101-A.

GENERAL MILLING CORP vs CA

GR NO. 146728 FEB 11, 2004

ISSUE:
WON, the company (GMC) should have entered into collective bargaining with the
union?

RULING:
The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should last for five
years. The relation between labor and management should be undisturbed until the last
60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union requested for a
renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the
certified collective bargaining agent of the workers, because it was seeking said
renegotiation within five (5) years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on December
1, 1988. The union’s proposal was also submitted within the prescribed 3-year period
from the date of effectivity of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It
was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the
union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the
economic terms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair labor practice under
Article 248 of the Labor Code.
ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. – Any Collective Bargaining
Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of
the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall
be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day
period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall
be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution.
ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful for an employer to
commit any of the following unfair labor practice:
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
Under Article 252 abovecited, both parties are required to perform their mutual
obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement. The union lived up to this obligation when it
presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC within three (3) years from the effectivity of
the original CBA. But GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was to devise
a flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the union and the status of its
membership to prevent any negotiation.

1
ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. – The following procedures shall be
observed in collective bargaining:
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon
the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply
thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice.
GMC’s failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the union is
indicative of its utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union. Its excuse that it felt
the union no longer represented the workers, was mainly dilatory as it turned out to be
utterly baseless.
Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s
proposals, GMC violated its duty to bargain collectively, making it liable for unfair labor
practice.

2
102. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES vs NESTLE PHILS INC
GR NO. 158930-31 AUG 22, 2006

ISSUE:
1) Can a retirement plan, which is in the form of a unilateral grant of the employer, be
the valid subject of a CBA negotiation?
2) Did the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion when it
assumed compulsory jurisdiction over the labor dispute, including incidental matters
such as the substantive issue of validity of CBA negotiation subjects?
3) Can an employer be validly charged with ULP solely for its refusal to include a subject
matter in a CBA negotiation?

RULING:
1) Yes. In a previous ruling of the Court involving the same parties, the inclusion of the
retirement plan in the collective bargaining agreement as part of the package of
economic benefits extended by the company to its employees to provide them a
measure of financial security after they shall have ceased to be employed in the
company, reward their loyalty, boost their morale and efficiency and promote
industrial peace, gives “a consensual character” to the plan so that it may not be
terminated or modified at will by either party. The fact that the retirement plan is non-
contributory, i.e., that the employees contribute nothing to the operation of the plan,
does not make it a non-issue in the CBA negotiations.
2) No. The Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction power necessarily includes matters
incidental to the labor dispute, that is, issues that are necessarily involved in the
dispute itself, not just to those ascribed in the Notice of Strike; or, otherwise
submitted to him for resolution. This authority to assume jurisdiction over the said
labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising
therefrom, including cases over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.
Secretary Sto. Tomas correctly assumed jurisdiction over the questions incidental to the
current labor dispute and those matters raised by the parties. In any event, the query as
to whether or not the Retirement Plan is to be included in the CBA negotiations
between the parties ineluctably dictates upon the Secretary of the DOLE to go into the
substantive matter of the CBA negotiations.
3) No. Employers are accorded rights and privileges to assure their self-determination
and independence and reasonable return of capital. This mass of privileges comprises
the so-called management prerogatives. In this connection, the rule is that good faith is
always presumed. As long as the company’s exercise of the same is in good faith to
advance its interest and not for purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of
employees under the law or a valid agreement, such exercise will be upheld.

3
103. ESTATE OF NELSON DULAY vs ABOITIZ MARITIME INC
GR NO. 172642 JUNE 13, 2012

ISSUE:
Does the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over the money claims of migrant workers
granted in a CBA?

RULING:
No. It is true that R.A. 8042 is a special law governing overseas Filipino workers.
However, a careful reading of this special law would readily show that there is no
specific provision thereunder which provides for jurisdiction over disputes or unresolved
grievances regarding the interpretation or implementation of a CBA. Section 10 of R.A.
8042, which is cited by petitioner, simply speaks, in general, of “claims arising out of an
employer -employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages.” Articles 217(c) and 261 of the Labor
Code are very specific in stating that voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over
cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining
agreements. Stated differently, the instant case involves a situation where the
special statute (R.A. 8042) refers to a subject in general, which the general statute
(Labor Code) treats in particular. In the present case, the basic issue raised by Merridy
Jane in her complaint filed with the NLRC is: which provision of the subject CBA applies
insofar as death benefits due to the heirs of Nelson are concerned. This issue clearly
involves the interpretation or implementation of the said CBA. Thus, the specific or
special provisions of the Labor Code govern.

4
104. DIGITAL TELECOM PHILS vs DIGITEL EMPLOYEES UNION
GR NO. 184903 OCT. 10, 2012

ISSUE:
1) Does the pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration preclude
collective bargaining?
2) Did Digitel commit ULP when it closed the servicing unit composed of several union
members during the pendency of the labor dispute?

RULING:
1) No. It is well-settled that the pendency of a petition for cancellation of union
registration does not preclude collective bargaining. That there is a pending
cancellation proceeding against the respondent Union is not a bar to set in motion the
mechanics of collective bargaining. If a certification election may still be ordered
despite the pendency of a petition to cancel the union’s registration certificate, more so
should the collective bargaining process continue despite its pendency. The
majority status of the respondent Union is not affected by the pendency of the Petition
for Cancellation pending against it. Unless its certificate of registration and its status as
the certified bargaining agent are revoked, the employer is, by express provision of the
law, duty bound to collectively bargain with the Union.
2) Yes. The finding of unfair labor practice hinges on Digitel’s contracting-out certain
services performed by union member-employees to interfere with, restrain or coerce
them in the exercise of their right to self-organization. There is no doubt that Digitel
defied the assumption order by abruptly closing down Digiserv. The closure of a
department is not illegal per se. What makes it unlawful is when the closure is
undertaken in bad faith. Bad faith was manifested by the timing of the closure of
Digiserv and the rehiring of some employees to Interactive Technology Solutions, Inc. (I-
tech), a corporate arm of Digitel. The assumption order directs employees to return to
work, and the employer to reinstate the employees. The existence of the
assumption order should have prompted Digitel to observe the status quo. Instead,
Digitel proceeded to close down Digiserv.

5
104-A. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY vs DLSU EMPLOYEES UNION
GR NO. 169254 AUG 23, 2012

ISSUE:
Is the employer’s refusal to bargain collectively justified by a void leadership in the
union?

RULING:
No. The Court quoted the findings of the Secretary of Labor, saying that the issue of
union leadership is distinct and separate from the duty to bargain. It is then guilty of
unfair labor practice. The official determination of the BLR Director, saying that there
was actually no void leadership, removed whatever cloud of doubt on the authority of
the incumbent to negotiate for and in behalf of the union as the bargaining agent of the
covered employees. Furthermore, this issue of void leadership has already been
long extinguished upon the conduct of the election of the union officers.

6
104-B. MANILA MINING CORP EA-FFW vs MANILA MINING CORP
GR NO. 178222-23 SEPT 29, 2010

ISSUE:
Does the failure of an employer to secure a government permit for its
operations, despite its utmost efforts to obtain such, justify its unilateral call of
suspending CBA negotiations?

RULING:
Yes. The lay-off is neither illegal nor can it be considered as unfair labor practice. For a
charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the employer
was motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor. The employer
must have acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy
causing social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety. While the law makes it
an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each
other, such compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or
agree to the proposals of the other. All it contemplates is that both parties should
approach the negotiation with an open mind and make reasonable effort to reach a
common ground of agreement. The Union based its contention on the letter
request by MMC for the suspension of the collective bargaining negotiations until
it resumes operations. Verily, it cannot be said that MMC deliberately avoided the
negotiation. It merely sought a suspension and in fact, even expressed its
willingness to negotiate once the mining operations resume. There was valid reliance on
the suspension of mining operations for the suspension, in turn, of the CBA
negotiation. The Union failed to prove bad faith in MMC’s actuations.