbagan sabela Sugar Co., nc. 4>SC$- v. 8hilippine "ssociation of ree Labor 1nions48"L1, et al., L3')?)&, "ugust &(, '(6, ) SCR" ?GG. Correspondingly, if a anager or supervisororgani/es or Foins a rank and *le union, he !ill be reAuired to resign therefro 4-agalit, et al. v. Courtof ndustrial Relations, et al., L3&G77), -ay &5, '(65,'7 SCR" ?&.

8ublic respondents further subit that several eployees !ho disa2liate their union fro the N"T1

subseAuently retracted and rea2red their ebership !ith the T+013N"T1. n the decision !hich!as a2red by respondent Secretary of Labor, the respondent Coission stated that#

. . . out of the alleged one hundred and seventy3one 4'?' ebers of the T+013C=I!hose signatures appeared in the H"nalysis of <arious 9ocuents Signed by -aFority-ebers of the T+013C=I, 4"nne; HTH, Coplainants, !hich incidentally !as reliedupon by "rbitrator <illatuya in holding that coplainant T+013C=I coanded theaFority of eployees in respondent copany, ninety3three 4( of the allegedsignatories rea2red their ebership !ith the T+013N"T1 and renounced !hateverconnection they ay have had !ith other labor unions, 4eaning the coplainant T+013C=I either through resolution or ebership application fors they have un!ittinglysigned.H 4p. G6,Rollo

=ranting arguendo, that the fact of retraction is true, the evidence on record sho!s that the letters ofretraction !ere e;ecuted on various dates beginning %anuary '', '(?7 to -arch ), '(?7 4pp. &?)3&)G, Rollo. This sho!s that the retractions !ere ade ore or less after the suspension pendingdisissal on %anuary '', '(?7 of %ose 0ncinas, forerly T+013N"T1 8resident, !ho becae T+013C=I8resident, and the suspension pending their disissal of the other elected o2cers and ebers of the T+013C=I on %anuary '5, '(?7. t is also clear that soe of the retractions occurred after thesuspension of the *rst set of !orkers nubering about t!enty3four 4&7 on -arch 5, '(?7. There is nouse in saying that the retractions obliterated the act of disa2liation as there are doubts that they !erefreely and voluntarily done especially during such tie !hen their o!n union o2cers and co3!orkers!ere already suspended pending their disissal.

inally, !ith regard to the process by !hich the !orkers !ere suspended or disissed, this Court *nds

that it !as hastily and suarily done !ithout the necessary due process. The respondent copanysent a letter to petitioners herein, advising the of N"T1K9ilag@s recoendation of their disissal andat the sae tie giving the forty3eight 47) hours !ithin !hich to coent 4p. 6?, Rollo. Ihenpetitioners failed to do so, respondent copany iediately suspended the and thereafter eDectedtheir disissal. This is certainly not in ful*llent of the andate of due process, !hich is to aDord theeployee to be disissed an opportunity to be heard.

The prerogative of the eployer to disiss or lay3oD an eployee should be done !ithout abuse ofdiscretion or arbitrainess, for !hat is at stake is not only the eployee@s nae or position but also hiseans of livelihood. Thus, the discharge of an eployee fro his eployent is null and void !herethe eployee !as not forally investigated and given the opportunity to refute the alleged *ndingsade by the copany 49e Leon v. NLRC, L35&G56, $ctober G, '()G, 'GG SCR" 6('. Like!ise, aneployer can be adFudged guilty of unfair labor practice for having disissed its eployees in line !ith

a closed shop provision if they !ere not given a proper hearing 4>inalbagan3sabela Sugar Co., nc.,4>SC$- v. 8hilippine "ssociation of ree Labor 1nions 48"L1 et al., L3')?)&, "ugust &(, '(6, )SCR" ?GG.



n vie! of the fact that the dispute revolved around the other federation and its local, !ith thecopany suspending and disissing the !orkers at the instance of the other federation then, thecopany@s liability should be liited to the iediate reinstateent of the !orkers. "nd since theirdisissals !ere eDected !ithout previous hearing and at the instance of N"T1, this federation shouldbe held liable to the petitioners for the payent of their back!ages, as !hat Ie have ruled in theLiberty Cotton -ills Case 4supra.

"CC$R9N=LE, the petition is hereby =R"NT09 and the assailed decision of respondent Secretary ofLabor is R0<0RS09 and S0T "S90, and the respondent copany is hereby ordered to iediately

reinstate all the petitioner eployees !ithin thirty 4G days fro notice of this decision. freinstateent is no longer feasible, the respondent copany is ordered to pay petitioners separationpay eAuivalent to one 4' onth pay for every year of service. The respondent N"T1 federation isdirected to pay petitioners the aount of three 4 years back!ages !ithout deduction or Auali*cation. This decision shall be iediately e;ecutory upon proulgation and notice to the parties.

S$ $R90R09.



G.R. No. 15530 Au/u 2, 2013

ALA!ANG ANGGAGA$A NG "TA!&A"T PHIL"., INC., 80TT$N0R,vs.NATIONAL LA%OR RELATION" COI""ION, "TA!&A"T PHILIPPINE", INC. ARIAALEI'A,R0S8$N90NTS.

9 0 C S $ N

LEONAR'O-'E CA"TRO, J.:

This petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks a revie! and reversal of the9ecision' dated %uly ', &GG& of the Court of "ppeals in C"3=.R. S8 No. 5(765, !hich disissed thepetition for certiorari of petitioner -alayang -angggaga!a ng Stayfast 8hils., nc.

The Labor "rbiter and the National Labor Relations Coission 4NLRC ade siilar *ndings of fact.8etitioner and Nagkakaisang Lakas ng -anggaga!a sa Stayfast 4NL-S3$lalia sought to be thee;clusive bargaining agent of the eployees of respondent copany, Stayfast 8hilippines, nc. "certi*cation election !as conducted on 9eceber &(, '((5.& $ut of the && valid votes cast, petitionergarnered 'G( votes !hile NL-S3$lalia received ''& votes and & votes !ere for HNo 1nion.H Thus, the-ed3"rbiter !ho supervised the certi*cation election issued an $rder dated %anuary (, '((6 certifyingNL-S3$lalia as the sole and e;clusive bargaining agent of all rank and *le eployees of respondentcopany.7

8etitioner appealed the $rder of the -ed3"rbiter to the Secretary of Labor and 0ployent. TheSecretary of Labor and 0ployent initially set aside the $rder of the -ed3"rbiter and called for run3oD election bet!een petitioner and NL-S3$lalia. $n otion of NL-S3$lalia, ho!ever, the Secretary ofLabor and 0ployent reconsidered his earlier decision and restored the -ed3"rbiterMs $rder dated %anuary (, '((6. 8etitioner elevated the atter via petition for certiorari to this Court.5 The petition,docketed as =.R. No. '&5(5?, !as disissed in a Resolution dated %anuary '7, '(().6

-ean!hile, NL-S3$lalia deanded to collectively bargain !ith respondent copany. The latter reFectedpetitionerMs deand, insisting that it !ould negotiate a collective bargaining agreeent only !ith!hichever union is *nally certi*ed as the sole and e;clusive bargaining agent of the !orkers.Nevertheless, NL-S3$lalia !ent on strike on "pril ', '((? until it !as teporarily restrained eight dayslater.?

SubseAuently, on %une 5, '((?, petitioner *led its o!n notice of strike in the National Conciliation and-ediation >oard 4NC->. Respondent copany opposed petitionerMs ove and *led a otion to disisson the ground that petitioner !as not the certi*ed bargaining agent and therefore lacked personality to*le a notice of strike.) Thereafter, the parties !ere able to ake concessions during the conciliation3ediation stage in the NC-> !hich led petitioner to !ithdra! its notice of strike.( n this connection,

the NC-> issued a Certi*cation dated %uly ', '((? !hich reads#

C 0 R T C " T $ N

T$ I+$- T -"E C$NC0RN#

This is to certify that it appears fro the H-inutesK"greeentH of conciliation conference dated %uly '5,'((?, !hich !as further con*red by ConciliatorK-ediator =il Caragayan,O the Notice of Strike *led by--S83ndependent on %une 5, '((?, against Stayfast 8hilippines, nc. is considered droppedK!ithdra!nfro the business calendar of this o2ce.

t is further certi*ed that there is no ne! Notice of Strike *led by the sae union.

This certi*cation is being issued upon the !ritten reAuest of "tty. 0dgardo R. "baya.

%uly ', '((?.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_155306_2013.html#fnt1
























4Sgd. L0$8$L9$ >. 90 %0S1S9irector 'G

$n %uly &', '((?, ho!ever, petitionerMs ebers staged a Hsit3do!n strikeH to draati/e their deandfor a fair and eAual treatent as respondent copany allegedly continued to discriinate againstthe. Respondent copany issued a eorandu reAuiring the alleged participants in the Hsit3do!nstrikeH to e;plain !ithin &7 hours !hy they should not be terinated or suspended fro !ork forinfraction of copany rules and regulations pertaining to unauthori/ed !ork stoppage, acts iniical tocopany interest, and disregard of instruction of iediate supervisor to perfor assigned task. "s no

one coplied !ith the eorandu !ithin the &73hour deadline, respondent copany proptlyterinated the service of the participants in the Hsit3do!n strikeH on %uly &&, '((?. ConseAuently, on %uly &, '((?, petitioner staged a strike and *led a coplaint for unfair labor practice, union bustingand illegal lockout against respondent copany and its =eneral -anager, -aria "leida, in the NLRC.''

n support of its coplaint, petitioner alleged that respondents had repeatedly coitted acts ofdiscriination, such as the denial of the use of the copany canteen for purposes of conducting astrike vote, the constant denial of applications of petitionerMs ebers for leave to attend hearings inrelation to certain labor cases !hile siilar applications of ebers of the other union !ere approved,and the suspension of petitionerMs president for being absent due to attendance in hearings of laborcases involving petitionerMs ebers. 8etitioner further claied that the terination of about '&? of itso2cers and ebers constituted union busting and unla!ful lockout.'&

or its part, respondent copany claied that petitioner lacked legal authority to go on strike since it isa inority union. "s petitioner !ithdre! its notice of strike during the proceedings in the NC->, thestrike conducted by petitioner !as illegal as it constituted a !ildcat strike and later becae a full3blo!nstrike on %uly &, '((?. 8etitioner coitted illegal acts during the strike and obstructed the freeingress and egress fro respondent copanyMs preises.'

$n "pril &?, '(((, the Labor "rbiter rendered a 9ecision !hich ruled that, !hile petitioner ay *le anotice of strike on behalf of its ebers, petitioner failed to cite any instance of discriination orharassent !hen it *led its notice of strike on %une 5, '((? and the incidents entioned asdiscriinatory occurred after the *ling of the said notice. -oreover, assuing the strike !as legal atthe beginning, it becae illegal !hen petitioner coitted acts prohibited under "rticle &674e of theLabor Code, such as acts of violence, coercion and intiidation and obstruction of the free ingress to

and egress fro respondent copanyMs preises. "lso, petitioner !as supposed to have ade a self3iposed prohibition to stage a strike !hen it subitted its labor dispute !ith respondent copany forcopulsory arbitration in the afternoon of %uly &, '((?. Eet, petitioner continued !ith its strike. orthese reasons, the Labor "rbiter disissed the petition.'7 The dispositive portion of the Labor "rbiterMs9ecision dated "pril &?, '((( reads#

8R0-S0S C$NS90R09, the coplaint is hereby disissed for lack of erit.'5

8etitioner appealed but, in a Resolution dated %anuary ', &GGG, the NLRC upheld the Labor "rbiterMs9ecision. "ccording to the NLRC, the actuations of petitioner !ere patently illegal because the sit3do!nstrike staged on %uly &', '((? !as ade barely a !eek after petitioner !ithdre! its notice of strike,!ith preFudice, on account of the concessions agreed upon by the parties. 8etitioner *led no ne! notice

of strike that could have supported its charges of discriinatory acts and unfair labor practice.-oreover, no evidence !as presented to establish such charges. "lso, petitionerMs ebers !ere giventhe opportunity to e;plain their violation of respondent copanyMs rules on unauthori/ed !orkstoppage, acts iniical to copany interest and disregard of instruction of iediate supervisor toperfor assigned task. Thus, the NLRC disissed petitionerMs appeal.'6 The dispositive portion of theNLRCMs Resolution dated %anuary ', &GGG reads#

I+0R0$R0, preises considered, the decision under revie! is "R-09, and coplainantsM appeal,9S-SS09, for lack of erit.'?

8etitioner *led a otion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied it in a Resolution dated "pril 'G,&GGG.')

8etitioner *led a petition for certiorari in the Court of "ppeals, docketed as C"3=.R. S8 No. 5(765, onthe follo!ing grounds#























4" R0S8$N90NT NLRC C$--TT09 =R$SS "N9 =R"<0 ">1S0 $ 9SCR0T$N I+0N T18+0L9 T+0 L">$R "R>T0RMS 90CS$N.

4> C$-8L"N"NTSK"880LL"NTS I+$S0 T0R-N"T$N R0S1LT09 R$- T+0 1N"R L">$R8R"CTC0,O 1N$N3>1STN= "N9 1NL"I1L L$CP$1T $ +0R0N R0S8$N90NT "R0 0NTTL09 T$ R0NST"T0-0NT IT+ 1LL >"CPI"=0S.

4C C$-8L"N"NTS, >E R0"S$N $ T+0 "R>TR"RE "CT$N N I"NT$N 9SR0="R9 $ T+0L0="L R=+TS $ +0R0N C$-8L"N"NTS,O "R0 0NTTL09 T$ 9"-"=0S "N9 "TT$RN0EMS

00S.'(

n a 9ecision dated %uly ', &GG&, the Court of "ppeals found that petitioner !as seeking a revie! of the*ndings of fact and conclusion of the Labor "rbiter !hich !as sustained by the NLRC. The Court of"ppeals found no cogent reason to indulge petitioner. t applied the rule that *ndings of fact ade bythe Labor "rbiter and a2red by the NLRC are considered by the appellate court as binding ifsupported by substantial evidence. The Court of "ppeals ruled that the NLRC Resolution dated %anuary', &GGG !as supported by Fusti*able reason and cannot be faulted !ith grave abuse of discretion.8etitioner failed to establish that the NLRC coitted grave abuse of discretion. -oreover, a petitionfor certiorari is not used to correct a lo!er tribunalMs appreciation of evidence and *ndings of fact. Thus,the Court of "ppeals disissed the petition. The dispositive portion of the Court of "ppealsM 9ecisiondated %uly ', &GG& reads#

I+0R0$R0, foregoing preises considered, the 8etition, having no erit, in fact and in la!, is hereby90N09 910 C$1RS0 and $R90R09 9S-SS09. Resultantly, the assailed ResolutionsO are "R-09,!ith costs to 8etitioner.&G

+ence, this petition for certiorari&' under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

"ccording to petitioner, it Hinterposes appeal on the Fudgent of the +onorable %ustices of the Court of"ppealsH on the follo!ing grounds#

4' The +onorable %ustices of the Court of "ppeals coitted grave abuse of discretionaounting to lack or e;cess of Furisdiction !hen they upheld the rulings of the NLRC and

disregarded the constitutional protection of labor as !ell as "rticle &7) 4e and "rticle &6 of theLabor Code.

4& The +onorable %ustices of the Court of "ppeals coitted grave abuse of discretionaounting to lack or e;cess of Furisdiction !hen they upheld the decision of the NLRC that theterination of coplainantsKappellants !ere valid and corollary thereto no reinstateent,Oback!ages, daages and attorneyMs fees !ere a!arded.&&

n discussing the above grounds, petitioner clais that the discriinatory acts of respondent copanyand its =eneral -anager against petitionerMs ebers constituted unfair labor practice under "rticle&7)4e of the Labor Code, as aended. The terination of eployent of petitionerMs '&? o2cers andebers constituted union3busting and unla!ful lockout. "s the said o2cers and ebers !ereunla!fully disissed fro eployent, they are entitled to reinstateent !ith full back!ages. Thearbitrary action of respondent copany and its =eneral -anager !antonly disregarded the legal rightsof petitionerMs o2cers and ebers thereby entitling said o2cers and ebers to daages andattorneyMs fees.&

Respondent copany and its =eneral -anager, for their part, Auestion the tieliness of the petition!hich !as *led 5& days after petitionerMs receipt of the 9ecision of the Court of "ppeals. They point outthat petitioner should have *led a petition for revie! under Rule 75 of the Rules of Court !ithin '5 daysfro receipt of a copy of the Court of "ppeals 9ecision. Respondent copany and its =eneral -anageralso argue that the sit3do!n strike !hich subseAuently becae a full blo!n strike conducted bypetitioner !as illegal as it had previously !ithdra!n its notice of strike. The illegality of the strike !ascopounded by the coission of prohibited acts like the blocking of the entry and e;it points ofrespondent copanyMs preises. "lso, petitionerMs o2cers and eployees !ere aDorded due process

before they !ere disissed as they !ere issued a eorandu reAuiring the to e;plain theirparticipation in the illegal sit3do!n strike but they siply ignored the said eorandu.&7

The petition fails for any reasons.
















irst, this petition for certiorari is a !rong reedy.

" petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that ay be resortedto only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy and adeAuate reedy in the ordinary course ofla!.&5 Contrary to petitionerMs clai in the %urisdictional acts portion of its petition that there !as noappeal or any other plain, speedy and adeAuate reedy in the ordinary course of la! other than thispetition for certiorari, the right recourse !as to appeal to this Court in the for of a petition for revie!on certiorari under Rule 75 of the Rules of Court, Section ' of !hich provides#

Section '. iling of petition !ith Supree Court. Q " party desiring to appeal by certiorari fro a Fudgent, *nal order or resolution of the Court of "ppeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Ta;"ppeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, !henever authori/ed by la!, ay *le !ith theSupree Court a veri*ed petition for revie! on certiorari. The petition ay include an application for a!rit of preliinary inFunction or other provisional reedies and shall raise only Auestions of la!, !hichust be distinctly set forth. The petitioner ay seek the sae provisional reedies by veri*ed otion*led in the sae action or proceeding at any tie during its pendency.

or purposes of appeal, the 9ecision dated %uly ', &GG& of the Court of "ppeals !as a *nal Fudgent asit denied due course to, and disissed, the petition. Thus, the 9ecision disposed of the petition ofpetitioner in a anner that left nothing ore to be done by the Court of "ppeals in respect to the saidcase. Thus, petitioner should have *led an appeal by petition for revie! on certiorari under Rule 75, not

a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in this Court. Ihere the rules prescribe a particular reedy forthe vindication of rights, such reedy should be availed of.

The proper reedy to obtain a reversal of Fudgent on the erits, *nal order or resolution is appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the Fudgent is its lack of Furisdictionover the subFect atter, or the e;ercise of po!er in e;cess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the*ndings of fact or of la! set out in the decision, order or resolution. The e;istence and availability of theright of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the reAuireents for the latter reedy isthat there should be no appeal.&6

8etitioner cannot ask its failure to *le an appeal by petition for revie! under Rule 75 of the Rules ofCourt by the ere e;pedient of conFuring grave abuse of discretion to avail of a petition for certiorariunder Rule 65. The error of petitioner becoes ore anifest in light of the follo!ing pronounceentin >alayan v. "corda&?#

t bears ephasis that the special civil action for certiorari is a liited for of revie! and is a reedy of last recourse. The Court has often reinded ebers of the bench and bar that this e;traordinaryaction lies only !here there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adeAuate reedy in the ordinary courseof la!. t cannot be allo!ed !hen a party to a case fails to appeal a Fudgent despite the availability ofthat reedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal. Ihere an appeal is available,certiorari !ill not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. ; ; ;. 4Citationsoitted.

-oreover, certiorari is not and cannot be ade a substitute for an appeal !here the latter reedy isavailable but !as lost through fault or negligence.&) n this case, petitioner received the 9ecision dated

%uly ', &GG& on "ugust &, &GG& and, under the rules,&( had until "ugust '(, &GG& to *le an appeal by!ay of a petition for revie! in this Court. 8etitioner let this period lapse !ithout *ling an appeal and,instead, *led this petition for certiorari on $ctober ', &GG&.

Second, even assuing that a petition for certiorari is the correct reedy in this case, petitioner failedto coply !ith the reAuireent of a prior otion for reconsideration.

"s a general rule, a otion for reconsideration is a prereAuisite for the availent of a petition forcertiorari under Rule 65.G The *ling of a otion for reconsideration before resort to certiorari !ill lie isintended to aDord the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributedto it by !ay of re3e;aination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.' Ihile there are !ellrecogni/ed e;ceptions to this rule,& this petition is not covered by any of those e;ceptions. The Court of

"ppeals !as not given any opportunity either to rectify !hatever error it ay have ade or to addressthe ascription and aspersion of grave abuse of discretion thro!n at it by petitioner. Nor did petitioneroDer any copelling reason to !arrant a deviation fro the rule. The instant petition for certiorari istherefore fatally defective.




















Third, petitioner !as not able to establish its allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of theCourt of "ppeals.

Ihere a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges grave abuse of discretion, thepetitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, !hisical,arbitrary or despotic anner in the e;ercise of its Furisdiction as to be eAuivalent to lack of Furisdiction. This is so because Hgrave abuse of discretionH is !ell3de*ned and not an aorphousconcept that ay easily be anipulated to suit oneMs purpose. n this connection, Eu v. %udge Reyes3Carpio7 is instructive#

The ter Hgrave abuse of discretionH has a speci*c eaning. "n act of a court or tribunal can only beconsidered as !ith grave abuse of discretion !hen such act is done in a Hcapricious or !hisicale;ercise of Fudgent as is eAuivalent to lack of Furisdiction.H The abuse of discretion ust be so patentand gross as to aount to an Hevasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perfor a dutyenFoined by la!, or to act at all in conteplation of la!, as !here the po!er is e;ercised in an arbitraryand despotic anner by reason of passion and hostility.H urtherore, the use of a petition for certiorariis restricted only to Htruly e;traordinary cases !herein the act of the lo!er court or Auasi3Fudicial bodyis !holly void.H ro the foregoing de*nition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari underRule 65 can only strike an act do!n for having been done !ith grave abuse of discretion if thepetitioner could anifestly sho! that such act !as patent and gross. ; ; ;. 4Citations oitted.

n this case, no!here in the petition did petitioner sho! that the issuance of the 9ecision dated %uly ',&GG& of the Court of "ppeals !as patent and gross that !ould !arrant striking it do!n through apetition for certiorari. "side fro a general stateent in the %urisdictional acts portion of the petitionand the s!eeping allegation of grave abuse of discretion in the general enueration of the grounds ofthe petition,5 petitioner failed to substantiate its iputation of grave abuse of discretion on the part ofthe Court of "ppeals. No arguent !as advanced to sho! that the Court of "ppeals e;ercised its Fudgent capriciously, !hisically, arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion and hostility.8etitioner did not even discuss ho! or !hy the conclusions of the Court of "ppeals !ere ade !ithgrave abuse of discretion. nstead, petitioner liited its discussion on its version of the case, !hich hadbeen already reFected both by the Labor "rbiter and the NLRC. Thus, petitioner failed in its duty todeonstrate !ith de*niteness the grave abuse of discretion that !ould Fustify the proper availent of apetition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

ourth, petitioner essentially Auestioned the factual *ndings of the Labor "rbiter and theNLRC.34"p*i3 8etitioner cannot properly do that in a petition for certiorari.

8etitioner used the 9iscussionK"rguents portion of its petition to refute the *ndings of fact of theLabor "rbiter !hich !as upheld by the NLRC. n particular, petitioner reiterated its position thatrespondent copany and its =eneral -anager coitted discriinatory acts against petitionerMsebers !hich constituted unfair labor practiceJ that the terination of eployent of petitionerMso2cers and ebers !as a case of union3busting and unla!ful lockoutJ and, that the said o2cers andebers !ere unla!fully disissed fro eployent and are therefore entitled to reinstateent !ithfull back!ages, plus daages and attorneyMs fees.6 or petitioner to Auestion the identical *ndings ofthe Labor "rbiter and the NLRC is to raise a Auestion of fact. +o!ever, it is settled that Auestions of factcannot be raised in an original action for certiorari.? $nly established or aditted facts can be

considered.

)

RoyMs reight Service v. Castro

(

e;plains the rationale of this rule#

The Supree Court is not a trier of facts, ore so in the consideration of the e;traordinary !rit ofcertiorari !here neither Auestions of fact nor of la! are entertained, but only Auestions of lack ore;cess of Furisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The sole obFect of the !rit is to correct errors of Furisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The phrase grave abuse of discretionM has a precise eaningin la!, denoting abuse of discretion Htoo patent and gross as to aount to an evasion of a positiveduty, or a virtual refusal to perfor the duty enFoined or act in conteplation of la!, or !here thepo!er is e;ercised in an arbitrary and despotic anner by reason of passion and personal hostility.H tdoes not encopass an error of la!. Nor does it include a istake in the appreciation of the contendingpartiesM respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative !eight. 4Citations oitted.

ifth, considering that petitioner basically presented an issue of fact, its petition for certiorari crubles

in vie! of the identical *ndings of the Labor "rbiter and the NLRC !hich !ere further upheld by theCourt of "ppeals.


















The Court of "ppeals correctly ruled that *ndings of fact ade by Labor "rbiters and a2red by theNLRC are not only entitled to great respect, but even *nality, and are considered binding if the saeare supported by substantial evidence.7G That ruling is based on established case la!.7' urtherore, inarriving at the said ruling, the Court of "ppeals even revie!ed the rationale of the Labor "rbiterMsdecision and !as convinced that there !as Fusti*able reason for the NLRC to uphold the sae.7& ThisCourt *nds no copelling reason to rule other!ise.

Si;th, even on the erits, the case of petitioner has no leg to stand on.

8etitionerMs case rests on the alleged discriinatory acts of respondent copany against petitionerMso2cers and ebers. +o!ever, both the Labor "rbiter and the NLRC held that there !as no su2cientproof of respondent copanyMs alleged discriinatory acts.7 Thus, petitionerMs unfair labor practice,union3busting and unla!ful lockout clais do not hold !ater. -oreover, the established facts as foundby the NLRC are as follo!s# the Hsit3do!n strikeH ade by petitionerMs o2cers and ebers on %uly &','((? !as in violation of respondent copanyMs rules, and petitionerMs o2cers and ebers ignored theopportunity given by respondent copany for the to e;plain their isconduct, !hich resulted in theterination of their eployent.77 The Court of "ppeals ruled that the said *ndings !ere supported bysubstantial evidence.75 This Court *nds that such ruling of the appellate court is not grave abuse ofdiscretion, nor could it be considered !rong.

n su, there is an abundance of reasons, both procedural and substantive, !hich are all fatal to

petitionerMs cause. n contrast, the instant petition for certiorari suDers fro an acute scarcity of legaland factual support.

I+0R0$R0, the petition is hereby 9S-SS09.

S$ $R90R09.

















G.R. No. 192 Jun 4, 2014

TA*ATA PHILIPPINE" CORPORATION, 8etitioner,vs.%UREAU O& LA%OR RELATION" an6 "AAHANG LA*A" ANGGAGA$A NG TA*ATA"ALAAT,Respondents.

9 0 C S $ N

PERALTA, J.:

>efore us is a petition for revie! on certiorari *led by petitioner T"P"T" 8hilippines Corporationassailing the 9ecision' dated 9eceber &&, &G'G and the Resolution& dated -arch &), &G'' of theCourt of "ppeals in C"3=.R. S8 No. ''&7G6.

$n %uly ?, &GG(, petitioner *led !ith the 9epartent of Labor and 0ployent 49$L0 Regional $2ce a8etitionfor Cancellation of the Certi*cate of 1nion Registration of Respondent Saahang Lakas-anggaga!a ng Takata 4S"L"-"' on the ground that the latter is guilty of isrepresentation, falsestateent and fraud !ith respect to the nuber of those !ho participated in the organi/ationaleeting, the adoption and rati*cation of its Constitution and >y3La!s, and in the election of its o2cers.t contended that in the -ay ', &GG( organi/ational eeting of respondent, only 6) attendees signedthe attendance sheet, and !hich nuber coprised only '? of the total nuber of the (6 regularrank3 and3*le eployees !hich respondent sought to represent, and hence, respondent failed tocoply !ith the &G iniu ebership reAuireent. 8etitioner insisted that the docuentH8angalan ng ga Pasapi ng 1nyonH bore no signatures of the alleged ''( union ebersJ and thateployees !ere not given su2cient inforation on the docuents they signedJ that the docuentHSaa3Saang 8ahayag ng 8agsapiH !as not subitted at the tie of the *ling of respondent@sapplication for union registrationJ that the ''( union ebers !ere actually only ''?J and, that thetotal nuber of petitioner@s eployees as of -ay ', &GG( !as 7?G, and not (6 as respondentclaied.7

Respondent denied the charge and claied that the ''( union ebers !ere ore than the &GreAuireent for union registration. The docuent HSaa3Saang 8ahayag ng 8agsapi sa 1nyonH !hichit presented in its petition for certi*cation election5 supported their clai of ''( ebers. Respondentalso contended that petitioner !as estopped fro assailing its legal personality as it agreed to acerti*cation election and actively participated in the pre3election conference of the certi*cation electionproceedings.6 Respondent argued that the union ebers !ere infored of the contents of thedocuents they signed and that the 6) attendees to the organi/ational eeting constituted ore than5G of the total union ebership, hence, a Auo rue;isted for the conduct of the said eeting.?

$n "ugust &?, &GG(, 9$L0 Regional 9irector, "tty. Ricardo S. -artine/, Sr., issued a 9ecision) grantingthe petition for cancellation of respondent@s certi*cate of registration, the dispositive portion of !hichreads#

I+0R0$R0, fro the foregoing considerations, the petition is hereby =R"NT09. "ccordingly, therespondent 1nion Certi*cate of Registration No. R$7GG"3&GG(3G53G'31R3L"=, dated -ay '(, &GG( ishereby R0<$CP09 4sic and Kor C"NC0LL09 pursuant to paragraph 4a 4b, Section , Rule < of9epartent $rder No. 7G3G and the Saahang Lakas ng -anggaga!a ng T"P"T" 4S"L"-"T is herebydelisted fro the roll of legitiate labor organi/ation of this o2ce.(

n revoking respondent@s certi*cate of registration, the Regional 9irector found that the 6) eployees!ho attended the organi/ational eeting !as obviously less than &G of the total nuber of (6regular rank3and3*le eployees !hich respondent sought to represent, hence, short of the unionregistration reAuireentJ that the attendance sheet !hich contained the signatures and naes of theunion ebers totalling to 6) contradicted the list of naes stated in the docuent denoinated as

H8angalan ng ga Pasaping 1nyon.H The docuent HSaa3Saang 8ahayag ng 8agsapiH !as notattached to the application for registration as it !as only subitted in the petition for certi*cationelection *led by respondent at a later date. The Regional 9irector also found that the proceedings in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_196276_2014.html#fnt1






















the cancellation of registration and certi*cation elections are t!o diDerent and entirely separate andindependent proceedings !hich !ere not dependent on each other.

9issatis*ed, respondent, through >ukluran ng -anggaga!ang 8ilipino 4>-8 8aralegal $2cer, 9oingo8. -ole, *led a Notice and -eorandu of "ppeal'G !ith the >ureau of Labor Relations 4>LR. +o!ever,on Septeber &),&GG(, respondent, through its counsels, "ttys.

Napoleon C. >an/uela, %r. and %ehn Louie I. <elandre/, *led an "ppeal -eorandu !ith oral 0ntryof "ppearance'' to the $2ce of the 9$L0 Secretary, !hich the latter eventually referred to the >LR.

8etitioner *led an $pposition to the "ppeals'& praying for their disissal on the ground of forushopping as respondent *led t!o separate appeals in t!o separate venuesJ and for failing to avail ofthe correct reedy !ithin the periodJ and that the certi*cate of registration !as tainted !ith fraud,isrepresentation and falsi*cation.

n its "ns!er,' respondent claied that there !as no foru shopping as >-8@s 8aralegal $2cer !as nolonger authori/ed to *le an appeal on behalf of respondent as the latter@s link !ith >-8 !as alreadyterinated and only the 1nion 8resident !as authori/ed to *le the appealJ and that it coplied !ith9epartent $rder No. 7G3G.

$n 9eceber (, &GG(, after considering respondent@s "ppeal -eorandu !ith oral 0ntry of"ppearance and petitioner@s "ns!er, the >LR rendered its 9ecision'7 reversing the $rder of the

Regional 9irector, the decretal portion of !hich reads#

I+0R0$R0, the appeal is hereby =R"NT09. The 9ecision of Regional 9irector Ricardo S. -artine/, Sr.,dated &? "ugust &GG(, is hereby R0<0RS09and S0T "S90.

"ccordingly, Saahang Lakas -anggaga!a ng T"P"T" 4S"L"-"T shall reain in the roster of labororgani/ations.'5

n reversing, the >LR found that petitioner failed to prove that respondent deliberately and aliciouslyisrepresented the nuber of rank3and3*le eployees. t pointed out petitioner@s basis for the allegednoncopliance !ith the iniu ebership reAuireent for registration !as the attendance of 6)ebers to the -ay ', &GG( organi/ational eeting supposedly coprising only '? of the total (6

regular rank3and3*le eployees. +o!ever, the >LR found that the list of eployees !ho participated inthe organi/ational eeting !as a separate and distinct reAuireent fro the list of the naes ofebers coprising at least &G of the eployees in the bargaining unitJ and that there !as noreAuireent for signatures opposite the naes of the union ebersJ and there !as no evidencesho!ing that the eployees assailed their inclusion in the list of union ebers.

8etitioner *led a otion for reconsideration, !hich !as denied by the >LR in a Resolution'6 dated %anuary ), &G'G.

1ndaunted, petitioner !ent to the C" via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

"fter the subission of the parties@ respective pleadings, the case !as subitted for decision.

$n 9eceber &&, &G'G, the C" rendered its assailed decision !hich denied the petition and a2redthe decision of the >LR. 8etitioner@s otion for reconsideration !as denied in a Resolution dated -arch&(, &G''.

+ence this petition for revie! *led by petitioner raising the follo!ing issues, to !it#

T+0 +$N$R">L0 C$1RT $ "880"LS C$--TT09 =R"<0 "N9 S0R$1S 0RR$R N "R-N= T+090CS$N $ 81>LC R0S8$N90NT >LR "N9 N$T N9N= "NE <$L"T$N >E S"-"+"N= L"P"S-"N=="="I" S" T"P"T" 4S"L"-"T $ T+0 R1L0 $N $R1- S+$88N= N T+0 LN= $ TI$<0R09 "880"LS $R "N9 TS >0+"L. >$T+ $ T+0 "880"LS S+$1L9 +"<0 >00N 9S-SS09$1TR=+T >E 81>LC R0S8$N90NT >LR, $N =R$1N9 $ $R1- S+$88N=.

T+0 +$N$R">L0 C$1RT $ "880"LS S0R$1SLE 0RR09 N N9N= T+"T T+0 "88LC"T$N $RR0=STR"T$N $ S"-"+"N= L"P"S -"N=="="I" S" T"P"T" 4S"L"-"T I"S C$-8L"NT IT+ T+0L"I. C$NS90RN= T+0 CRC1-ST"NC0S $>T"NN= N T+0 R0=STR"T$N $ S"L"-"T, T S CL0"R



















T+"T T+0 S"-0 S T"NT09 IT+ R"19, -SR08R0S0NT"T$N "N9 "LSC"T$N. S"L"-"T 99 N$T8$SS0SS T+0 R01R09N1->0R $ -0->0RS "T T+0 T-0 $ LN= $ TS "88LC"T$N $RR0=STR"T$N, +0NC0, T S+$1L9 >0 +0L9 =1LTE $ -SR08R0S0NT"T$N, "N9 "LS0 ST"T0-0NTS"N9 R"19 N C$NN0CT$N T+0R0IT+.'?

"nent the *rst issue, petitioner contends that respondent had *led t!o separate appeals !ith t!odiDerent representations at t!o diDerent venues, in violation of the rule on ultiplicity of suits andforu shopping, and instead of disissing both appeals, the appeal erroneously *led before the LaborSecretary !as the one held validly *led, entertained and even grantedJ that it is not !ithin the

discretion of >LR to choose !hich bet!een the t!o appeals should be entertained, as it is the fact ofthe *ling of the t!o appeals that is being prohibited and not !ho aong the representatives thereinpossessed the authority.

Ie are not persuaded.

Ie *nd no error coitted by the C" in *nding that respondent coitted no foru shopping. "s theC" correctly concluded, to !it#

t is undisputed that >-8 8aralegal $2cer 9oingo 8. -ole !as no longer authori/ed to *le an appealon behalf of union S"L"-"T and that >-8 !as duly infored that its services !as already terinated.S"L"-"T even subitted before the >LR its HResolusyon >lg. G'3&GG(H terinating the services of >-8

and revoking the representation of -r. 9oingo -ole in any of the pending cases being handled by hion behalf of the union. So, considering that >-8 8aralegal $2cer 9oingo 8. -ole !as no longerauthori/ed to *le an appeal !hen it *led the Notice and -eorandu of "ppeal to 9$L0 Regional$2ce No. <3", the sae can no longer be treated as an appeal *led by union S"L"-"T. +ence, there isno foru shopping to speak of in this case as only the "ppeal -eorandu !ith oral 0ntry of"ppearance *led by "tty. Napoleon C. >an/uela, %r. and "tty. %ehn Louie I. <elandre/ is sanctioned byS"L"-"T.')

Since -ole@s appeal *led !ith the >LR !as not speci*cally authori/ed by respondent, such appeal isconsidered to have not been *led at all. t has been held that Hif a coplaint is *led for and in behalf ofthe plaintiD !ho is not authori/ed to do so, the coplaint is not deeed *led.

"n unauthori/ed coplaint does not produce any legal eDect.H

'(

Respondent through its authori/ed representative *led its "ppeal -eorandu !ith oral 0ntry of"ppearance before the Labor Secretary, and not !ith the >LR. "s the appeal eanated fro thepetition for cancellation of certi*cate of registration *led !ith the Regional $2ce, the decisioncanceling the registration is appealable to the >LR, and not !ith the Labor Secretary. +o!ever, sincethe Labor Secretary otu propio referred the appeal !ith the >LR, the latter can no! act on it.Considering that -ole@s appeal !ith the >LR !as not deeed *led, respondentMs appeal, through>an/uela and "ssociates, !hich the Labor Secretary referred to the >LR !as the only e;isting appeal!ith the >LR for resolution. There is, therefore, no erit to petitioner@s clai that >LR chose the appealof >an/uela and "ssociates over -ole@s appeal.

The case of "bbott Laboratories 8hilippines, nc. v. "bbott Laboratories 0ployees 1nion&G cited by

petitioner is not at all applicable in this case as the issue therein is the authority of the Labor Secretaryto revie! the decision of the >ureau of Labor Relations rendered in the e;ercise of its appellate Furisdiction over decision of the Regional 9irector in cases involving cancellations of certi*cate ofregistration of labor unions. Ie found no grave abuse of discretion coitted by the Secretary of Laborin not acting on therein petitioner@s appeal. The decision of the >ureau of Labor Relations on casesbrought before it on appeal fro the Regional 9irector are *nal and e;ecutory. +ence, the reedy ofthe aggrieved party is to seasonably avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 and theRules of Court. n this case, after the Labor Secretary otu propio referred respondent@s appeal *led!ith it to the >LR !hich rendered its decision reversing the Regional 9irector, petitioner !ent directly tothe C" via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

"s to the second issue, petitioner seeks the cancellation of respondent@s registration on grounds oDraud

and isrepresentation bearing on the iniu reAuireent of the la! as to its ebership,considering the big disparity in nubers, bet!een the organi/ational eeting and the list of ebers,and so isleading the >LR that it obtained the iniu reAuired nuber of eployees for purposes of organi/ation and registration.











Ie *nd no erit in the arguents.

"rt. &7 of the Labor Code provides#

"RT. &7. ReAuireents of Registration. 3 " federation, national union or industry or trade union centeror an independent union shall acAuire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privilegesgranted by la! to legitiate labor organi/ations upon issuance of the certi*cate of registration basedon the follo!ing reAuireents#

4a ifty pesos 485G.GGregistration feeJ

4b The naes of its o2cers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organi/ation, theinutes of the organi/ational eetings and the list of the !orkers !ho participated in sucheetingsJ

4c n case the applicant is an independent union, the naes of all its ebers coprising atleast t!enty percent 4&G of all the eployees in the bargaining unit !here it seeks to operateJ

4d f the applicant union has been in e;istence for one or ore years, copies of its annual*nancial reportsJ and

4e our copies of the constitution and by3la!s of the applicant union, inutes of its adoption orrati*cation, and the list of the ebers !ho participated in it.H

"nd after the issuance of the certi*cate of registration, the labor organi/ation@s registration could beassailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings in accordance !ith "rticles &) and&( of the Labor Code. "nd the cancellation of union certi*cate of registration and the grounds thereofare as follo!s#

"RT. &). Cancellation of Registration. 3 The certi*cate of registration of any legitiate labororgani/ation, !hether national or local, ay be cancelled by the >ureau, after due hearing, only on thegrounds speci*ed in "rticle &( hereof.

"RT. &(. =rounds for Cancellation of 1nion Registration. 3 The follo!ing ay constitute grounds forcancellation of union registration#

4a -isrepresentation, false stateent or fraud in connection !ith the adoption or rati*cation ofthe constitution and by3la!s or aendents thereto, the inutes of rati*cation, and the list ofebers !ho took part in the rati*cationJ

4b -isrepresentation, false stateents or fraud in connection !ith the election of o2cers,inutes of the election of o2cers, and the list of votersJ

4c <oluntary dissolution by the ebers.

8etitioner@s charge that respondent coitted isrepresentation and fraud in securing its certi*cate ofregistration is a serious charge and ust be carefully evaluated. "llegations thereof should becopounded !ith supporting circustances and evidence.&' Ie *nd no evidence on record to supportpetitioner@s accusation.

8etitioner@s allegation of isrepresentation and fraud is based on its clai that during theorgani/ational eeting on -ay ', &GG(, only 6) eployees attended, !hile respondent claied that ithas ''( ebers as sho!n in the docuent denoinated as H8angalan ng ga Pasapi ng 1nyonJHhence, respondent isrepresented on the &G reAuireent of the la! as to its ebership.

Ie do not agree.

t does not appear in "rticle &7 4b of the Labor Code that the attendees in the organi/ational eetingust coprise &G of the eployees in the bargaining unit. n fact, even the pleenting Rules andRegulations of the Labor Code does not so provide. t is only under "rticle &7 4c that reAuires thenaes of all its ebers coprising at least t!enty percent 4&G of all the eployees in the






bargaining unit !here it seeks to operate. Clearly, the &G iniu reAuireent pertains to theeployeesM ebership in the union and not to the list of !orkers !ho participated in theorgani/ational eeting. ndeed, "rticle &7 4b and 4c provide for separate reAuireents, !hich ustbe subitted for the union@s registration, and !hich respondent did subit. +ere, the total nuber ofeployees in the bargaining unit !as (6, and &G of !hich !as about ?(. Respondent subitted adocuent entitled H8angalan ng -ga Pasapi ng 1nyonH sho!ing the naes of ''( eployees as unionebers, thus respondent su2ciently coplied even beyond the &G iniu ebershipreAuireent. Respondent also subitted the attendance sheet of the organi/ational eeting !hichcontained the naes and signatures of the 6) union ebers !ho attended the eeting. Considering

that there are ''( union ebers !hich are ore than &G of all the eployees of the bargainingunit, and since the la! does not provide for the reAuired nuber of ebers to attend theorgani/ational eeting, the 6) attendees !hich coprised at least the aFority of the ''( unionebers !ould already constitute a Auoru for the eeting to proceed and to validly ratify theConstitution and >y3la!s of the union. There is, therefore, no basis for petitioner to contend thatgrounds e;ist for the cancellation of respondent@s union registration. or fraud and isrepresentation tobe grounds for cancellation of union registration under "rticle &( of the Labor Code, the nature of thefraud and isrepresentation ust be grave and copelling enough to vitiate the consent of a aForityof union ebers.&&

8etitioner@s clai that the alleged union ebers signed docuents !ithout adeAuate inforation isnot persuasive. The one !ho alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a ere allegation is notevidence.& n fact, !e note that not one of those listed in the docuent denoinated as H8angalan ng

-ga Pasaping 1nyonH had coe for!ard to deny their ebership !ith respondent. Notably, it had notbeen rebutted that the sae union ebers had signed the docuent entitled HSaa3Saang8ahayag ng 8agsapi,H thus, strengtheningtheir desire to be ebers of the respondent union.

8etitioner clais that in the list of ebers, there !as an eployee !hose nae appeared t!ice andanother eployee !ho !as erely a proFect eployee. Such could not be considered aisrepresentation in the absence of sho!ing that respondent deliberately did so for the purpose ofincreasing their union ebership. n fact, even if those t!o naes !ere not included in the list ofunion ebers, there !ould still be ''? ebers !hich !as still ore than &G of the (6 rank3and3*le eployees.

"s to petitioner@s arguent that the total nuber of its eployees as of -ay ', &GG( !as 7?G, and

not(6 as respondent claied, still the ''? union ebers coprised ore than the &G ebershipreAuireent for respondent@s registration.

n -ari!asa Sia Ceraics v. Secretary of the 9epartent of Labor and 0ployent,&7 !e said#

or the purpose of de3certifying a union such as respondent, it ust be sho!n that there !asisrepresentation, false stateent or fraud in connection !ith the adoption or rati*cation of theconstitution and by3la!s or aendents thereto, the inutes of rati*cationJ or, in connection !ith theelection of o2cers, the inutes of the election of o2cers, the list of voters, or failure to subit thesedocuents together !ith the list of the ne!ly elected3appointed o2cers and their postal addresses tothe >LR.

The bare fact that t!o signatures appeared t!ice on the list of those !ho participated in theorgani/ational eeting !ould not, to our ind, provide a valid reason to cancel respondentMs certi*cateof registration. The cancellation of a unionMs registration doubtless has an ipairing diension on theright of labor to self3organi/ation. or fraud and isrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation ofunion registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and isrepresentation ust be graveand copelling enough to vitiate the consent of a aFority of union ebers.34"p*i3

n this case, !e agree !ith the >LR and the C" that respondent could not have possibly coittedisrepresentation, fraud, or false stateents. The alleged failure of respondent to indicate !ithatheatical precision the total nuber of eployees in the bargaining unit is of no oent,especially as it !as able to coply !ith the &G iniu ebership reAuireent. 0ven if the totalnuber of rank3and3*le eployees of petitioner is 5&), !hile respondent declared that it should only be755, it still cannot be denied that the latter !ould have ore than coplied !ith the registration

reAuireent.&5











I+0R0$R0, preises considered, the petition for revie! is 90N09. The 9ecision dated 9eceber &&,&G'G and the Resolution dated -arch &), &G'' of the Court of "ppeals, in C"3=.R. S8 No. ''&7G6, are"R-09.

S$ $R90R09.



G.R. No. 14903 O7o8r 10, 2012

'IGITAL TELECOUNICATION" PHILIPPINE", INC., 8etitioner,vs.'IGITEL EPLO!EE" UNION 'EU, ARCELO RA&AEL A. E"PLANA, ALAN '. LICAN'O, &ELICITOC. ROERO, JR., ARNOL' '. GON)ALE", RE!NEL &RANCI"CO %. GARCIA, )O"IO %. PERALTA,REGINO T. UNI'A' an6 JI L. JA(IER, Respondents.

9 0 C S $ N

PERE), J.:

This treats of the petition for revie! *led by 9igital Telecounications 8hilippines, nc. 49igitelassailing the ') %une &GG) 9ecision' and ( $ctober &GG) Resolution of the Court of "ppeals 'Gth9ivision in C"3=.R. S8 No. ('?'(, !hich a2rs the $rder of the Secretary of Labor and 0ployentdirecting 9igitel to coence Collective >argaining "greeent 4C>" negotiations and in C"3=.R. S8No. (7)&5, !hich declares the disissal of aDected 9igitel eployees as illegal.

The facts, as borne by the records, follo!.

>y virtue of a certi*cation election, 9igitel 0ployees 1nion 41nion becae the e;clusive bargainingagent of all rank and *le eployees of 9igitel in '((7. The 1nion and 9igitel then coencedcollective bargaining negotiations !hich resulted in a bargaining deadlock. The 1nion threatened to goon strike, but then "cting Labor Secretary >ienvenido 0. Laguesa assued Furisdiction over thedispute and eventually directed the parties to e;ecute a C>".&

+o!ever, no C>" !as forged bet!een 9igitel and the 1nion. Soe 1nion ebers abandoned theireployent !ith 9igitel. The 1nion later becae dorant.

Ten 4'G years thereafter or on &) Septeber &GG7, 9igitel received fro "rceo Rafael ". 0splana40splana, !ho identi*ed hiself as 8resident of the 1nion, a letter containing the list of o2cers, C>"proposals and ground rules. The o2cers !ere respondents 0splana, "lan 9. Licando 4<ice38resident,elicito C. Roero, %r. 4Secretary, "rnold 9. =on/ales 4Treasurer, Reynel rancisco >. =arcia 4"uditor,Uosio >. 8eralta 48R$, Regino T. 1nidad 4Sgt. at "rs, and %i L. %avier 4Sgt. at "rs.

9igitel !as reluctant to negotiate !ith the 1nion and deanded that the latter sho! copliance !iththe provisions of the 1nionMs Constitution and >y3la!s on union ebership and election of o2cers.

$n 7 Noveber &GG7, 0splana and his group *led a case for 8reventive -ediation before the NationalConciliation and -ediation >oard based on 9igitelMs violation of the duty to bargain. $n &5 Noveber&GG7, 0splana *led a notice of strike.

$n 'G -arch &GG5, then Labor Secretary 8atricia ". Sto. Toas issued an $rder 7 assuing Furisdictionover the labor dispute.

9uring the pendency of the controversy, 9igitel Service, nc. 49igiserv, a non3pro*t enterprise engagedin call center servicing, *led !ith the 9epartent of Labor and 0ployent 49$L0 an 0stablishent Terination Report stating that it !ill cease its business operation. The closure aDected at least 'GGeployees, 7& of !ho are ebers of the herein respondent 1nion.

"lleging that the aDected eployees are its ebers and in reaction to 9igiservMs action, 0splana andhis group *led another Notice of Strike for union busting, illegal lock3out, and violation of theassuption order.

$n & -ay &GG5, the Secretary of Labor ordered the second notice of strike subsued by the previous"ssuption $rder.5

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_184903_2012.html#fnt1













-ean!hile, on '7 -arch &GG5, 9igitel *led a petition !ith the >ureau of Labor Relations 4>LR seekingcancellation of the 1nionMs registration on the follo!ing grounds# ' failure to *le the reAuired reportsfro '((73&GG7J & isrepresentation of its alleged o2cersJ ebership of the 1nion is coposedof rank and *le, supervisory and anagerial eployeesJ and 7 substantial nuber of union ebersare not 9igitel eployees.6

n a 9ecision dated '' -ay &GG5, the Regional 9irector of the 9$L0 disissed the petition forcancellation of union registration for lack of erit. The Regional 9irector ruled that it does not have Furisdiction over the issue of non3copliance !ith the reportorial reAuireents. +e also held that 9igitel

failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove isrepresentation and the i;ing of non39igiteleployees !ith the 1nion. inally, he declared that the inclusion of supervisory and anagerialeployees !ith the rank and *le eployees is no longer a ground for cancellation of the 1nionMscerti*cate of registration.?

The appeal *led by 9igitel !ith the >LR !as eventually disissed for lack of erit in a Resolution dated( -arch &GG?, thereby a2ring the '' -ay &GG5 9ecision of the Regional 9irector.

CA-G.R. "P No. 9119

n an $rder dated ' %uly &GG5, the Secretary of Labor directed 9igitel to coence the C>"negotiation !ith the 1nion. Thus#

I+0R0$R0, all the foregoing preises considered, this $2ce hereby orders#

'. 9=T0L to coence collective bargaining negotiation !ith 901 !ithout further delayJ and,

&. The issue of unfair labor practice, consisting of union3busting, illegal terinationKlockout andviolation of the assuption of Furisdiction, speci*cally the return3to3!ork aspect of the 'G -arch &GG5and G %une &GG5 orders, be C0RT09 for copulsory arbitration to the NLRC.)

9igitel oved for reconsideration on the contention that the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the 1nionMs certi*cate of registration is a preFudicial Auestion that should *rst be settled before the9$L0 could order the parties to bargain collectively. $n '( "ugust &GG5, then "cting Secretary -anuel

=. son of 9$L0 denied the otion for reconsideration, a2red the ' %uly &GG5 $rder and reiteratedthe order directing parties to coence collective bargaining negotiations.(

$n '7 $ctober &GG5, 9igitel *led a petition, docketed as C"3=.R. S8 No. ('?'(, before the Court of"ppeals assailing the ' %uly and '( "ugust &GG5 $rders of the 9$L0 Secretary and attributing graveabuse of discretion on the part of the 9$L0 Secretary for ordering 9igitel to coence bargainingnegotiations !ith the 1nion despite the pendency of the issue of union legitiacy.

CA-G.R. "P No. 9425

n accordance !ith the ' %uly &GG5 $rder of the Secretary of Labor, the unfair labor practice issue !ascerti*ed for copulsory arbitration before the NLRC, !hich, on ' %anuary &GG6, rendered a 9ecision

disissing the unfair labor practice charge against 9igitel but declaring the disissal of the 'eployees of 9igiserv as illegal and ordering their reinstateent. The 1nion anifested that out of 7&eployees, only ' reained, as ost had already accepted separation pay. The dispositive portion ofthe 9ecision reads#

I+0R0$R0, preises considered, the charge of unfair labor practice is hereby 9S-SS09 for lack oferit. +o!ever, the disissal of the reaining thirteen 4' aDected eployees is hereby declaredillegal and 9=T0L is hereby $R90R09 to reinstate the to their forer position !ith full back!agesup to the tie they are reinstated, coputed as follo!s#

; ; ; ;.'G

1pon otion for reconsideration *led by 9igitel, four 47 aDected eployees, naely -a. Loreta 0ser,-arites %ere/a, Leonore Tuliao and "line =. uillopras, !ere reoved fro entitleent to the a!ardspursuant to the deed of Auitclai and release !hich they all signed.''















n vie! of this unfavorable decision, 9igitel *led another petition on ( %une &GG6 in C"3=.R. S8 No.(7)&5 before the Court of "ppeals, challenging the above NLRC 9ecision and Resolution and arguingainly that 9igiserv eployees are not eployees of 9igitel.

Ru:n/ o; < Cour o; A==a

$n ') %une &GG), the Tenth 9ivision of the Court of "ppeals consolidated the t!o petitions in C"3=.R. S8No. ('?'( and C"3=.R. S8 No. (7)&5, and disposed as follo!s#

$HERE&ORE, the petition in C"3=.R. S8 No. ('?'( is 'I"I""E'. The %uly ', &GG5 Or6r and the"ugust '(, &GG5 Resolution of the 9$L0 Secretary are A&&IRE' in toto. Iith costs.

The petition in C"3=.R. S8 No. (7)&5 is partially GRANTE', !ith the eDect that the assaileddispositions ust be O'I&IE', as follo!s#

' n addition to the order directing reinstateent and payent of full back!ages to the nine 4(aDected eployees, 9igital Telecounications 8hilippines, nc. is furthered OR'ERE', shouldreinstateent is no longer feasible, to pay separation pay eAuivalent to one 4' onth pay, or one3half4'K& onth pay for every year of service, !hichever is higher.

& The one hundred thousand 48h8 'GG,GGG.GG peso3*ne iposed on 9igital Telecounications8hilippines, nc. is 'ELETE'. No costs.'&

The Court of "ppeals upheld the Secretary of LaborMs $rder for 9igitel to coence C>" negotiations!ith the 1nion and ephasi/ed that the pendency of a petition for the cancellation of a unionMsregistration does not bar the holding of negotiations for a C>". The Court of "ppeals sustained the*nding that 9igiserv is engaged in labor3only contracting and that its eployees are actuallyeployees of 9igitel.

9igitel *led a otion for reconsideration but !as denied in a Resolution dated ( $ctober &GG).

+ence, this petition for revie! on certiorari.

9igitel argues that the Court of "ppeals seriously erred !hen it condoned the act of the Secretary ofLabor in issuing an assuption order despite the pendency of an appeal on the issue of unionregistration. 9igitel aintains that it cannot be copelled to negotiate !ith a union for purposes ofcollective bargaining !hen the very status of the sae as the e;clusive bargaining agent is in Auestion.

9igitel insists that had the Court of "ppeals considered the nature of the activities perfored by9igiserv, it !ould reach the conclusion that 9igiserv is a legitiate contractor. To bolster its clai,9igitel asserts that the aDected eployees are registered !ith the Social Security Syste, 8ag3ibig,>ureau of nternal Revenue and 8hilhealth !ith 9igiserv as their eployer. 9igitel further contends thatassuing that the aDected 9igiserv eployees are eployees of 9igitel, they !ere nevertheless validlydisissed on the ground of closure of a departent or a part of 9igitelMs business operation.

The three issues raised in this petition are# ' !hether the Secretary of Labor erred in issuing theassuption order despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of union registrationJ & !hether9igiserv is a legitiate contractorJ and !hether there !as a valid disissal.

T< =n6n7y o; a =::on;or 7an7a:on o; un:onr/:ra:on 6o no =r7u67o7:> 8ar/a:n:n/.

The *rst issue raised by 9igitel is not novel. t is !ell3settled that the pendency of a petition forcancellation of union registration does not preclude collective bargaining.

The &GG5 case of Capitol Medical Center, 'nc. v. on. %ra!ano'

is apropos. The respondent union thereinsent a letter to petitioner reAuesting a negotiation of their C>". 8etitioner refused to bargain andinstead *led a petition for cancellation of the unionMs certi*cate of registration. 8etitionerMs refusal tobargain forced the union to *le a notice of strike. They eventually staged a strike. The Secretary of







Labor assued Furisdiction over the labor dispute and ordered all striking !orkers to return to !ork.8etitioner challenged said order by contending that its petition for cancellation of unionMs certi*cate ofregistration involves a preFudicial Auestion that should *rst be settled before the Secretary of Laborcould order the parties to bargain collectively. Ihen the case eventually reached this Court, !e agreed!ith the Secretary of Labor that the pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration doesnot preclude collective bargaining, thus#

That there is a pending cancellation proceeding against the respondent 1nion is not a bar to set inotion the echanics of collective bargaining. f a certi*cation election ay still be ordered despite the

pendency of a petition to cancel the unionMs registration certi*cate 4National 1nion of >ank 0ployeesvs. -inister of Labor, ''G SCR" &?7, ore so should the collective bargaining process continue despiteits pendency. Ie ust ephasi/e that the aFority status of the respondent 1nion is not aDected bythe pendency of the 8etition for Cancellation pending against it. 1nless its certi*cate of registration andits status as the certi*ed bargaining agent are revoked, the +ospital is, by e;press provision of the la!,duty bound to collectively bargain !ith the 1nion.'7

%ra!ano !as reiterated in Legend nternational Resorts Liited v. Pilusang -anggaga!a ng Legenda4P-L3ndependent.'5 Legend nternational Resorts reiterated the rationale for allo!ing the continuationof either a C>" process or a certi*cation election even during the pendency of proceedings for thecancellation of the unionMs certi*cate of registration. Citing the cases of "ssociation of Court of "ppeals0ployees v. errer3 CalleFa'6 and Saahan ng -anggaga!a sa 8aci*c 8lastic v. +on. Laguesa,'? it!as pointed out at the tie of the *ling of the petition for certi*cation election Q or a C>" process as inthe instant case Q the union still had the personality to *le a petition for certi*cation V or to ask for aC>" negotiation Q as in the present case.

':/:r> : a a8or-ony 7onra7or.

Labor3only contracting is e;pressly prohibited by our labor la!s. "rticle 'G6 of the Labor Code de*neslabor3only contracting as Hsupplying !orkers to an eployer !hoO does not have substantial capital orinvestent in the for of tools, eAuipent, achineries, !ork preises, aong others, and the!orkers recruited and placed by such person are perforing activities !hich are directly related to theprincipal business of such eployer.H

Section 5, Rule <3", >ook of the $nibus Rules pleenting the Labor Code 4pleentingRules, as aended by 9epartent $rder No. ')3G&, e;pounds on the prohibition against labor3onlycontracting, thus#

Section 5. Pro*i1ition against la1or5onl0 contracting. V Labor3only contracting is hereby declaredprohibited. or this purpose, labor3only contracting shall refer to an arrangeent !here the contractoror subcontractor erely recruits, supplies or places !orkers to perfor a Fob, !ork or service for aprincipal, and any of the follo!ing eleents are present#

i The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investent !hich relates to the Fob, !ork or service to be perfored and the eployees recruited, supplied or placed by suchcontractor or subcontractor are perforing activities !hich are directly related to the ain business ofthe principalJ or

ii The contractor does not e;ercise the right to control over the perforance of the !ork of thecontractual eployee.

The foregoing provisions shall be !ithout preFudice to the application of "rticle &7) 4c of the LaborCode, as aended.

; ; ; ;

The Hright to controlH shall refer to the right reserved to the person for !ho, the services of thecontractual !orkers are perfored, to deterine not only the end to be achieved, but also the annerand eans to be used in reaching that end.

The la! and its ipleenting rules allo! contracting arrangeents for the perforance of speci*c Fobs, !orks or services. ndeed, it is anageent prerogative to far out any of its activities,regardless of !hether such activity is peripheral or core in nature. +o!ever, in order for such












outsourcing to be valid, it ust be ade to an independent contractor because the current labor rulese;pressly prohibit labor3only contracting.')

"fter an e;haustive revie! of the records, there is no sho!ing that *rst, 9igiserv has substantialinvestent in the for of capital, eAuipent or tools. 1nder the pleenting Rules, substantial capitalor investent refers to Hcapital stocks and subscribed capitali/ation in the case of corporations, tools,eAuipent, ipleents, achineries and !ork preises, actually and directly used by the contractoror subcontractor in the perforance or copletion of the Fob, !ork or service contracted out.H TheNLRC, as echoed by the Court of "ppeals, did not *nd substantial 9igiservMs authori/ed capital stock of

$ne -illion 8esos 48 ',GGG,GGG.GG. t pointed out that only T!o +undred ifty Thousand 8esos48 &5G,GGG.GG of the authori/ed capital stock had been subscribed and only Si;ty3T!o Thousand ive+undred 8esos 48 6&,5GG.GG had been paid up. There !as no increase in capitali/ation for the last ten4'G years.'(

-oreover, in the "ended "rticles of ncorporation, as !ell as in the =eneral nforation Sheets for theyears '((7, &GG' and &GG5, the priary purpose of 9igiserv is to provide anpo!er services. n 8C"utoation Center, nc. v. National Labor Relations Coission,&G the Court ade the follo!ingdistinction# Hthe legitiate Fob contractor provides services !hile the labor3only contractor providesonly anpo!er. The legitiate Fob contractor undertakes to perfor a speci*c Fob for the principaleployer !hile the labor3only contractor erely provides the personnel to !ork for the principaleployer.H The services provided by eployees of 9igiserv are directly related to the business of9igitel, as rationali/ed by the NLRC in this !ise#

t is undisputed that as early as -arch '((7, the aDected eployees, e;cept for t!o, !ere alreadyperforing their Fob as Tra2c $perator !hich !as later renaed as Custoer Service Representative4CSR. t is eAually undisputed that all throughout their eployent, their function as CSR reains thesae until they !ere terinated eDective -ay G, &GG5. Their long period of eployent as such is anindication that their Fob is directly related to the ain business of 9=T0L !hich is telecounications.>ecause, if it !as not, 9=T0L !ould not have allo!ed the to render services as Custoer ServiceRepresentative for such a long period of tie.&'

urtherore, 9igiserv does not e;ercise control over the aDected eployees. The NLRC highlighted thefact that 9igiserv shared the sae +uan Resources, "ccounting, "udit and Legal 9epartents !ith9igitel !hich anifested that it !as 9igitel !ho e;ercised control over the perforance of the aDected

eployees. The NLRC also relied on the letters of coendation, plaAues of appreciation andcerti*cation issued by 9igitel to the Custoer Service Representatives as evidence of control.

Considering that 9igiserv has been found to be engaged in labor3only contracting, the disissedeployees are deeed eployees of 9igitel.

Section ? of the pleenting Rules holds that labor3only contracting !ould give rise to# 4' thecreation of an eployer3eployee relationship bet!een the principal and the eployees of thecontractor or sub3contractorJ and 4& the solidary liability of the principal and the contractor to theeployees in the event of any violation of the Labor Code.

"ccordingly, 9igitel is considered the principal eployer of respondent eployees.

T< a?76 @=oy r:/ay 6:@:6.

n addition to *nding that 9igiserv is a labor3only contractor, records tee !ith proof that its disissedeployees are in fact eployees of 9igitel. The NLRC enuerated these evidences, thus#

That the reaining thirteen 4' aDected eployees are indeed eployees of 9=T0L is su2cientlyestablished by the facts and evidence on record.

t is undisputed that the reaining aDected eployees, e;cept for t!o 4&, !ere already hired by9=T0L even before the e;istence of 9=S0R<. 4The other t!o 4& !ere hired after the e;istence of

9=S0R<. The 1N$N subitted a saple copy of their appointent paper 4"nne; H"H of 1N$NMs8osition 8aper, Records, <ol. ', p. 'GG sho!ing that they !ere appointed on -arch ', '((7, alostthree 4 onths before 9=S0R< cae into e;istence on -ay G, '((7 4"nne; H>H, bid, Records, <ol.











', p. 'G'. $n the other hand, not a single appointent paper !as subitted by 9=T0L sho!ing thatthese reaining aDected eployees !ere hired by 9=S0R<.

t is eAually undisputed that the reaining, aDected eployees continuously held the position ofCustoer Service Representative, !hich !as earlier kno!n as Tra2c $perator, fro the tie they !ereappointed on -arch ', '((7 until they !ere terinated on -ay G, &GG5. The 1N$N alleges that theseCustoer Service Representatives !ere under the Custoer Service 9ivision of 9=T0L. The 1N$NMsallegation is correct. Saple of letter of coendations issued to Custoer Service Representatives4"nne;es HCH and HC3'H of 1N$NMs 8osition 8aper, Records, p. 'GG and ''' indeed sho! that 9=T0L

has a Custoer Service 9ivision !hich handles its Call Center operations.

urther, the Certi*cates issued to Custoer Service Representative like!ise sho! that they areeployees of 9=T0L 4"nne;es HC35H, HC36H 3 HC3?H of 1N$NMs 8osition 8aper, Records, <ol. ', pp. ''5to ''?, Take for e;aple the HService "!ardH issued to -a. Loretta C. 0sen, one of the reainingaDected eployees 4"nne; HC35H, Supra. The HService "!ardH !as signed by the o2cers of 9=T0L Qthe <83Custoer Services 9ivision, the <83+uan Resources 9ivision and the =roup +ead3+uanResources 9ivision. t !as issued by 9=T0L to 0sen thru the above naed o2cers Hn recognition ofher seven 4? years continuous and valuable contributions to the achieveent of 9igitelMs organi/ationobFectivesH. t cannot be gainsaid that it is only the eployer that issues service a!ard to itseployees.&& 40phasis not supplied

"s a atter of fact, even before the incorporation of 9igiserv, the aDected eployees !ere alreadyeployed by 9igitel as Tra2c $perators, later renaed as Custoer Service Representatives.

"s an alternative arguent, 9igitel aintains that the aDected eployees !ere validly disissed onthe grounds of closure of 9igiserv, a departent !ithin 9igitel.

n the recent case of )aterront Ce1u Cit0 otel v. Ji/enez,& !e referred to the closure of a departentor division of a copany as retrenchent. The disissed eployees !ere undoubtedly retrenched !iththe closure of 9igiserv.

or a valid retrenchent, the follo!ing eleents ust be present#

4' That retrenchent is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses !hich, if alreadyincurred, are not erely de iniis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only e;pected, arereasonably iinent as perceived obFectively and in good faith by the eployerJ

4& That the eployer served !ritten notice both to the eployees and to the 9epartent of Labor and0ployent at least one onth prior to the intended date of retrenchentJ

4 That the eployer pays the retrenched eployees separation pay eAuivalent to one 4' onth payor at least W onth pay for every year of service, !hichever is higherJ

47 That the eployer e;ercises its prerogative to retrench eployees in good faith for theadvanceent of its interest and not to defeat or circuvent the eployeesM right to security of tenureJ

and

45 That the eployer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining !ho !ould be disissed and!ho !ould be retained aong the eployees, such as status, e2ciency, seniority, physical *tness, age,and *nancial hardship for certain !orkers.&7

$nly the *rst eleents of a valid retrenchent had been here satis*ed. ndeed, it is anageentprerogative to close a departent of the copany. 9igitelMs decision to outsource the call centeroperation of the copany is a valid reason to close do!n the operations of a departent under !hichthe aDected eployees !ere eployed. 9igitel cited the decline in the volue of transaction ofoperator3assisted call services as supported by inancial Stateents for the years &GG and &GG7,during !hich 9igiserv incurred a de*cit of 8 '6,6&7.GG and 8 '67,G55.GG, respectively.&5 "ll aDectedeployees !orking under 9igiserv !ere served !ith individual notices of terination. 9$L0 !as

like!ise served !ith the corresponding notice. "ll aDected eployees !ere oDered separation pay. $nly( out of the 75 eployees refused to accept the separation pay and chose to contest their disissalbefore this Court.












The *fth eleent regarding the criteria to be observed by 9igitel clearly does not apply because alleployees under 9igiserv !ere disissed. The instant case is all about the fourth eleent, that is,!hether or not the aDected eployees !ere disissed in good faith. Ie *nd that there !as no goodfaith in the retrenchent.

8rior to the cessation of 9igiservMs operations, the Secretary of Labor had issued the *rst assuptionorder to enFoin an ipending strike. Ihen 9igiserv eDected the disissal of the aDected eployees,the 1nion *led another notice of strike. Signi*cantly, the Secretary of Labor ordered that the secondnotice of strike be subsued by the previous assuption order. "rticle &64g of the Labor Code

provides#

Ihen, in his opinion, there e;ists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in anindustry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and 0ployent ay assue Furisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the sae to the Coission for copulsoryarbitration. Such assuption or certi*cation shall have the eDect of autoatically enFoining theintended or ipending strike or lockout as speci*ed in the assuption or certi*cation order. f one hasalready taken place at the tie of assuption or certi*cation, all striking or locked out eployees shalliediately return to !ork and the eployer shall iediately resue operations and readit all!orkers under the sae ters and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary ofLabor and 0ployent or the Coission ay seek the assistance of la! enforceent agencies toensure the copliance !ith this provision as !ell as !ith such orders as he ay issue to enforce thesae.

The eDects of the assuption order issued by the Secretary of Labor are t!o3fold. t enFoins anipending strike on the part of the eployees and orders the eployer to aintain the status Auo.

There is no doubt that 9igitel de*ed the assuption order by abruptly closing do!n 9igiserv. Theclosure of a departent is not illegal per se. Ihat akes it unla!ful is !hen the closure is undertakenin bad faith. n St. %ohn Colleges, nc. v. St. %ohn "cadey aculty and 0ployees 1nion,&6 bad faith !asevidenced by the tiing of and reasons for the closure and the tiing of and reasons for thesubseAuent opening. There, the collective bargaining negotiations bet!een St. %ohn and the 1nionresulted in a bargaining deadlock that led to the *ling of a notice of strike. The labor dispute !asreferred to the Secretary of Labor !ho assued Furisdiction.

8ending resolution of the dispute, St. %ohn closed the school propting the 1nion to *le a coplaint forillegal disissal and unfair labor practice. The 1nion ebers alleged that the closure of the highschool !as done in bad faith in order to get rid of the 1nion and render useless any decision of theS$L0 on the C>" deadlocked issues. Ie held that closure !as done to defeat the aDected eployeesMsecurity of tenure, thus#

The deterination of !hether S%C acted in bad faith depends on the particular facts as established bythe evidence on record. >ad faith is, after all, an inference !hich ust be dra!n fro the peculiarcircustances of a case. The t!o decisive factors in deterining !hether S%C acted in bad faith are 4'the tiing of, and reasons for the closure of the high school, and 4& the tiing of, and the reasons forthe subseAuent opening of a college and eleentary departent, and, ultiately, the reopening of thehigh school departent by S%C after only one year fro its closure.

8rior to the closure of the high school by S%C, the parties agreed to refer the '((? C>" deadlock to theS$L0 for assuption of Furisdiction under "rticle &6 of the Labor Code. "s a result, the strike endedand classes resued. "fter the S$L0 assued Furisdiction, it reAuired the parties to subit theirrespective position papers. +o!ever, instead of *ling its position paper, S%C closed its high school,allegedly because of the Hirreconcilable diDerences bet!een the school anageent and the"cadeyMs 1nion particularly the safety of our students and the *nancial aspect of the ongoing C>"negotiations.H Thereafter, S%C oved to disiss the pending labor dispute !ith the S$L0 contendingthat it had becoe oot because of the closure. Nevertheless, a year after said closure, S%C reopenedits high school and did not rehire the previously terinated eployees.

1nder these circustances, it is not di2cult to discern that the closure !as done to defeat the partiesMagreeent to refer the labor dispute to the S$L0J to unilaterally end the bargaining deadlockJ to rendernugatory any decision of the S$L0J and to circuvent the 1nionMs right to collective bargaining and itsebersM right to security of tenure. >y aditting that the closure !as due to irreconcilable diDerencesbet!een the 1nion and school anageent, speci*cally, the *nancial aspect of the ongoing C>"





negotiations, S%C in eDect aditted that it !anted to end the bargaining deadlock and eliinate theproble of dealing !ith the deands of the 1nion. This is precisely !hat the Labor Code abhors andpunishes as unfair labor practice since the net eDect is to defeat the 1nionMs right to collectivebargaining.&? 40phasis not supplied

"s in 6t. Jo*n, bad faith !as anifested by the tiing of the closure of 9igiserv and the rehiring ofsoe eployees to nteractive Technology Solutions, nc. 43tech, a corporate ar of 9igitel. Theassuption order directs eployees to return to !ork, and the eployer to reinstate the eployees. The e;istence of the assuption order should have propted 9igitel to observe the status Auo. nstead,

9igitel proceeded to close do!n 9igiserv. The Secretary of Labor had to subsue the second notice ofstrike in the assuption order. This order not!ithstanding, 9igitel proceeded to disiss the eployees.

The tiing of the creation of 3tech is dubious. t !as incorporated on ') %anuary &GG5 !hile the labordispute !ithin 9igitel !as pending. 3techMs priary purpose !as to provide call centerKcustoercontact service, the sae service provided by 9igiserv. t conducts its business inside the 9igitel o2ceat ''G 0. Rodrigue/ %r. "venue, >agubayan, ue/on City. The forer head of 9igiserv, -s. Teresa Taniega, is also an o2cer of 3tech. Thus, !hen 9igiserv !as closed do!n, soe of the eployeespresuably non3union ebers !ere rehired by 3tech.

Thus, the closure of 9igiserv pending the e;istence of an assuption order coupled !ith the creation of a ne! corporation perforing siilar functions as 9igiserv leaves no iota of doubt that the target of the

closure are the union eber3eployees. These factual circustances prove that 9igitel terinatedthe services of the aDected eployees to defeat their security of tenure. The terination of service !asnot a valid retrenchentJ it !as an illegal disissal of eployees.

t needs to be entioned too that the disissal constitutes an unfair labor practice under "rticle &7)4cof the Labor Code !hich refers to contracting out services or functions being perfored by unionebers !hen such !ill interfere !ith, restrain or coerce eployees in the e;ercise of their rights toself3organi/ation. "t the height of the labor dispute, occasioned by 9igitelMs reluctance to negotiate !iththe 1nion, 3tech !as fored to provide, as it did provide, the sae services perfored by 9igiserv, the1nion ebersM noinal eployer.

1nder "rticle &?( of the Labor Code, an illegally disissed eployee is entitled to back!ages andreinstateent. Ihere reinstateent is no longer viable as an option, as in this case !here 9igiserv nolonger e;ists, separation pay eAuivalent to one 4' onth salary, or one3half 4'K& onth pay for everyyear of service, !hichever is higher, should be a!arded as an alternative.&) The payent of separationpay is in addition to payent of back!ages.&(

ndeed, !hile !e have found that the closure of 9igiserv !as undertaken in bad faith, badges thereofevident in the tiing of 9igiservMs closure, hand in hand, !ith 3techMs creation, the closure reains aforegone conclusion. There is no *nding, and the 1nion akes no such assertion, that 9igiserv and 3tech are one and the sae corporation. The tiing of 9igiservMs closure and 3techMs ensuing creation isdoubted, not the legitiacy of 3tech as a business process outsourcing corporation providing bothinbound and outbound services to an e;panded local and international clientele.G

The *nding of unfair labor practice hinges on 9igitelMs contracting3out certain services perfored by

union eber3eployees to interfere !ith, restrain or coerce the in the e;ercise of their right to self3organi/ation.

Ie have no basis to direct reinstateent of the aDected eployees to an ostensibly diDerentcorporation. The surrounding circustance of the creation of 3tech point to bad faith on the part of9igitel, as !ell as constitutive of unfair labor practice in targeting the disissal of the union eber3eployees. +o!ever, this bad faith does not contradict, uch less negate, the ipossibility of theeployeesM reinstateent because 9igiserv has been closed and no longer e;ists.

0ven if it is a possibility that 3tech, as though 9igitel, can absorb the disissed union eber3eployees as 3tech !as incorporated during the tie of the controversy !ith the sae priarypurpose as 9igiserv, !e !ould be hard pressed to andate the disissed eployeesM reinstateent

given the lapse of ore than seven 4? years.

This length of tie fro the date the incident occurred to its Resolution' coupled !ith thedeonstrated litigiousness of the disputants# 4' !ith all sorts of allegations thro!n by either party













against the otherJ 4& the t!o separate *lings of a notice of strike by the 1nionJ 4 the "ssuption$rders of the 9$L0J 47 our o!n *nding of unfair labor practice by 9igitel in targeting the unioneber3eployees, abundantly sho! that the relationship bet!een 9igitel and the union eber3eployees is strained. ndeed, such discordance bet!een the parties can very !ell be a necessaryconseAuence of the protracted and branched out litigation. Ie adhere to the oft3Auoted doctrine thatseparation pay ay avail in lieu of reinstateent if reinstateent is no longer practical or in the bestinterest of the parties.&

1nder the doctrine o strained relations, the payent of separation pay is considered an acceptable

alternative to reinstateent !hen the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. $n one hand, suchpayent liberates the eployee fro !hat could be a highly oppressive !ork environent. $n theother hand, it releases the eployer fro the grossly unpalatable obligation of aintaining in itseploy a !orker it could no longer trust.

inally, an illegally disissed eployee should be a!arded oral and e;eplary daages as theirdisissal !as tainted !ith unfair labor practice.7 9epending on the factual ilieu, Furisprudence hasa!arded varying aounts as oral and e;eplary daages to illegally disissed eployees !hen thedisissal is attended by bad faith or fraudJ or constitutes an act oppressive to laborJ or is done in aanner contrary to good orals, good custos or public policyJ or if the disissal is eDected in a!anton, oppressive or alevolent anner.534"p*i3

n 7ueva 8ci!a ' 8lectric Cooperative, 'nc. +788C# ' 8/plo0ees 9ssociation v. 7ational La1or RelationsCo//ission, !e intoned#

1nfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of !orkers and eployees to self3organi/ation,are iniical to the legitiate interests of both labor and anageent, including their right to bargaincollectively and other!ise deal !ith each other in an atosphere of freedo and utual respectJ anddisrupt industrial peace and hinder the prootion of healthy and stable labor3anageent relations. "sthe conscience of the governent, it is the CourtMs s!orn duty to ensure that none triXes !ith laborrights.6

Ie a!arded oral daages in the aount of 8 'G,GGG.GG and like!ise a!arded 8 5,GGG.GG ase;eplary daages for each disissed eployee.

n the recent case of Pureoods Corporation v. 7agkakaisang 6a/a*ang Manggaga"a ng PureoodsRank5and5ile,? !e a!arded the aggregate aount of 8 5GG,GGG.GG as oral and e;eplary daagesto the illegally disissed union eber3eployees !hich e;act nuber !as undeterined.

n the case at hand, !ith the 1nionMs anifestation that only ' eployees reain as respondents, asost had already accepted separation pay, and consistent !ith our *nding that 9igitel coitted anunfair labor practice in violation of the eployeesM constitutional right to self3organi/ation, !e dee itproper to a!ard each of the illegally disissed union eber3eployees the aount of 8 'G,GGG.GGand 8 5,GGG.GG as oral and e;eplary daages, respectively.

$HERE&ORE, the 8etition is 'ENIE'. The 9ecision of the Court of "ppeals in C"3=.R. S8 No. ('?'(isA&&IRE', !hile the 9ecision in C"3=.R. S8 No. (7)&5 declaring the disissal of aDected union

eber3eployees as illegal is O'I&IE' to include the payent of oral and e;eplary daages inaount of 8'G,GGG.GG and 8 5,GGG.GG, respectively, to each of the thirteen 4' illegally disissedunion3eber eployees.

8etitioner 9igital Telecounications 8hilippines, nc. is OR'ERE' to pay the aDected eployeesback!ages and separation pay eAuivalent to one 4' onth salary, or one3half 4'K& onth pay forevery year of service, !hichever is higher.

Let this case be REAN'E' to the Labor "rbiter for the coputation of onetary clais due to theaDected eployees.

S$ $R90R09.















Documents

LabRel Batch 3