THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 190235. April 19, 2017.]

LEYTE EDIBLE OIL SUPERVISORS AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES

UNION-APSOTEU-TUCP, ET AL. , petitioners, vs. NEW LEYTE EDIBLE
OIL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND KYOSO MIYASAKI ,
respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April
19, 2017 , which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 190235 (Leyte Edible Oil Supervisors and Con dential
Employees Union-APSOTEU-TUCP, et al. vs. New Leyte Edible Oil
Manufacturing Corporation and Kyoso Miyasaki) . — Before this Court is a petition
for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set
aside the Decision 2 dated July 7, 2009 and Resolution 3 dated October 21, 2009 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 03818.
The Facts
The rank-and- le workers of New Leyte Edible Oil Manufacturing Corporation
(New Leyte) were required to work 44 hours per week, i.e., eight hours each day from
Monday to Friday and four hours in the morning of Saturday. On August 12, 2006, a
Saturday, Emmanuel Alcober (Alcober), the rank-and- le union vice president, reported
for work in the afternoon in lieu of his morning schedule allegedly with the permission
of his supervisor Alecia C. Avila (Avila). His daily time record for that day, however, was
marked by the accounting personnel of New Leyte as "half-day without leave and
without pay." Accordingly, the amount of P263.26 was deducted from his pay slip for
the period August 1 to 15, 2006. 4
Alcober protested the said deduction and elevated the matter to the New Leyte's
grievance machinery for resolution. Since no settlement was reached thereat, the
matter was brought to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) in
Tacloban City for preventive mediation and later, voluntary arbitration. 5
In the meantime, New Leyte directed Alcober to le a leave for his absence in the
morning of August 12, 2006. He refused to comply insisting that he was not absent on
the said date as he worked in the afternoon with prior permission from his supervisor.
In a memorandum dated September 14, 2006, New Leyte reiterated its earlier directive.
Alcober still refused to file a leave of absence. 6
On October 19, 2006, New Leyte required Alcober to explain why no disciplinary
action should be imposed on him, charging him with insubordination or willful
disobedience to his supervisor's directive. On October 21, 2006, Alcober submitted his
explanation claiming, inter alia, that on September 14, 2006, he was required by New
Leyte to fill out an "authority to work overtime" form which he unwillingly did. 7

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 On October 25, 2006, New Leyte constituted a committee on discipline to
investigate the charges against Alcober. On November 25, 2006, upon the committee's
recommendation, Alcober was dismissed on the ground of insubordination. 8
On November 28, 2006, the Leyte Edible Oil Employees Labor Union-ALU-Trade
Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) (rank-and- le union) led a Notice of Strike
claiming that Alcober's dismissal was an act of union busting. Thereafter, in the
presence of the NCMB representative, the rank-and- le union conducted a strike vote
wherein the majority of its members voted in favor of the strike. Actual picketing
started on January 26, 2007. 9
The petitioners alleged that the conduct of the strike was peaceful and that the
ingress to and egress from the New Leyte's premises remained free. They likewise
averred that about 10 police o cers were deployed near the picket line ensuring the
orderly conduct of the strike. 1 0
However, New Leyte claimed that the striking employees, using force and
intimidation, blocked the entry of trucks that were bringing copra into the plant and
other employees, particularly union members who did not sympathize with them. It
further alleged that some of the strikers visited the homes of non-striking rank-and- le
union members and coerced their wives to make them leave the plant. 1 1
On January 30, 2007, New Leyte led a case for illegal strike against the rank-
and- le union members who participated during the strike. On January 31, 2007, it
issued a memorandum addressed to all the rank-and- le union members who joined
the strike, ordering them to return to work not later than February 1, 2007 and declaring
that those who joined the illegal strike would be dismissed unless they returned to
work. The strikers complied and the rank-and- le union subsequently withdrew their
Notice of Strike. However, the rank-and- le union later led a complaint against New
Leyte for union busting and illegally dismissing Alcober. 1 2
New Leyte claimed that the striking rank-and- le union members, after reporting
back to work, harassed the other employees who did not join the strike. On February 6,
2007, it issued another memorandum to all the rank-and- le union members who
participated in the strike, directing them to explain why they should not be dismissed
for committing illegal acts during the strike. The said rank-and- le union members
denied the accusations against them. 1 3 aScITE

New Leyte then created a committee on discipline which, after hearing, found
that the following rank-and- le union members committed illegal acts during the strike:
Nicanor Basas, Cesar Labitigan, Ceferino Catinoy, Alcober, and herein petitioners
Rodrigo Cinco, Alberto Amano, Federico Taborada, Luisito Peliño, Domingo Estolono,
Jr., Jonathan Cerena, Glorioso Lagonoy, Edwin Roa, Riconedo Canete, Chito Cinco,
Eduardo Operio, Julius Mirambel, Carlito Gorrez, Crispolo Posion and Redentor Asdilla.
Accordingly, on February 22, 2007, New Leyte dismissed them except Alcober who had
been dismissed earlier. 1 4
Thereafter, New Leyte withdrew its complaint for illegal strike asserting that the
strikers reported back to work as of February 2, 2007. 1 5 On March 12, 2007, the
Executive Labor Arbiter handling the illegal strike case issued an Order granting the
Motion to Withdraw filed by the New Leyte. 1 6
The rank-and- le union led another Notice of Strike, alleging that New Leyte is
guilty of union busting for dismissing its members. A strike vote was conducted
wherein the majority of its members approved the conduct of a strike. The strike
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 scheduled on March 13, 2007, however, did not materialize as the Secretary of Labor
and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the Notice of Strike and referred the matter
to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. 1 7
Meanwhile, on February 7, 2006, the Med-Arbiter certi ed the Leyte Edible Oil
Supervisors and Con dential Employees Union-Associated Professional, Supervisory,
O ce and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU)-TUCP (supervisory union), then an
independent union, as the exclusive bargaining agent of all supervisory employees of
New Leyte. On February 13, 2006, the supervisory union sought collective bargaining
negotiations with New Leyte, sending the latter a copy of its proposed Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA). New Leyte did not respond to the supervisory union's
request, prompting the latter to reiterate its request on February 24, 2006 and on May
6, 2006. 1 8
On May 19, 2006, New Leyte decided against the request of the supervisory
union for collective bargaining negotiations, asserting that the case for the cancellation
of the latter's registration was then still pending before the CA. The supervisory union
then referred the matter to the NCMB for preventive mediation. 1 9
Subsequently, the then independent supervisory union registered anew with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as the chartered local of APSOTEU-
TUCP, a labor federation. On September 29, 2006, the DOLE issued the registration
certi cate of the supervisory union as a chartered local. The supervisory union then
reiterated its request to New Leyte for collective bargaining negotiations, contending
that the case for cancellation of its registration had been rendered moot by the
subsequent issuance of its registration as a chartered local. New Leyte still refused to
heed the supervisory union's request for collective bargaining negotiations. 2 0
On November 28, 2006, the supervisory union led a Notice to Strike. A strike
vote was then conducted on December 18, 2006 wherein a majority of the members of
the supervisory union voted in favor of the conduct of a strike. 2 1
Subsequently, supervisory union president Nestor R. Borja (Borja) and
supervisory union members Ru no Gerilla (Gerilla) and Bernabe C. Creer (Creer)
simultaneously led their applications for leaves of absence from January 29 to
February 4, 2007. New Leyte claimed that the said applications for leaves of absence
were intended to support the strike that was then being undertaken by the rank-and- le
union, asserting that the said employees were performing functions that were critical to
the continuous operation of its plant. The said members of the supervisory union,
however, subsequently revoked their applications for leaves of absence. 2 2
On February 27, 2007, New Leyte accused Borja of cutting the wires of a
machine, which allegedly stalled the plant operations. Borja denied the charge and
insisted that he could not be held responsible for the same as he was on leave when the
wires of the said machine were cut. 2 3
New Leyte thereafter required Borja to explain why he should not be dismissed
for sympathizing with the rank-and- le union when the latter held a strike. It claimed
that Borja, as a show of support, did not attend to his duties when the rank-and- le
union conducted a strike. He was likewise charged of rebuking a contractual employee
from reporting for work while the other employees were out on the picket line. Borja
denied the allegations against him. 2 4 On March 7, 2007, New Leyte dismissed Borja. 2 5
New Leyte then required Gerilla, Creer and Rafael Sarabillo (Sarabillo) to explain
their side on the same set of charges. The said employees likewise denied the charges
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 against them. On June 1, 2007, New Leyte, after nding their respective explanations
unacceptable, terminated their employment. Consequently, Borja, Gerilla, Creer,
Sarabillo and the supervisory union led their respective complaints with the Regional
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Tacloban City against New Leyte for illegal dismissal
and union busting. 2 6
As intimated earlier, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, acting on the
petitions filed by New Leyte, assumed jurisdiction over the aforesaid labor disputes and
certified the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
Ruling of the NLRC
On April 30, 2008, the NLRC rendered a Decision, 2 7 the decretal portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE , in view of all the foregoing, We rule as follows:
1. To declare that [Alcober] was LEGALLY DISMISSED with [New
Leyte] being ABSOLVED from the charge of busting the rank[-]and[-]file Union;
2. To declare the validity of the dismissal of the striking o cers and
members of the rank-and- le Union for having committed illegal acts during the
strike;
3. To declare that [New Leyte] are guilty of unfair labor practice (ULP)
for refusal to bargain collectively with complainant-supervisory Union; but HEITAD

4. To declare as valid and legal the dismissal of Engrs. [Borja, Gerilla,

Sarabillo and Creer] and consequently absolving [New Leyte] of the charge of
union busting.
The matter of legality or illegality of the strike staged by the rank-and- le
Union is rendered moot and academic considering the withdrawal by [New
Leyte] of their complaint to declare the strike illegal.
SO ORDERED. 28

The NLRC held that Alcober was legally dismissed, asserting that the permission
given to him by Avila was merely to be absent during the morning of August 12, 2006
and not to render work in the afternoon of that day in lieu of his regular working
schedule. It further pointed out that substitution of work schedules is against company
policy and, hence, Avila could not have validly given her consent to the said substitution
of work schedules. 2 9 Further, the NLRC averred that Alcober's receipt of the amount of
P2,082.00, an amount equivalent to the overtime pay rendered on a rest day, which was
reflected in his payroll for the first half of September 2006 is inconsistent with his claim
that he should be considered to have rendered regular work for August 12, 2006. 3 0
As to the rank-and- le union's charge that New Leyte is guilty of union busting,
the NLRC ruled that the former failed to adduce evidence to show that Alcober's
dismissal was effected speci cally for the purpose of busting the rank-and- le union.
31

In ruling that New Leyte legally dismissed the rank-and- le union members, the
NLRC explained that the latter, other than their bare denials, failed to adduce substantial
evidence to refute the charge against them of having committed illegal acts during the
strike. 3 2
With respect to the dismissal of the members of the supervisory union, the NLRC
ruled that there is ample evidence showing that they sympathized with the striking rank-
and- le employees. It stressed that their simultaneous ling of applications for leaves
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 of absence on dates, which coincided with the rank-and- le union's strike, is an
evidence of bad faith. It likewise held that the supervisory union failed to adduce
evidence to support its charge of union busting against New Leyte. 3 3
Nevertheless, the NLRC found that New Leyte committed unfair labor practice
when it refused to bargain collectively with the supervisory union. Notwithstanding the
pendency of the case for the cancellation of the supervisory union's registration with
the CA, the NLRC asserted that it remains the duty of New Leyte to bargain collectively
with the supervisory union since the CA did not issue any restraining order against the
latter. 3 4
The petitioners then led a petition for certiorari with the CA, asserting, inter alia,
that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the petitioners-members of
the rank-and- le union and supervisory union were not illegally dismissed and that New
Leyte is not guilty of union busting. Further, the petitioners asserted that the NLRC
should have imposed on New Leyte the CBA proposed by the supervisory union
considering the nding that New Leyte is guilty of unfair labor practice for refusing to
bargain collectively. 3 5
Ruling of the CA
On July 7, 2009, the CA rendered a Decision, 3 6 the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE , the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
Decision dated April 30, 2008 of the [NLRC] in NLRC Cert. Case No. V-000003-
2007 is however modi ed in that [New Leyte] is ABSOLVED of the charge of
unfair labor practice. The rest of the Decision is AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED. 37

The CA, in upholding the legality of Alcober's dismissal, opined that the latter
failed to adequately establish that his supervisor verbally authorized him to work in the
afternoon of August 12, 2006 instead of his regular working schedule. Accordingly, the
CA pointed out that Alcober had no valid reason to refuse New Leyte's order for him to
le a leave of absence on the said date. 3 8 With regard to the dismissed rank-and- le
union members, the CA upheld the legality of their dismissal as the illegal acts which
they committed during the strike were established by substantial evidence. The CA
intimated that, other than mere denials, they failed to adduce any evidence which would
overturn the positive declarations of the New Leyte's witnesses. 3 9
As to the dismissed supervisory union members, the CA opined that it was
established by substantial evidence that they sabotaged the operations of the
company by rendering some machines inoperable and by ling applications for leaves
of absence during the conduct of the rank-and- le union's strike. The CA asserted that
the said supervisory union members were part of management and to allow them to
act sympathetically with the cause of the rank-and- le union would be unfair to New
Leyte. 4 0
In absolving New Leyte from the charge of unfair labor practice, the CA asserted
that there was no bad faith on the part of New Leyte; that its failure to collectively
bargain with the supervisory union was due to the lack of resolution of the issues raised
by it against the latter's registration. 4 1
The petitioners sought reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its
Resolution 4 2 dated October 21, 2009.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 Issues
The petitioners pose the following issues for this Court's resolution: first,
assuming, arguendo, that Alcober is guilty of insubordination, whether the penalty of
dismissal is too harsh and not commensurate to the infraction committed; second,
whether the dismissal of the petitioners-members of the rank-and- le union for
allegedly committing illegal acts during the strike was valid; third, whether the
dismissal of the petitioners-members of the supervisory union for supposedly
sympathizing with the rank-and- le union's strike was legal; and fourth, whether New
Leyte may be held liable for unfair labor practice for its refusal to bargain collectively
with the supervisory union.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
First, the Court agrees with the CA that there was valid ground to dismiss
Alcober. That the work rendered by Alcober in the afternoon of August 12, 2006 is
considered as overtime work and not work rendered in lieu of his regular work schedule
in the morning of said date is a factual nding of the NLRC and the CA which cannot be
disturbed by this Court. Nevertheless, the question as to the propriety of Alcober's
dismissal on the ground of insubordination for his refusal to le a leave of absence is a
question of law which may be determined by this Court. ATICcS

Under the Labor Code, the employer may dismiss an employee, inter alia, for
serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of the
employer or representative in connection with his work. 4 3 Willful disobedience or
insubordination necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the
employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful
and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful,
made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been
engaged to discharge. 4 4
New Leyte's order directing Alcober to le a leave of absence is patently
reasonable and lawful, and the latter's refusal to comply with the same is inexcusable.
The pendency of the voluntary arbitration case, wherein Alcober's August 12, 2006
absence was raised as an issue, is beside the point. Employees may object to,
negotiate and seek redress against employers for rules or orders that they regard as
unjust or illegal. However, until and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal or
improper by competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their peril.
45

Thus, in GTE Directories Corporation v. Hon. Sanchez, et al. , 46 the Court

explained that:
To sanction disregard or disobedience by employees of a rule or order
laid down by management, on the pleaded theory that the rule or order is
unreasonable, illegal, or otherwise irregular for one reason or another, would be
disastrous to the discipline and order that it is in the interest of both the
employer and his employees to preserve and maintain in the working
establishment and without which no meaningful operation and progress is
possible. Deliberate disregard or disobedience of rules, de ance [of]
management authority cannot be countenanced. This is not to say that the
employees have no remedy against rules or orders they regard as unjust or
illegal. They may object thereto, ask to negotiate thereon, bring proceedings for
redress against the employer before the Ministry of Labor. But until and unless
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 the rules or orders are declared to be illegal or improper by competent authority,
the employees ignore or disobey them at their peril. It is impermissible to reverse
the process: suspend enforcement of the orders or rules until their legality or
propriety shall have been subject of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration. 4 7
Moreover, Alcober is not only guilty of insubordination for refusing to le a leave
of absence despite the lack of any justi cation therefor, but also of committing illegal
acts during the strike conducted by the members of the rank-and- le union which, as
would be discussed below, would effectively result to the loss of his employment.
Nicolas D. Garcia, a member of the rank-and- le union, positively identi ed
Alcober as among those who blocked his way towards the main gate of New Leyte's
premises when he was on his way to report for work on January 26, 2007. Further,
Henedina Aguipo, Nerisa Espina and Teresa Roca, the wives of the members of the
rank-and- le union, averred that Alcober, together with several others, came to their
respective homes and coerced their husbands to join the strike, threatening that they
would lose their jobs should the rank-and- le union win its case against New Leyte. 4 8
The foregoing circumstances indubitably show that Alcober has a propensity for willful
disobedience and insubordination towards New Leyte. New Leyte thus could not be
faulted for terminating Alcober's employment.
Second, the Court nds that the striking members of the rank-and- le union who
committed illegal acts during the strike were validly dismissed by New Leyte. The
proscribed acts during a strike are provided under Article 264 of the Labor Code, thus:
ART. 264. Prohibited Activities.
xxx xxx xxx
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence
of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.
Any union o cer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
any worker or union o cer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have
lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in
a lawful strike shall not constitute su cient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such
lawful strike.
xxx xxx xxx
(5) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of
violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or
egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes , or obstruct
public thoroughfares. (Emphases ours)
Here, the dismissed rank-and- le union members committed acts of (1)
interference by obstructing the free ingress to or egress from New Leyte's premises,
and (2) coercion and intimidation. The Court agrees with the following discerning
findings of the NLRC:
After having painstakingly gone through the records, We gather and nd
that there is substantial evidence to support the [New Leyte's] stance that illegal
acts were committed during the strike. Nicolas D. Garcia, a member of the rank-
and- le Union positively identi ed Nicanor Basas, president of the Union,
Rodrigo T. Cinco, a Union member and [Alcober], vice-president of the Union to
have blocked his way towards the main gate of the [New Leyte] when he was on
his way to report for work on 26 January 2007. Henedina Aguipo, Nerisa Espina
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 and Teresa Roca, wives of Union members identi ed Nicanor Basas, Alberto
Amano, Sr., Cesar Labitigan and [Alcober] to have come to their residences
telling them to call their respective husbands who reported [for] work and did not
join the strike on the pretext of an emergency with a threat relayed to them that
those Union members who reported to work and did not join the strike, like their
husbands, would be in danger should they win their case against management.
Rhyan B. Amolo, detachment in-charge of Genesis Security Agency and General
Services, Inc. submitted a report to the [New Leyte's] HRD o cer gathered from
a report of SG Renante Yanos who was on duty on 30 January 2007 mentioning
the following: Federico Taborada, Luisito Peliño, Domingo Estolonio, Jr.,
Jonathan Cerena, Glorioso Lagonoy, Jr., Edwin Roa, Riconido Canete, Ceferino
Catinoy, Jr., Nicanor Basas, Cesar Labitigan, Rodrigo Cinco, Felixberto Cinco, Jr.,
Alberto Amano, Sr., Eduardo Operio, Julius Mirambel and four unidenti ed
others who were seen staging a rally outside the premises of the [New Leyte]
near the main entrance gate, holding placards while blocking the entrance of the
gate thereby blocking the entry of delivery trucks loaded with copra. x x x We are
not unaware of the pictures offered in evidence by the complainants, three (3) of
which were taken on 26 January 2007 while the rest on 01 and 02 February
2007. We can only surmise that the taking of pictures by the Union could have
been done obviously on occasions when there was no illegal acts being seen or
done. x x x. 4 9 (Citations omitted)
TIADCc

The Court nds no compelling reason to depart from the foregoing factual
ndings of the lower tribunals. The principle is well-established that the Court is not a
trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
only questions of law may be raised. The resolution of factual issues is the function of
the lower courts whose ndings on these matters are received with respect and are, as
a rule, binding on this Court. 5 0
Notwithstanding the nding that the said rank-and- le union members
committed illegal acts during the strike, the petitioners insist that New Leyte is already
barred from dismissing them, asserting that its "return-to-work" order amounted to a
condonation of the illegal acts committed by the latter during the strike.
The Court does not agree.
New Leyte's "return-to-work" order cannot be considered as an act of
condonation. The doctrine of condonation prohibits an employer from taking
disciplinary action against the striking employees for illegal acts they allegedly
committed during the strike after requiring them to return to work as a condition for
complete exoneration from liability. 5 1 Such principle also bars the employer from using
the supposedly illegal acts committed during a strike as a ground to dismiss the
strikers after the commission of acts indicating pardon or absolution of such acts.
The Court applied the doctrine of condonation in Bisaya Land Transportation Co.,
Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. 5 2 In the said case, two of the members of
therein private respondent union, who went on strike pending the resolution of the
notice to strike, voluntarily reported back to work and, upon their request, were
readmitted by the company. When the company raised the legality of the said strike as
an issue in the case earlier brought by the union against the company, the Court held
that:
In the fourth assignment of error it is claimed that the strike was illegal.
Admitting for the sake of argument that the strike was illegal for being
premature, this defense was waived by the Bisaya Land Transportation
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Company when it voluntarily agreed to reinstate the radio operators.
5 3 (Emphasis ours)

I n Philippines Inter-Fashion, Inc. v. NLRC, et al. , 5 4 the Court clari ed, however,
that notwithstanding the employer's acceptance of the striking workers back to work,
there must still be a "clear and unequivocal waiver" on the part of the employer before it
may be held to have condoned the illegality of the strike. 5 5
The doctrine of condonation was likewise applied by this Court in Reformist
Union of R.B. Liner, Inc. v. NLRC, 5 6 where it was stated that:
The dispute or strike was settled when the company and the union
entered into an agreement on 19 January 1990 where the private respondents
agreed to accept all employees who by then, had not yet returned to work. By
acceding to the peaceful settlement brokered by the NLRC, the private
respondents waived the issue of illegality of the strike. 5 7 (Emphasis
ours)
What derives from the foregoing is that, in applying the doctrine of condonation,
the overriding consideration is the intent of the employer to completely exonerate the
employee for the infractions he committed and eschew any sanctions which may be
imposed against the latter. There must at least be some positive act from which it
could be clearly deduced that the employer indeed had intended to forgive and
completely absolve the erring employee. Condonation must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the employer has completely forgiven the guilty employee for
his misconduct and has agreed to a resumption of the employer-employee relationship
as though no misconduct has occurred.
Applying these principles here, the Court nds that the petitioners failed to
adduce evidence which would clearly and convincingly show the intent of New Leyte to
completely absolve the said rank-and- le union members from the infractions which
they committed during the strike. Indeed, there is no positive act on the part of New
Leyte from which it could be de nitely inferred that it had overlooked the illegal acts
committed during the strike.
The New Leyte's return-to-work order is not an indication that it had forgiven and
absolved the said rank-and- le union members, the same being silent as to whether
New Leyte would still impose sanctions on those who committed illegal acts during the
strike. To stress, condonation should be established clearly and unequivocally and may
not be lightly presumed nor inferred from the silence of the employer.
Third, the Court likewise agrees with the CA that New Leyte validly dismissed the
members of the supervisory union who sympathized with the strike of the rank-and- le
union. Supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and- le employees. 5 8 The peculiar role of supervisors is such that while they
are not managers, when they recommend action implementing management policy or
ask for the discipline or dismissal of subordinates, they identify with the interests of the
employer and may act contrary to the interests of the rank-and- le. 5 9 Likewise,
considering that they recommend managerial actions in the interest of the employer, 6 0
supervisory employees are proscribed from sympathizing with the cause of the rank-
and-file employees as it would be unfair to the employer.
The simultaneous ling of applications for leaves of absence by the said
supervisory union members, coupled with the fact that, as found by both the NLRC and
the CA, they sabotaged the operations of the New Leyte, support the conclusion that
they supported the strike staged by the rank-and-file union.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Lastly, the Court agrees with the CA that the New Leyte cannot be held liable for
committing unfair labor practice in refusing to collectively bargain with the supervisory
union. The duty to bargain collectively is provided for under Article 252 of the Labor
Code, thus:
Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. — The duty to
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating
an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and
conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or
questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating
such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any
party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.
The question of whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in
good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test of
good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the
facts. To some degree, the question of good faith may be a question of credibility. The
effect of an employer's or a union's individual actions is not the test of good-faith
bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions, considered as a whole, and
the inferences fairly drawn therefrom collectively may offer a basis for the finding of the
NLRC. 6 1 AIDSTE

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. 6 2
The CA aptly opined that the supervisory union failed to present substantial
evidence to show that the New Leyte was motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud in its
refusal to bargain with the supervisory union or that it had acted in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy. Other than merely claiming that the New Leyte
refused to heed the supervisory union's plea for collective bargaining, there were no
other evidence presented by the petitioners to show the bad faith on the part of the
New Leyte as to render it liable for unfair labor practice. Moreover, New Leyte cannot be
expected to yield to the supervisory union's request for collective bargaining when the
supervisory union's existence as such is in serious question.
WHEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is
DENIED . The Decision dated July 7, 2009 and Resolution dated October 21, 2009 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03818 are hereby AFFIRMED."
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-62.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justices Francisco P.
Acosta and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring; id. at 69-89.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 3. Id. at 91-92.
4. Id. at 15-17.
5. Id. at 17.
6. Id. at 70-71.
7. Id. at 97.

8. Id.
9. Id. at 18.
10. Id. at 18-19.
11. Id. at 72-73.
12. Id. at 97-98.

13. Id. at 98.

14. Id. at 19, 72-73.
15. Id. at 41.
16. Id. at 41-42.
17. Id. at 19-20.

18. Id. at 20-21.

19. Id. at 21.

20. Id. at 21-22.

21. Id. at 22.

22. Id. at 148-149.

23. Id. at 22-23.

24. Id. at 149-150.

25. Id. at 23.

26. Id.
27. Id. at 95-113.

28. Id. at 112-113.

29. Id. at 100-101.

30. Id. at 103.

31. Id. at 105.

32. Id. at 107-111.

33. Id. at 111-112.

34. Id. at 111.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 35. Id. at 76.

36. Id. at 69-89.

37. Id. at 88.

38. Id. at 77.

39. Id. at 78-79.

40. Id. at 79-80.

41. Id. at 86-88.

42. Id. at 91-92.

43. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 282 (a).

44. e Pacific Global Contact Center, Inc. and/or Sison v. Cabansay , 563 Phil. 804, 820 (2007).
45. Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil. 517, 538 (2003).

46. 274 Phil. 738 (1991).

47. Id. at 754-755.

48. Rollo, p. 166.

49. Id. at 108-110.

50. See China Banking Corporation v. QBRO Fishing Enterprises, Inc., 682 Phil. 564, 570 (2012).

51. See 48A Am Jur 2d, Labor and Labor Relations § 3598.

52. 102 Phil. 438 (1957).

53. Id. at 442.

54. 203 Phil. 23 (1982).

55. Id. at 27.

56. 334 Phil. 636 (1997).

57. Id. at 645.

58. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 245.

59. Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Undersecretary Laguesma, 282 Phil. 15, 22 (1992).
60. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 212 (m).

61. See Union of Filipro Employees — Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions — Kilusang Mayo
Uno (UFE-DFA-KMU) v. Nestlé Philippines Incorporated, 571 Phil. 29, 41-42 (2008).
62. Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers Chapter v. Manila
Mining Corp. and/or Disini, et al., 646 Phil. 169, 180 (2010).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com