96. BAPTISTA, et. al., vs VILLANUEVA, et. al.

constitutions and rules to elect their representatives in

full freedom, to organize their
G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013
administration and activities and to formulate their
Facts:
programs. In this case, RPNEU’s
Petitioners were former members of Radio Philippines
Constitution and By-Laws expressly mandate that before
Network Employees Union
a party is allowed to seek the
(RPNEU). They filed an impeachment complaint against their
intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should
union officers. Subs equently,
have availed of all the internal
several complaints were filed against petitioners for
remedies within the organization. Petitioners were found to
alleged violation of the union’s CBL.
have violated the provisions of
After being given opportunity to be heard through pleadings,
the union’s Constitution and By-Laws when they filed
the union’s BOD affirmed the
petitions for impeachment against
recommendation to expel the petitioners from the union.
their union officers and for audit before the DOLE
They wer e also terminated from
without first exhausting all internal
work in compliance with their CBA’s union security clause.
remedies available within their organization. This act is a
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed
ground for expulsion from union
complaints for ULP, questioning the legality of their
membership. Thus, petitioners’ expulsion from the union
expulsion from the union and their
was not a deliberate attempt to
termination from work. Allegedly, it was ULP on the part
curtail or restrict their right to organize, but was
of the union and the employer
triggered by the commission of an a ct,
because the petitioners were denied due process.
expressly sanctioned by Section 2.5 of Article IX of the union’s
Issue: Constitution and By-Laws. For

Is the alleged denial of due process in the grievance a charge of ULP against a labor organization to prosper, the
procedure constitutive of ULP? onus probandi rests upon the

Ruling: party alleging it to prove or substantiate such claims by the

No. Based on RPNEU’s Constitution and By-Laws, the
charges against petitioners
were not mere internal squabbles, but violations that
demand proper investigation because,
if proven, would constitute grounds for their expulsion
from the union. Besides, any
supposed procedural flaw in the proceedings before the
Committee was deemed cured when
petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. The
essence of due process is simply to
requisite quantum of evidence.
In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings,
substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to
support a conclusion is required.
Moreover, it is indubitable that all the prohibited acts
constituting unfair labor practice
should materially relate to the workers' right to self-
organization.

be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an

opportunity to explain one’s side,

or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or

ruling complained of. It is wellsettled that workers’ and
employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up
their
97. PEOPLE’S INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES while the local union remained the basic unit of the
AND WORKERS’ association free to serve the common

ORGANIZATION (FFW)-PICEWO vs PICC interest of all its members including the freedom to
disaffiliate when the circumstances
GR No. L-27687, March 15, 1982
warrant. The right of the local members to withdraw from the
Facts:
federation and to form a new
The Federation of Tenants and Laborers Organization (FTLO)
local depends upon the provisions of the union’s CBL
Rizal Chapter entered
and charter. In the absence of
into a CBA with People’s Industrial and Commercial
enforceable provisions in the federation’s constitution
Corporation (PICC), including provisions
preventing disaffiliation of a local
on “No Strike, No Lockout” and a “Union Security
union, a local may severe its relationship with its parent.
Maintenance Shop”. Subsequently, with the
In this case, there was nothing
knowledge of PICC, an election of officers of FTLO Rizal
shown in the records nor was it claimed by the federation
Chapter was conducted. Afterwards,
that the local union was expressly
51 out of 60 employees executed a certification stating that
forbidden to disaffiliate. Except for the union security clause,
they are members of FTLO but
the federation claims no other
they have changed their name to PICEWO and affiliated with
ground in expelling those who signed the certification. There
the Federation of Free Wor kers
is no merit to the contention of
(FFW). Said certification did not include any reason for the
the federation that the act of disaffiliation is disloyalty to the
change of name. The employees
union. The fed eration and the
were then charged with disloyalty, paving its way to
union are two different entities and it was the
their termination from work. The
federation which actively initiated the
employee contend that no disloyalty is involved, since what
dismissal of the petitioners. A local union does not owe
they did was m erely to change
its existence to the federation to
the name FTLO to PICEWO.
which it affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary
Issue: association owing its creation and

Can a change of union name be construed as disloyalty which existence to the will of its members.
merits the dismissal of

the union members from work?

Ruling:

No. While the Court was not convinced with the

argument that the act was only a

change of name and affiliated it with the FFW, it ruled that

such act would not warrant the

dismissal of the employees. The Court said that the validity

of dismissals pursuant to the

security clause of a CBA hinges on the validity of the

disaffiliation of the local union from the

federation. The federation had the status of an agent, acting

for and in behalf of its affiliate,
98. PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., vs JOURNAL EMPLOYEES different definition mutually intended and adopted by the
UNION (JEU) parties in the CBA. Accordingly,

G.R. No. 192601, June 3, 2013 the concurrence of a legitimate spouse does not disqualify a
child or a parent of the employee
Facts:
from being a legal dependent provided substantial eviden ce
In this petition, the employer asserts that pursuant to its CBA
is adduced to prove the actual
with the union, funeral
dependency of the child or parent on the support of the
and bereavement aid should be granted upon the death of a
employee. The differentiation among
legal dependent of a regular
the legal dependents is significant only in the event the
employee; that consistent with the definition provided by
CBA has prescribed a hierarchy
the SSS Law, the term legal
among them for the granting of a benefit; hence, the use of
dependent referred to the spouse and children of a married
the terms primary beneficiaries
regular employee, and to the
and secondary beneficiaries for that purpose. But considering
parents and siblings, 18 years old and below, of a single
that Section 4, Article XIII of
regular employee; that the CBA
the CBA has not included that differentiation, petitioner had
considered the term dependents to have the same meaning
no basis to deny the claim for
as beneficiaries, as provided in
funeral and bereavement aid of Alfante for the death of his
Section 5, Article XIII of the CBA on the payment of death
parent whose death and fact of
benefits; that its earlier granting of
legal dependency on him could be substantially proved.
claims for funeral and bereavement aid without regard to the
Pursuant to Article 100 of the Labor
foregoing definition of the legal
Code, petitioner as the employer could not reduce, diminish,
dependents of married or single regular employees did
discontinue or eliminate any
not ripen into a company po licy
benefit and supplement being enjoyed by or granted to
whose unilateral withdrawal would constitute a violation of
its employees. This prohibition
Article 100 of the Labor Code,
against the diminution of benefits is founded on the
the law disallowing the non-diminution of benefits; that it
constitutional mandate to protect the
had approved only four claims
rights of workers and to promote their welfare and to afford
from 1999 to 2003 based on its mistaken interpretation of
labor full protecti on.
the term leg al dependents, but

later corrected the same.

Issue:

Notwithstanding the silence of the CBA on the definition

of its terms, can the

definitions provided under the current social legislations be

used in its interpretation?

Ruling:

Yes. Considering that existing laws always form part of any

contract, and are deemed

incorporated in each and every contract, the definition of

legal dependents under the social

legislations (SSS Law, RA 7875 as amended, PD 1146) applies

in the absence of a contrary or
99. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOP FORM MANUFACTURING UNITED WORKERS OF

THE PHILIPPINES vs NLRC

G.R. No. 113856, September 7, 1998

Facts:

At the collective bargaining negotiation by the SMTFM with the employer Top Form

Manufacturing Philippines, Inc., it requested for the implementation of wage orders, but

demanded that the increase be on an across-the-board basis. The employer, however,

refused to this demand and implemented instead a scheme of increases purportedly to avoid

wage distortion. Such refusal was aggravated by the fact that prior to the issuance of said

wage orders, the employer allegedly promised at the collective bargaining conferences to

implement any government-mandated wage increases on an across-the-board basis. With

this, the union charged the employer with bargaining in bad faith, thus constituting ULP.

Issue:

Can an alleged promise of implementing government-mandated wage orders not

reduced into writing in the CBA be a basis of charging an employer with ULP?

Ruling:

No. The CBA is the law between the contracting parties – the collective bargaining

representative and the employer-company. Compliance with a CBA is mandated by the

expressed policy to give protection to labor. In the same vein, CBA provisions should be

“construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts must place a

practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which

it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve." This is founded on the dictum that

a CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public interest. It goes without

saying, however, that only provisions embodied in the

CBA should be so interpreted and

complied with. Where a proposal raised by a contracting

party does not fi nd print in the

CBA, it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no

claim whatsoever to its

implementation.
100. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS EMPLOYEES UNION vs CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS

G.R. No. 186605, November 17, 2010

Facts:

CABEU-NFL initiated the collective bargaining negotiations with the Central

Azucarera de Bais, Inc. (CAB). CAB offered its counter-proposal. The union in turn sent an

amended union proposal. CAB however maintained its position. Thus, the collective

bargaining negotiations resulted into a deadlock. When a letter request by the union seeking

for copies of the employers’ annual financial statement, CAB sent a letter response, saying

that the letter request was signed by the union president Pablito Saguran who was no longer

an employee of the CAB. Moreover, it stated that the union did not anymore represented the

majority of the employees, as the latter had already formed a new union. CAB then entered

into a CBA with this new union (CABELA) and failed to resume negotiations with the CABEU NFL. CAB was then charged of ULP by the
CABEU-NFL.

Issue:

Does an employer commit ULP when a collective bargaining resulted into a deadlock

despite its active participation in such undertaking?

Ruling:

No. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that CAB was

motivated by ill will, "bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner

contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation,

wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted x x x" in suspending negotiations with CABEUNFL. Notably, CAB believed that CABEU-
NFL was no longer the representative of the

workers. It just wanted to foster industrial peace by bowing to the wishes of the

overwhelming majority of its rank and file workers and by negotiating and concluding in

good faith a CBA with CABELA." Such actions of CAB are nowhere tantamount to anti unionism, the evil sought to be

punished in cases of unfair labor practices. Furthermore,

basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty

to prove the same. By imputing bad faith to the actuations of CAB, CABEU-NFL has the burden

of proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor practice.

Apparently, CABEU-NFL refers only to the circumstances mentioned in the letter-response,

namely, the execution of the supposed CBA between CAB and CABELA and the request to

suspend the negotiations, to conclude that bad faith attended CAB’s actions. The Court is of

the view that CABEU-NFL, in simply relying on the said letter-response, failed to substantiate

its claim of unfair labor practice to rebut the presumption of good faith.
100-A GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION vs CA within ten days from the receipt of the union’s proposal,
does its inaction on said union
G.R. No. 146728. February 11, 2004
request constitute ULP?
Facts:
Ruling:
All the 190 workers in the two plants of GMC are
members of the General Milling Yes, if such refusal was tainted with bad faith. For refusing to
send a counter-proposal
Corporation Independent Labor Union, a duly certified
bargaining agent. A day before the to the union and to bargain anew on the economic terms of
the CBA, the company committed
expiration of the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA,
with a request that a counterproposal be submitted within an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code,
ten (10) days. However, GMC had received collective and which provides among others

individual letters from workers who stated that they had the violation of the duty to bargain collectively. The crucial
withdrawn from their union question whether or not a party

membership, on grounds of religious affiliation and personal has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith
differences. Believing that the typically turns on the facts of the

union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did individual case. There is no per setest of good faith in
not send any counter -proposal. It bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is

felt there was no basis to negotiate with a union which an inference to be drawn from the facts. The effect of
no longer existed, but that an employer’s or a union’s actions

management was nonetheless always willing to dialogue with individually is not the test of good-faith bargaining, but the
them on matters of common impact of all such occasions or

concern and was open to suggestions on how the company actions, considered as a whole. GMC’s failure to make a
may improve its operations. GMC timely reply to the proposals

dismissed Marcia Tumbiga, a union member, on the presented by the union is indicative of its utter lack of
ground of incompetence. The union interest in bargaining with the union.

protested and requested GMC to submit the matter to the Its excuse that it felt the union no longer represented the
grievance procedure provided in workers, was mainly dilatory as it

the CBA. With this, the union filed a complaint for ULP. turned out to be utterly baseless. We hold that GMC’s
refusal to make a counter-proposal to
Issue:

With the mandate of the law requiring an employer to

submit a counter-proposal

the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its

bad faith. Where the employer

did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining

proposals of the union, there is a

clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. 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.