EBUÑA, Ma. Samantha Louise L.

LABREL SPL-F
FORMER USEC. JOSEPHUS B. JIMENEZ
FILCRO #3
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION (PTGWO), petitioner, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, as Minister
of Labor and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents. (G.R. No. L-53515 February 8, 1989)

FACTS: A collective bargaining agreement was entered into by petitioner San Miguel Corporation Sales
Force Union (PTGWO), and the private respondent, San Miguel Corporation, Section 1, of Article IV of
which provided as follows: Art. IV, Section 1. Employees within the appropriate bargaining unit shall be
entitled to a basic monthly compensation plus commission based on their respective sales.

The company introduced a marketing scheme known as the "Complementary Distribution System" (CDS)
whereby its beer products were offered for sale directly to wholesalers through San Miguel's sales offices.
Petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice in the Ministry of Labor, with a notice of strike on the
ground that the CDS was contrary to the existing marketing scheme whereby the Route Salesmen were
assigned specific territories within which to sell their stocks of beer, and wholesalers had to buy beer
products from them, not from the company. It was alleged that the new marketing scheme violates
Section 1, Article IV of the collective bargaining agreement because the introduction of the CDS would
reduce the take-home pay of the salesmen and their truck helpers for the company would be unfairly
competing with them.

The Labor Arbiter found that nothing on the record suggest that the unilateral action of the employer in
inaugurating the new sales scheme was designed to discourage union organization or diminish its
influence, but rather it is undisputable that the establishment of such scheme was part of its overall plan
to improve efficiency and economy and at the same time gain profit to the highest thus dismissing the
complaint of Petitioner.

ISSUE: Does the Complementary Distribution System (CDS) violate the CBA?

LAW: The Supreme Court cited the case of NLU vs. Insular La Yebana Co., 2 SCRA 924 to justify the right
to management prerogatives of the employer stating: “Except as limited by special laws, an employer is
free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including
hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes
to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-
off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work.”

CASE HISTORY: Case was appealed to the Supreme Court on February 9, 1989; The CBA was signed by the
parties on April 17, 1978.

RULING: The Complementary Distribution Scheme (CDS) according to the Supreme Court was a valid
exercise of management prerogatives. That as long as a company's management prerogatives are
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this
Court will uphold them. San Miguel Corporation's offer to compensate the members of its sales force who
will be adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS by paying them a so-called "back adjustment
commission" to make up for the commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS proves the company's
good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.

1
OPINION: I concur with the Supreme Court in upholding the Labor Arbiter’s decision that the
Complementary Distribution Scheme (CDS) enacted by San Miguel was a valid exercise of management
prerogatives. For as long as the company introduction of new marketing strategies although It might
interfere the present set-up that the San Miguel employees are used to, the company has offered
compensation to make-up for the commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS. Such offer connotes
a positive intention on behalf of San Miguel in order to ensure that its employees and the registered labor
union will not lose its faith on the company.

CLLC E.G GOCHANGO WORKERS UNION et al. VS. NLRC

(G.R. No. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988)

FACTS: CLLC E.G Gochangco Wokers union is a local chapter of the Central Luzon Labor Congress (CLLC),
a legitimate labor federation duly registered with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), while
the individual petitioners are former employees of private respondent who were officers and members
of the petitioner union. The company is engaged packing and crating, general hauling, warehousing, sea
van and freight forwarding.

Sometime in January 1980, the majority of the rank and file employees of respondent firm organized the
e.g. Gochangco Workers Union as an affiliate of the CLLC. On January 23, 1980, the union filed a petition
for certification election. Thereafter the CLLC national president wrote the general manager of respondent
firm informing him of the organization of the union and requesting for a labor management conference
to normalize employer-employee relations. The union sent a written notice to respondent firm requesting
permission for certain member officers and members of the union to attend the hearing of the petition
for certification election. The management refused to acknowledge receipt of said notice. private
respondent preventively suspended the union officers and members who attended the hearing namely:
Cornelio Pangilinan, president; Leo Tropics, vice-president; Olimpio Gumin, treasurer; Buenaventura
Puno, director; Reynaldo Dayrit, sgt-at-arms; Ernesto Ramirez; Ernesto Galang; Odilon Lising; Jesus
Daquigan; and Edilberto Quiambao. The common ground alleged by private respondent for its action was
"abandonment of work on February 27, 1980." On the same date, all the gate passes of all the above-
mentioned employees to Clark Air Base were confiscated by a Base guard.

Petitioner union and its members filed a complaint for constructive lockout and unfair labor practice
against private respondent. Private respondent filed with MOLE, Region III, a Notice of Termination of
Contract together with a list of employees affected by the expiration of the contract, among them, the 39
individual petitioners herein. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of the complainants and ordering
Gochangco Inc. to reinstate all the suspended/dismissed employees to their former positions without loss
of seniority rights and other privileges, with full backwages including cost of emergency living allowance
from the date of their suspension/dismissal up to the supposed date of actual reinstatement. Gochangco
Inc. appealed to the NLRC wherein the latter reversed and set aside the decision of the LA on the ground
of lack of merit on the part of the complainants.

ISSUE: Is Gochangco Inc. guilty of unfair labor practices in terminating the petitioner’s employment?

LAW: Book 6 of the Labor Code – Article 279 and 282.

CASE HISTORY: The case was submitted to the Supreme Court for decision on May 30, 1988. On February
28, 1980, Gochangco Inc. decided to terminate the employment of the petitioners concerned.

2
RULING: The Supreme Court is convinced that the respondent company is indeed guilty of an unfair labor
practice. It is no coincidence that at the time said respondent issued its suspension and termination
orders, the petitioners were in the midst of a certification election preliminary to a labor management
conference, purportedly, "to normalize employer-employee relations." It was within the legal right of the
petitioners to do so, the exercise of which was their sole prerogative, and in which management may not
as a rule interfere. But as if to add insult to injury, the company suspended the petitioners on the ground
of "abandonment of work" on February 27, 1980, the date on which, apparently, the pre-election
conference had been scheduled. The petitioners as regular employees, enjoy security of tenure hence
their dismissal must be premised on a just cause as provided under the Labor Code.

OPINION: This case is an example of why the Labor Code provides numerous protection to employees as
against the management. According to the Supreme Court, the actions by Gochangco Inc. substantiates
to flimsy attempts in order to discredit the person of the petitioners' counsel, or their officers, and other
resorts to argumenta ad hominem. So timely that the company decided to terminate the employment of
petitioner’s upon receiving a notification of the union’s intention to elect its officers. Another aspect of
the issue which justifies the ruling, was that the employees enjoyed security of tenure being deemed as
regular employees of the company. Hence , their dismissal must not be based on any speculations but on
what the Labor Code provides particularly Articles 282 and 285 of the said Law.

I strongly concur with the Supreme Court’s decision in upholding the ruling connoted by the Labor Arbiter
ordering the reinstatement of the affected employees. What we see here is a unfair and unjustified action
by the management of Gochango Inc. This case must serve as a warning to Companies that the Labor Code
will always protect the employees provided that it is within its jurisdiction.