Nelson Culili vs. Eastern Communications Philippines, Inc.

G.R. No. 165381

February 9, 2011
Facts:
ETPI implemented a Right-Sizing Program which consisted of two phases: the first phase involved the
reduction of ETPIs workforce to only those employees that were necessary and which ETPI could sustain; the
second phase entailed a company-wide reorganization which would result in the transfer, merger, absorption or
abolition of certain departments of ETPI. ETPI offered the Special Retirement Program and the corresponding
retirement package to the 102 employees who qualified for the program. Only Culili rejected the offer. After the
successful implementation of the first phase, ETPI proceeded with the second phase which necessitated the
abolition, transfer and merger of a number of ETPIs departments. Among the departments abolished was the
Service Quality Department. The functions of the Customer Premises Equipment Management Unit, Culilis
unit, were absorbed by the Business and Consumer Accounts Department. The abolition of the Service Quality
Department rendered the specialized functions of a Senior Technician unnecessary. Hence, Culilis position was
abolished due to redundancy and his functions were absorbed by another employee already with the Business
and Consumer Accounts Department. Culili discovered later on that his name was omitted in ETPIs New Table
of Organization.
Culili alleged that neither he nor the DOLE were formally notified of his termination. Culili claimed that
he only found out about it when Vice President Virgilio Garcia handed him a copy of the letter, after he was
barred from entering ETPIs premises by its armed security personnel when he tried to report for work.
Moreover, Culili asserted that ETPI had contracted out the services he used to perform to a labor-only
contractor which not only proved that his functions had not become unnecessary, but which also violated their
CBA and the Labor Code. ETPI denied singling Culili out for termination. ETPI claimed that while it is true
that they offered the Special Retirement Package to reduce their workforce to a sustainable level, this was only
the first phase of the Right-Sizing Program to which ETEU agreed. The second phase intended to simplify and
streamline the functions of the departments and employees of ETPI. The abolition of Culilis department - the
Service Quality Department - and the absorption of its functions by the Business and Consumer Accounts
Department were in line with the programs goals as the Business and Consumer Accounts Department was
more economical and versatile and it was flexible enough to handle the limited functions of the Service Quality
Department. ETPI averred that since Culili did not avail of the Special Retirement Program and his position was
subsequently declared redundant, it had no choice but to terminate Culili.
Issue: Whether or not an employer is guilty of unfair labor practice because the employee's functions was
sourced out to labor-only contractors.
Ruling:
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers' right to organize. The prohibited acts are
related to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. There should be no dispute
that all the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to selforganization. Thus, an employer may only be held liable for unfair labor practice if it can be shown that his acts
affect in whatever manner the right of his employees to self-organize. There is no showing that ETPI, in
implementing its Right-Sizing Program, was motivated by ill will, bad faith or malice, or that it was aimed at
interfering with its employees right to self-organize. In fact, ETPI negotiated and consulted with ETEU before
implementing its Right-Sizing Program.
According to jurisprudence, "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 ETPI, Culili has the burden of
proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor practice. Culili failed to discharge
this burden and his bare allegations deserve no credit.

Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union vs. Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc.
G.R. No. 186605
November 17, 2010
Facts:
CABEU-NFL sent CAB a proposed CBA seeking increases in the daily wage and vacation and sick
leave benefits of the monthly employees and the grant of leave benefits and 13th month pay to seasonal
workers. CAB responded with a counter-proposal to the effect that the production bonus incentive and special
production bonus and incentives be maintained. In addition, respondent CAB agreed to execute a pro-rated
increase of wages every time the government would mandate an increase in the minimum wage. CAB, however,
did not agree to grant additional and separate Christmas bonuses. CAB received an Amended Union Proposal
which reduced its previous demand regarding wages and bonuses. CAB, however, maintained its position on the
matter. Thus, the collective bargaining negotiations resulted in a deadlock. Hence, CABEU-NFL filed a
Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice for the formers refusal to bargain with it.
Issue: Whether or not a company commits unfair labor practice for violation of its duty to bargain collectively
in good faith.
Ruling:
The concept of unfair labor practice is provided in Article 247 of the Labor Code which states: Unfair
labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the
legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise
deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations.
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 CABEU-NFL. 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 CABs
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.

Associated Labor Union vs. Judge Amador Gomez

G.R. No. L-25999
February 9, 1967
Facts:
The CBA of Associated Labor Union and uperior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu, Inc. was about to
expire. Prior to that, Union and employer started negotiations for its renewal. While bargaining was in progress,
12 of Sugeco's employees resigned from the Union. Negotiations were broken. Union wrote Sugeco. There,
request was made that unless the 12 resigned employees could produce a clearance from the Union, they be not
allowed in the meantime to report for work. On the same day, Sugeco's attorney rejected the request. The
reasons given are that irreparable injury would ensue, that the bargaining contract had lapsed, and that the
Company could no longer demand from its employees the requested clearance. Sugeco made it understood that
after the 12 men would have returned into the Union fold, said company would then be "in a position to
negotiate again for the renewal of the collective bargaining contract." Also on the same day, the Union wrote
Sugeco, charged the latter with bargaining in bad faith, and its supervisors with "campaigning for the
resignation of members of this Union". The Union there served notice "that unless the aforementioned unfair
labor practice acts will immediately be stopped and a collective bargaining agreement be signed between your
company and this union immediately after receipt of this letter, this union will declare a strike against your
management and correspondingly establish picket lines in any place where your business may be found".
Issue: Whether or not coercion of employees constitutes unfair labor practice.
Ruling:
The Industrial Peace Act.7 Section 4(a) and (b) thereof recite, as follows: (a) It shall be unfair labor
practice for an employer: (1) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in section three; (b) It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents: (1) To
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under section three .... And Section 3 referred to in
Section 4(a) and (b) provides: ... Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of
their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection. ....
The broad sweep of the law suggests that the coercion or cajolery of employees heretofore described, by
management or union, is unfair labor practice. Therefore, the alleged act of coercing or instigating union
members to resign therefrom is clearly within the coverage of the prescription. It is aimed at crippling the
Union, throwing it off balance, destroying its bargaining authority. It is an attack against the Magna Carta of
Labor. By the same token, the charge levelled by Sugeco against the Union that the latter "is coercing the
resigned employees to rejoin the Union" is no less an unfair labor practice.

Geronimo Quadra vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 147593
July 31, 2006
Facts:
Petitioner, member of the Association of Sweepstakes Staff Personnel and Supervisors (CUGCO), was
administratively charged before the Civil Service Commission with violation of Civil Service Law and Rules
for neglect of duty and misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. He was found guilty
and disnmissed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Civil Service Commission.
At the same time, petitioner, together with ASSPS (CUGCO), filed with the CIR a complaint for unfair labor
practice against respondent PCSO and its officers. CIR found respondent PCSO guilty of unfair labor practice
for having committed discrimination against the union and for having dismissed petitioner due to his union
activities.
Respondent PCSO complied with the decision of the CIR. But while it reinstated petitioner to his former
position and paid his backwages, it also filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari. During
its pendency, petitioner filed with the CIR a "Petition for Damages." He prayed for moral and exemplary
damages, citing the following grounds: (1) the CIR has no jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary damages;
(2) the cause of action is barred by prior judgment, it appearing that two complaints are brought for different
parts of a single cause of action; and (3) the petition states no valid cause of action. LA and NLRC's decision
favored petitioner, but CA reversed it, holding that there was no basis for the grant of moral and exemplary
damages to petitioner as his dismissal was not tainted with bad faith. It was the Civil Service Commission that
recommended petitioner's dismissal after conducting an investigation. It also held that the petition claiming
moral and exemplary damages filed by petitioner after respondent PCSO had complied with the CIR decision of
reinstatement and backwages amounted to splitting of cause of action.
Issue: Whether or not the CIR has jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary damages arising out of illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice.
Ruling:
A dismissed employee is entitled to moral damages when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud
or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public
policy. Exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner. It appears from the facts that petitioner was deliberately dismissed from the service by reason of his
active involvement in the activities of the union groups of both the rank and file and the supervisory employees
of PCSO, which unions he himself organized and headed. Respondent PCSO first charged petitioner before the
Civil Service Commission for alleged neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the service because of his
union activities. The Civil Service Commission recommended the dismissal of petitioner. Respondent PCSO
immediately served on petitioner a letter of dismissal even before the latter could move for a reconsideration of
the decision of the Civil Service Commission. Respondent PCSO may not impute to the Civil Service
Commission the responsibility for petitioner's illegal dismissal as it was respondent PCSO that first filed the
administrative charge against him. As found by the CIR, petitioner's dismissal constituted unfair labor practice.
It was done to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and employees to self-organization, are
inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively
and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect; and disrupt industrial
peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations. As the conscience of the
government, it is the Court's sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor rights.

Goya, Inc. vs. Goya, Inc. Employees Union

G.R. No. 170054
January 21, 2013
Facts:
Petitioner hired contractual employees from PESO Resources Development Corporation (PESO) to
perform temporary and occasional services in its factory. This prompted respondent Goya, Inc. Employees
UnionFFW (Union) to request for a grievance conference on the ground that the contractual workers do not
belong to the categories of employees stipulated in the existing CBA. When the matter remained unresolved, the
grievance was referred to the NCMB for voluntary arbitration. However, amicable settlement was not possible.
The Union asserted that the hiring of contractual employees from PESO is not a management
prerogative and in gross violation of the CBA tantamount to unfair labor practice (ULP). It noted that the
contractual workers engaged have been assigned to work in positions previously handled by regular workers
and Union members, in effect violating Section 4, Article I of the CBA. The Company argued that: (a) the law
expressly allows contracting and subcontracting arrangements through Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Order No. 18-02; (b) the engagement of contractual employees did not, in any way, prejudice the
Union, since not a single employee was terminated and neither did it result in a reduction of working hours nor
a reduction or splitting of the bargaining unit; and (c) Section 4, Article I of the CBA merely provides for the
definition of the categories of employees and does not put a limitation on the Companys right to engage the
services of job contractors or its management prerogative to address temporary/occasional needs in its
operation.
Issue: Whether or not a company is guilty of unfair labor acts for engaging the services of a third party service
provider, under the existing CBA, laws, and jurisprudence.
Ruling:
Casual Employee One hired by the COMPANY to perform occasional or seasonal work directly
connected with the regular operations of the COMPANY, or one hired for specific projects of limited duration
not connected directly with the regular operations of the COMPANY.
While the foregoing agreement between the parties did eliminate managements prerogative of
outsourcing parts of its operations, it serves as a limitation on such prerogative particularly if it involves
functions or duties specified under the aforequoted agreement. It is clear that the parties agreed that in the event
that the Company needs to engage the services of additional workers who will perform "occasional or seasonal
work directly connected with the regular operations of the COMPANY," or "specific projects of limited duration
not connected directly with the regular operations of the COMPANY", the Company can hire casual employees
which is akin to contractual employees. If we note the Companys own declaration that PESO was engaged to
perform "temporary or occasional services", then it should have directly hired the services of casual employees
rather than do it through PESO.
It is evident, therefore, that the engagement of PESO is not in keeping with the intent and spirit of the
CBA provision in question. It must, however, be stressed that the right of management to outsource parts of its
operations is not totally eliminated but is merely limited by the CBA. Given the foregoing, the Companys
engagement of PESO for the given purpose is indubitably a violation of the CBA.

Minette Baptista, et. al. vs. Rosario Villanueva

G.R. No. 194709
July 31, 2013
Facts:
Petitioners were former union members of RPNEU, the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank
and file employees of RPN, a government-sequestered corporation involved in commercial radio and television
broadcasting affairs, while the respondents were the unions elected officers and members. On suspicion of
union mismanagement, petitioners, together with some other union members, filed a complaint for
impeachment of their union president, then later on, against all the union officers and members of RPNEU
before DOLE. RPNEUs officers informed their company of the expulsion of petitioners and the 12 others from
the union and requested the management to serve them notices of termination from employment in compliance
with their CBAs union security clause. Aggrieved, petitioners filed three (3) separate complaints for ULP
against the respondents, questioning legality of their expulsion from the union and their subsequent termination
from employment. The LA adjudged the respondents guilty of ULP pursuant to Article 249 (a) and (b) of the
Labor Code. NLRC reversed the decision, for lack of merit. The NLRC found that petitioners filed a suit calling
for the impeachment of the officers and members of the Executive Board of RPNEU without first resorting to
internal remedies available under its own Constitution and By-Laws. The NLRC likewise decreed that the LAs
order of reinstatement was improper because the legality of the membership expulsion was not raised in the
proceedings and, hence, beyond the jurisdiction of the LA.
Issue: Whether or not unfair labor practice can be committed due to procedural flaw
Ruling:
Based on RPNEUs 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. Due process, as a constitutional
precept, is satisfied when a person was notified of the charge against him and was given an opportunity to
explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable
opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum
requirements of due process.
The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain ones side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of. It cannot be denied that petitioners were properly notified of the charges filed against them and were equally
afforded the opportunity to present their side.

LABOR RELATIONS
Case Digests

1. Nelson Culili vs. Eastern Communications Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011
2. Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union vs. Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc., G.R. No. 186605,
November 17, 2010
3. Associated Labor Union vs. Judge Amador Gomez, G.R. No. L-25999, February 9, 1967
4. Geronimo Quadra vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147593, July 31, 2006
5. Goya, Inc. vs. Goya, Inc. Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, January 21, 2013
6. Minette Baptista, et. al. vs. Rosario Villanueva, G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013

Submitted by: Celina May R. Tang, Block A

Professor: Atty Mila Raquid-Arroyo