Case # 1: RATIO

CULILI v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS Article 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and
(ETPI) procedure for prosecution thereof. ¬¬¬¬-- Unfair labor
practices violate the constitutional right of workers and
FACTS: employees to self-organization, are inimical to the
legitimate interest of both labor and management,
Nelson Culili was employed as a Technician, and
including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise
was promoted to Senior Technician after 15 years. In
deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and
1998, due to business troubles and losses, ETPI
mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
implemented a two-phased Right-Sizing Program:
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management
reduction of ETPI’s workforce, then a company-wide
relations.
reorganization (transfer, merger, absorption or abolition
of departments). ETPI offered a Special Retirement ULP refers to ‘acts that violate the workers' right to
Program to employees who have been in service for at organize.’ The prohibited acts are related to the workers'
least 15 years. Of all the employees who qualified, only right to self-organization and to the observance of a
Culili rejected the offer. The functions of Culili’s unit CBA. An employer may only be held liable for unfair
were absorbed by another department, and his position labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in
was abolished (and was eventually absorbed by another whatever manner the right of his employees to self-
employee) due to redundancy. Culili wrote to the union organize.
president in protest. He was informed of his termination
from employment through a letter from the ETPI AVP. There is no showing that ETPI, in implementing its
This letter was similar to the memo shown to Culili by Right-Sizing Program, was motivated by ill will, bad faith
the union president weeks before Culili was dismissed. or malice, or that it was aimed at interfering with its
employees’ right to self-organization. In fact, ETPI
Culili claims that ETPI contracted out the services he negotiated and consulted with the SEBA before
used to perform to a labor-only contractor, which not implementing the program. By imputing bad faith to
only proved that his functions had not become ETPI’s actuations, Culili has the burden of proof to
unnecessary, but which also violated the CBA + LC. In present substantial evidence to support the allegation of
addition, neither he nor the DOLE were formally notified ULP. Culili failed to discharge this burden and his bare
of his termination. He found out about it when he was allegations deserve no credit.
handed a copy of the letter, after he was barred from
entering ETPI’s premises. ETPI already decided to ISSUE #2: Whether or not there was a valid cause for
dismiss him even prior to the AVP’s letter, as evidenced ETPI to terminate the petitioner’s employment.
by an earlier version of the letter.
RATIO: Yes. Article 283 of the Labor Code authorizes
ETPI denied hiring outside contractors to the employer to terminate the employment of any
perform Culili’s work. It also denied singling Culili out for employee due to redundancy to prevent losses or the
termination. The abolition of Culili’s department and the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or
absorption of its functions by another department were undertaking
in line with the Right-Sizing Program’s goals. Since Culili
did not avail of the Special Retirement Program and his There is redundancy when the service capability
position was subsequently declared redundant, ETPI had of the workforce is greater than what is reasonably
no choice but to terminate Culili. Because there was no required to meet the demands of the business
more work for him, it was constrained to serve a final enterprise. This Court has been consistent in holding
notice of termination, which Culili ignored. that the determination of whether or not an employee’s
services are still needed or sustainable properly belongs
Culili filed a complaint for ULP, illegal dismissal, to the employer.
and money claims before the LA.
However, an employer cannot simply declare
LA – ETPI GUILTY OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND ULP that it has become overmanned and dismiss its
(AFFIRMED BY NLRC) employees without producing adequate proof to sustain
its claim of redundancy. Among the requisites of a valid
CA – VALID DISMISSAL, NO ULP redundancy program are: (1) the good faith of the
employer in abolishing the redundant position; and (2)
ISSUE #1:
fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what
WON Culili’s dismissal can be considered as ULP. NO. positions are to be declared redundant, such as but not
However, ETPI has to pay nominal damages for non- limited to: preferred status, efficiency, and seniority.
compliance with statutory due process, in addition to the
In the case at bar, ETPI was upfront with its
mandatory separation pay [LC 283].
employees about its plan to implement a Right-Sizing
Program. ETPI patiently negotiated with ETEU’s officers
to make them understand ETPI’s business dilemma and
its need to reduce its workforce and streamline its
organization. This evidently rules out bad faith on the no matter how unfair, are not deemed unfair labor
part of ETPI. In deciding which positions to retain and practices.
which to abolish, ETPI chose on the basis of efficiency,
economy, versatility and flexibility. ETPI also submitted In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court
its old and new tables of organization and sufficiently of Appeals were unanimous in ruling that Galaxie’s
described how limited the functions of the abolished closure or cessation of business operations was due to
position of a Senior Technician were and how it decided serious business losses or financial reverses, and not
on whom to absorb these functions. because of any alleged anti-union position.

Case #2: 2. The requirement of the Labor Code that notice shall
be served on the workers is not complied with by the
GALAXIE STEEL WORKERS UNION (GSWU- mere posting of the notice on the bulletin board.
NAFLU-KMU), et al. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, GALAXIE STEEL The mere posting on the company bulletin board does
CORPORATION and RICARDO CHENG 504 SCRA not meet the requirement under Article 283 of ―serving
692 (2006) a written notice on the workers. The purpose of the
written notice is to inform the employees of the specific
FACTS: date of termination or closure of business operations,
and must be served upon them at least one month
On account of serious business losses which occurred in before the date of effectivity to give them sufficient time
1997 up to mid-1999 totaling around P127, 000,000.00, to make the necessary arrangements. In order to meet
Galaxie Steel Workers Union decided to close down its the foregoing purpose, service of the written notice must
business operations. It thereafter filed a written notice be made individually upon each and every employee of
with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) the company.
informing the latter of its intended closure and the
consequent termination of its employees effective Case #3:
August 31, 1999. It posted the notice of closure on the
corporate bulletin board. Sterling Products International Inc. v Sol

On September 8, 1999, Galaxie Steel Workers Union and FACTS:

Galaxie employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
Loreta C. Sol charged the herein petitioners
unfair labor practice, and money claims against Galaxie.
Sterling Products International and its Radio Director V.
The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the Court of Appeals were
San Pedro with having committed an unfair labor
unanimous in ruling that Galaxie’s closure or cessation of
practice act. She alleged in her complaint that she has
business operations was due to serious business losses
been a regular Radio Monitor of respondents-petitioners;
or financial reverses, and not because of any alleged
that in 1960 filed a complaint against the said firm for
anti-union position.
underpayment, money equivalent of her vacation leave
The workers’ union and employees contend that Galaxie from 1952 to 1959, and Christmas bonus for 1959 = this
did not serve written notices of the closure of business previous complaint resulted in her dismissal without just
operations upon them, it having merely posted a notice cause
on the company bulletin board.
Petitioners’ answer: alleged that complainant is
ISSUE: an independent contractor whose services were retained
by petitioners to submit reports of radio monitoring work
1. Whether or not [Galaxie] is guilty of unfair labor performed outside of their (petitioners') office and that
practice in closing its business operations shortly after she was dismissed because her services were no longer
petitioner union filed for certification election. required.

2. Whether or not the written notice posted by [Galaxie] ISSUE # 1: WON Sterling committed an unfair labor
on the company bulletin board sufficiently complies with practice
the notice requirement under Article 283 of the Labor
Code. RATIO:

HELD: NO. NO, The term unfair labor practice has been
defined as any of those acts listed in See. 4 of the Act.
1. Petitioners failed to present concrete evidence The respondent Sol has never been found to commit any
supporting their claim of unfair labor practice. Unfair of the acts mentioned in paragraph (a) of Sec. 4.
labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers’ Respondent Sol was not connected with any labor
right to organize, and are defined in Articles 248 and organization, nor has she ever attempted to join a labor
261 of the Labor Code. organization, or to assist, or contribute to a labor
organization. The company cannot, therefore, be
The prohibited acts relate to the workers’ right to self- considered as having committed an unfair labor practic
organization and to the observance of Collective
Bargaining Agreement without which relation the acts,
ISSUE # 2: WON the termination of Sol's services is HELD:
valid because she is an independent contractor
No. The disassociation of more than 90% of
RATIO: rank-and-file workers from CABEU-NFL, it was
constrained to negotiate and conclude in good faith a
No, she is not an independent contractor but an new CBA with CABELA, the newly established union by
employee of Sterling. Sol was directed to listen to workers who disassociated from CABEU-NFL. CAB
certain broadcasts, directing her, in the instructions emphasizes that it declined further negotiations with
given her, when to listen and what to listen, petitioners CABEU-NFL in good faith because to continue with it
herein naming the stations to be listened to, the hours would serve no practical purpose. Considering that the
of broadcasts, and the days when listening was to be NCMB has yet to resolve CAB’s query in its letter-
done. Respondent Sol had to follow these directions. response, CAB was left without any choice but accede to
The mere fact that while performing the duties assigned the demands of CABELA. Such actions of CAB are
to her she was not under the supervision of the nowhere tantamount to anti-unionism, the evil sought to
petitioners does not render her a contractor, because be punished in cases of unfair labor practices.
what she has to do, the hours that she has to work and
the report that she has to submit all — these are Furthermore, basic is the principle that good
according to instructions given by the employer. It is not faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the
correct to say, therefore, that she was an independent duty to prove the same. By imputing bad faith to the
contractor, for an independent contractor is one who actuations of CAB, CABEU-NFL has the burden of proof
does not receive instructions as to what to do, how to to present substantial evidence to support the allegation
do, without specific instructions. of unfair labor practice.

Finally, the very act of respondent Sol in Case # 5:

demanding vacation leave, Christmas bonus and
additional wages shows that she considered herself an CALTEX FILIPINO MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS
employee. A contractor is not entitled to a vacation ASSOCIATION vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
leave or to a bonus nor to a minimum wage. This act of RELATIONS, CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., W.E.
hers in demanding these privileges are inconsistent with MENEFEE and B.F. EDWARDS
the claim that she was an independent contractor.
FACTS:
Case # 4 and 18:
Petitioner is a labor organization of Filipino
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS EMPLOYEES UNION- managers supervisors in Caltex Inc. After the Association
NFL [CABEU-NFL] vs. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS, was registered as a labor organization, it sent a letter to
INC. [CAB] the Company informing the latter of the former's
registration and sought for the recognition of the
FACTS: Association as the duly authorized bargaining agency for
managers and supervisors in the Company. The
Respondent CAB is a corporation duly organized Company countered that the managerial employees are
and existing under the laws of the Philippines. CABEU- not qualified for membership in a labor organization.
NFL is a duly registered labor union and a certified
bargaining agent of the CAB rank-and-file employees. The Association filed a notice to strike due to
refusal to bargain in good faith and to act on demands.
CABEU-NFL sent CAB a proposed CBA, seeking
the increase of their benefits. CAB, however, did not Later, they filed a ULP case because the
agree to grant additional and separate Christmas Company manifested their antagonism to it; that its
bonuses. The collective bargaining negotiations resulted President issued a statement of policy designed to
in a deadlock. CABEU-NFL filed a Notice of Strike. discourage employees and supervisors from joining labor
organizations; that the Company refused to bargain;
CABEU-NFL aggressively asserts that CAB is that the steps taken by the Company sought to destroy
guilty of unfair labor practice on the ground of its refusal the Association or discourage its members from
to bargain collectively and its failure to resume continuing their union membership. The Association was
negotiations with CABEU-NFL. They claim to be the duly forced to file a strike notice.
certified bargaining agent of the CAB rank-and-file
employees and that such subsequent CBA with CABELA ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is liable for unfair
constitutes an act of unfair labor practice prohibited labor practice.
under Article 248 (g) of the Labor Code.
HELD: Yes. Under Sec. 14(c) of RA No. 875, the parties
ISSUE: Whether or not CAB has committed an unfair themselves are required "to participate fully and
labor practice. promptly in such meetings and conferences as the
(Conciliation) Service may undertake." In this case, the
parties agreed to meet and yet, notwithstanding this
definite agreement, the Company sent no
representatives.
 Admittedly the certification election proceeding ISSUES:
for the Cebu Supervisors Union in the Company had
been pending for six (6) years already. 1. WON there is unfair labor practice when
respondents (employees) were discharged for having
The company issued a statement of policy which written and published a libelous letter against the bank
conveyed in unequivocal terms to all employees the president.
following message:
2. WON the discharged of the respondents based
We sincerely believe that good employee relations can on the libelous letter constitute illegal dismissal.
be maintained and essential employee needs fulfilled
through sound management administration without the RULING:
necessity of employee organization and representations.
1. YES
We respect an employee's right to present his
grievances, regardless of whether or not he is Assuming that the latter acted in their individual
represented by a labor organization. capacities when they wrote the letter-charge they were
nonetheless protected for they were engaged in
An employee reading the foregoing would at
concerted activity, in the exercise of their right of self-
once gain impression that there was no need to join the
organization that includes concerted activity for mutual
Association.
aid and protection, interference with which constitutes
After the settlement of strike, the Company an unfair labor practice under section 4(a)(1). For, as
preferred non-members of the Association in promotions has been aptly stated, the joining in protests or
to higher positions and humiliated active unionists by demands, even by a small group of employees, if in
either promoting junior supervisors over them or by furtherance of their interests as such is a concerted
reduction of their authority compared to that assigned to activity protected by the Industrial Peace Act. It is not
them before the strike, or otherwise downgrading their necessary that union activity be involved or that
positions. collective bargaining be contemplated.

We perceive in this particular action of the Indeed, when the respondents complained
Company its anti-union posture and attitude. The Court against nepotism, favoritism and other management
finds the Company B.F. Edwards and W.E. Menefee practices, they were acting within an area marked out by
guilty of unfair labor practices and they are therefore the Act as a proper sphere of collective bargaining.
ordered to cease and desist from the same.
2. YES
Case # 6 and 9:
What the Bank should have done was to refer
REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK vs. CIR the letter-charge to the grievance committee. This was
its duty, failing which it committed an unfair labor
FACTS: practice under the Industrial Peace Act. For collective
bargaining does not end with the execution of an
The Bank had in its employ the respondents agreement. It is a continuous process. The duty to
which was discharged for having written and published bargain imposes on the parties during the term of their
"a patently libelous letter . . . tending to cause the agreement the mutual obligation "to meet and confer
dishonor, discredit or contempt not only of officers and promptly and expeditiously and in good faith . . . for the
employees of this bank, but also of your employer, the purpose of adjusting any grievances or question arising
bank itself." under such agreement" and a violation of this obligation
is an unfair labor practice.
The letter referred to was a letter-charge which
the respondents had written to the bank president, Case # 7:
demanding his resignation on the grounds of immorality,
nepotism in the appointment and favoritism as well as Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation
discrimination in the promotion of bank employees. And
copies were also given to the chairman of the board of Facts:
directors of the Bank, and the Governor of the Central
The petitioner disfavored the fact that the private
Bank.
respondent employees have formed a union. When the
At the instance of the respondents, prosecutor union became the collective bargaining representative in
A. Tirona filed a complaint in the CIR=, alleging that the the certification election, the petitioner refused to sit
Bank's conduct violated section 4(a) (5) of the Industrial down to negotiate a CBA. In the course of a labor
Peace Act which makes it an unfair labor practice for an dispute between the petitioner and respondent union,
employer "to dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice the union members were not given work for more than
or discriminate against an employee for having filed one month. In protest, complainants staged a strike
charges or for having given or being about to give which was however settled upon the signing of a
testimony under this Act." Memorandum of Agreement.
 A conciliation meeting was conducted wherein Case # 8
Luisa Rombo, Ramona Rombo, Bobong Abrega, and
Boboy Silva were not considered by the company as THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
employees, and thus may not be members of the union. EMPLOYEES ASSN. vs. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE
It was also agreed that a number of other employees CO. LTD.
will be reinstated. When respondents again reneged on
FACTS:
its commitment, complainants filed the present
complaint. It is alleged by the petitioners that the above The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees
employees are mere seasonal employees. Association-NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers &
Employees Association-NATU, and Insular Life Building
The NLRC held that there was illegal dismissal
Employees Association-NATU (referred as UNIONS)
and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
entered into separate collective bargaining agreements
Issue: with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU
Insurance Group (as the COMPANIES).
1. W/N the petitioner is guilty of unfair labor
practice The Unions jointly submitted proposals to the
Companies for a modified renewal of their respective
2. W/N the employees are illegally terminated collective bargaining contracts which were about to
expire. Thereafter, negotiations were conducted but
RULING: these were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of union
shop, as a result of which the Unions filed a notice of
1. The NLRC also found herein petitioners guilty of unfair
strike for "deadlock on collective bargaining." Upon
labor practice. It ruled as follows:
several conciliation conferences, the Companies insisted
Indeed, from respondents refusal to bargain, to their that the Unions first drop their demand for union
acts of economic inducements resulting in the promotion security, promising money benefits if this was done, as a
of those who withdrew from the union, the use of armed result the demand for union shop was dropped. Then
guards to prevent the organizers to come in, and the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no
dismissal of union officials and members, one cannot but satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of
conclude that respondents did not want a union in their salary increases. Forthwith the Unions voted to declare a
hacienda clear interference in the right of the workers to strike in protest against what they considered the
self-organization. Companies' unfair labor practices

We uphold the CAs affirmation of the above findings. Meanwhile, eighty-seven unionists were reclassified as
Indeed, factual findings of labor officials, who are supervisors without salary increase nor in responsibility
deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within so that these employees will be deemed resigned from
their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not the Unions. Moreover, the Companies sent to each
only respect but even finality. Their findings are binding strikers a letter which states “However, if any of you
on the Supreme Court. Verily, their conclusions are would like to come back to work voluntarily, you may: 1.
accorded great weight upon appeal, especially when Advise the nearest police officer or security guard of
supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the your intention to do so; 2. Take your meals within the
Court is not duty-bound to delve into the accuracy of office; 3. Make a choice whether to go home at the end
their factual findings, in the absence of a clear showing of the day or to sleep nights at the office where
that these were arbitrary and bereft of any rational comfortable cots have been prepared; 4. Enjoy free
basis. coffee and occasional movies; 5. Be paid overtime for
work performed in excess of eight hours; and 6. Be sure
2. Yes, they are regular and not seasonal employees. arrangements will be made for your families. The
For them to be excluded as regulars, it is not enough decision to make is yours — whether you still believe in
that they perform work that is seasonal in nature but the motives of the strike or in the fairness of the
they also are employed for the duration of one season. Management.”
The evidence only proved the first but not the second
requirement. The Unions continued to strike. So, some management
men tried to break thru the Unions' picket lines causing
The ruling in Mercado v. NLRC is not applicable since in injuries. The Companies then filed criminal charges
that case, the workers were merely required to perform against the strikers before the City Fiscal's Office of
phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time, Manila and again sent individually to the strikers a letter
after which, their services are available to other quoting “If you are still interested in continuing in the
employers. The management's sudden change of employ of the Group Companies, and if there are no
assignment reeks of bad faith, it is likewise guilty of ULP. criminal charges pending against you, we are giving you
until 2 June 1958 to report for work at the home office.
If by this date you have not yet reported, we may be
forced to obtain your replacement.” Consequently, the
striking employees decided to call off their strike and to
report back to work. However, before readmitting the
strikers, the Companies required them not only to secure Case # 10:
clearances from the City Fiscal's Office of Manila but also
to be screened by a management committee, and G.R. No. 171664 March 6, 2013
readmitted only some but adamantly refused
BANKARD, INC., Petitioner, vs.NATIONAL LABOR
readmission to 34 officials and members of the Unions
RELATIONS COMMISSION- FIRST DIVISION,
who were most active in the strike, on the ground that
PAULO BUENCONSEJO,BANKARD EMPLOYEES
they committed "acts inimical to the interest of the
UNION-AWATU, Respondents.
respondents," without however stating the specific acts
allegedly committed. Doctrine: Contracting out of services is an exercise of
business judgment or management prerogative. Absent
ISSUES:
any proof that management acted in a malicious or
1. WON the Companies committed unfair labor arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the
practice when it sent individual letters to the strikers. exercise of judgment by an employer.

2. WON the dismissal of the 34 employees is illegal The Facts:

thus constitute unfair labor practice.
First, respondent Bankard Employees Union-
RULING: AWATU (Union) filed before the National Conciliation
and Mediation Board (NCMB) its first Notice of Strike
1. YES (NOS) alleging commission of unfair labor practices by
petitioner Bankard, Inc. (Bankard), to wit: 1) job
The said letters were directed to the striking employees contractualization; 2) outsourcing/contracting-out jobs;
individually — by registered special delivery mail at that 3) manpower rationalizing program; and 4)
— without being coursed through the Unions which were discrimination. Secondly, the Union declared a CBA
representing the employees in the collective bargaining. bargaining deadlock and filed its second NOS alleging
Citing NLRB v. Montgomery Ward & Co., “the act of an bargaining in bad faith on the part of Bankard.
employer in notifying absent employees individually
during a strike following unproductive efforts at As regards the first issue, it was Bankard’s
collective bargaining that the plant would be operated position that job contractualization or outsourcing or
the next day and that their jobs were open for them contracting-out of jobs was a legitimate exercise of
should they want to come in has been held to be an management prerogative and did not constitute unfair
unfair labor practice, as an active interference with the labor practice. The Union contended that the number of
right of collective bargaining through dealing with the regular employees had been reduced substantially
employees individually instead of through their collective through the management scheme of freeze-hiring policy
bargaining representatives.” on positions vacated by regular employees on the basis
of cost-cutting measures and the introduction of a more
Besides, the letters should not be considered by drastic formula of streamlining its regular employees
themselves alone but should be read in the light of the through the MRP.
preceding and subsequent circumstances surrounding
them. The letters should be interpreted according to the As to the second issue, Bankard denied that
"totality of conduct doctrine,"... whereby the culpability there was bad faith on its part in bargaining with the
of an employer's remarks were to be evaluated not only Union, because Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
on the basis of their implicit implications, but were to be was entered into between Bankard and the Union. The
appraised against the background of and in conjunction Union averred that Bankard’s proposals were way below
with collateral circumstances. Thus, the facts of the case their demands, showing that the management had no
constitute unfair labor practice. intention of reaching an agreement.

2. YES NLRC issued its Resolution16 declaring that the

management committed acts considered as unfair labor
It is noteworthy that — perhaps in an anticipatory effort practice (ULP) under Article 248(c) of the Labor Code
to exculpate themselves from charges of discrimination and that the issue of bargaining in bad faith was
in the readmission of strikers returning to work — the rendered moot and academic by virtue of the finalization
respondents delegated the power to readmit to a and signing of the CBA.
committee. Needless to say, the mere act of placing in
the hands of employees hostile to the strikers the power The CA dismissed the petition, finding that the NLRC
of reinstatement, is a form of discrimination in rehiring. ruling was supported by substantial evidence.

Issue: Whether or not Bankard committed acts

considered as ULP.

Ruling: No
 In this case, the Union claims that Bankard, in Subsequently, in July 2001, an election was held
implementing its MRP which eventually reduced the and a new set of officers was elected. Soon thereafter,
number of employees, clearly violated Article 248(c) of the new officers conducted an audit of the Union funds.
the Labor Code which states that: They discovered some irregularly recorded entries,
unaccounted expenses and disbursements, and
Art. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – uncollected loans from the Union funds. The Union
It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of notified respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras of the
the following unfair labor practice: (c) To contract out audit results and asked them to explain the
services or functions being performed by union members discrepancies in writing.
when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights to self- Thereafter, on October 6, 2001, in a meeting
organization; called by the Union, respondents Pizarro, Braza, and
Castueras explained their side. Despite their
Nothing in the records strongly proves that explanations, respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras
Bankard intended its program, the MRP, as a tool to were expelled from the Union, and were furnished
drastically and deliberately reduce union membership. individual letters of expulsion for malversation of Union
There was no proof that the program was meant to funds.
encourage the employees to disassociate themselves
from the Union or to restrain them from joining any In a letter the Union, invoking the Security
union or organization. There was no showing that it was Clause of the CBA, demanded that the Club dismiss
intentionally implemented to stunt the growth of the respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras in view of
Union or that Bankard discriminated, or in any way their expulsion from the Union. The Club required the
singled out the union members who had availed of the three respondents to show cause in writing within 48
retirement package under the MRP. The MRP was hours from notice why they should not be dismissed.
implemented as a valid cost-cutting measure, well within Pizarro and Castueras submitted their respective written
the ambit of the so-called management prerogatives. explanations on October 20, 2001, while Braza
submitted his explanation the following day.
Contracting out of services is an exercise of
business judgment or management prerogative. Absent The Clubs general manager called respondents Pizarro,
any proof that management acted in a malicious or Braza, and Castueras for an informal conference
arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the inquiring about the charges against them. Said
exercise of judgment by an employer. Bankard merely respondents gave their explanation and asserted that
validly exercised its management prerogative. Not the Union funds allegedly malversed by them were even
shown to have acted maliciously or arbitrarily, no act of over the total amount collected during their tenure. They
ULP can be imputed against it. claimed the charges are baseless. The general manager
announced he would conduct a formal investigation.
Case # 11:
Nonetheless, after weighing the verbal and
ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB, INC, - versus - written explanations of the three respondents, the Club
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION concluded that said respondents failed to refute the
validity of their expulsion from the Union. Thus, it was
FACTS:
constrained to terminate the employment of said
Petitioner Alabang Country Clubis a domestic non-profit respondents. Respondents received their notices of
corporation. Respondent Alabang Country Club termination from the Club.
Independent Employees Union (Union) is the exclusive
Respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras
bargaining agent of the Clubs rank-and-file employees.
challenged their dismissal from the Club in an illegal
In April 1996, respondents Christopher Pizarro, Michael
dismissal complaint filed with the NLRC. The Labor
Braza, and Nolasco Castueras were elected Union
Arbiter ruled in favor of the Club, and found that there
President, Vice-President, and Treasurer, respectively.
was justifiable cause in terminating said respondents.
On June 21, 1999, the Club and the Union The NLRC rendered a Decision declaring the dismissal of
entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the complainants illegal. The NLRC ruled that there was
which provided for a Union shop and maintenance of no justifiable cause for the termination of respondents
membership shop. CBA included a security clause stating Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras. According to the NLRC,
that all regular rank-and-file employees, who are said respondents expulsion from the Union was illegal
members or subsequently become members of the since the DOLE had not yet made any definitive ruling
UNION shall maintain their membership in good on their liability regarding the administration of the
standing as a condition for their continued employment. Unions funds.
Section 4 of the same CBA provided grounds for
The Club then filed a motion for reconsideration
dismissal of an employee which included malversation of
which the NLRC denied. CA upheld the NLRC ruling.
union funds.
 The three respondents were dismissed only after the
Club reviewed and considered the documents submitted
ISSUE: Whether the three respondents were by the Union vis--vis the written explanations submitted
illegally dismissed. by said respondents. Under these circumstances, we find
that the Club had afforded the three respondents a
HELD: NO.
reasonable opportunity to be heard and defend
Another cause for termination is dismissal from themselves.
employment due to the enforcement of the union
Case # 12:
security clause in the CBA. Here, Art. II of the CBA on
Union security contains the provisions on the Union shop DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC. and WARFREDO
and maintenance of membership shop. Termination of C. BALANDRA vs. MARIANO SALDIVAR, NENA
employment by virtue of a union security clause TIMBAL, VIRGINIO VICERA, ALFREDO AMONCIO
embodied in a CBA is recognized and accepted in our and NAZARIO S. COLASTE
jurisdiction. This practice strengthens the union and
prevents disunity. Facts:

In terminating the employment of an employee by The Associated Labor Union (ALU) is the exclusive
enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs bargaining agent of plantation workers of petitioner Del
only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security Monte Philippines, Inc. (Del Monte) in Bukidnon.
clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the Respondent Nena Timbal is also a member of ALU. Del
enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; Monte and ALU entered into a Collective Bargaining
and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the unions Agreement (CBA) with an effective term of five (5) years
decision to expel the employee from the union. These from 1 September 1988 to 31 August 1993.
requisites constitute just cause for terminating an
employee based on the CBAs union security provision. Timbal, along with four other employees were charged
by ALU for disloyalty to the union, particularly for
The language of Art. II of the CBA that the Union encouraging defections to a rival union, the National
members must maintain their membership in good Federation of Labor (NFL). Allegedly, Nena Timbal
standing as a condition sine qua non for their continued personally recruited other bonafide members of the ALU
employment with the Club is unequivocal. It is also clear to attend NFL seminars and has actually attended these
that upon demand by the Union and after due process, seminars together with the other ALU members. The
the Club shall terminate the employment of a regular matter was referred to a body within the ALU
rank-and-file employee who may be found liable for a organization, ominously named Disloyalty Board. The
number of offenses, one of which is malversation of charge against Timbal was supported by an affidavit
Union funds. executed on 23 March 1993 by Gemma Artajo, also an
employee of Del Monte.
The three respondents were expelled from and by the
Union after due investigation for acts of dishonesty and Timbal filed an Answer before the Disloyalty Board,
malversation of Union funds. In accordance with the denying the allegations in the complaint and the
CBA, the Union properly requested the Club, letterto averments in Artajos Affidavit. Nevertheless, the ALU
enforce the Union security provision in their CBA and Disloyalty Board concluded that Timbal was guilty of acts
terminate said respondents. Then, in compliance with or conduct inimical to the interests of ALU. It found that
the Unions request, the Club reviewed the documents the acts imputed to Timbal were partisan activities,
submitted by the Union, requested said respondents to prohibited since the freedom period had not yet
submit written explanations, and thereafter afforded commenced as of that time. Thus, the Disloyalty Board
them reasonable opportunity to present their side. After recommended the expulsion of Timbal from membership
it had determined that there was sufficient evidence that in ALU, and likewise her dismissal from Del Monte in
said respondents malversed Union funds, the Club accordance with the Union Security Clause in the
dismissed them from their employment conformably existing CBA between ALU and Del Monte. The Regional
with Sec. 4(f) of the CBA. Vice President of ALU adopted the recommendations of
the Disloyalty Board and affirmed by the ALU National
Considering the foregoing circumstances, we are President the expulsion of Timbal. Timbal and her co-
constrained to rule that there is sufficient cause for the employees were terminated upon demand of ALU
three respondents termination from employment. We pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 of Article III of the current
rule that the Club substantially complied with the due Collective Bargaining Agreement.
process requirements before it dismissed the three
respondents. Timbal and her co-employees filed separate complaints
against Del Monte for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
The three respondents were notified that their dismissal practice and damages. The Labor Arbiter affirmed that
was being requested by the Union, and their all five were illegally dismissed and ordered Del Monte to
explanations were heard. Then, the Club, through its reinstate complainants, including Timbal, to their former
President, conferred with said respondents during the positions and to pay their full backwages and other
last week of October 2001. allowances, though the other claims and charges were
dismissed for want of basis. The NLRC reversed the evidence, as appreciated by an impartial trier of facts.
Labor Arbiter and ruled that all the complainants were None of the trier of facts below the Labor Arbiter, the
validly dismissed. On review, the Court of Appeals ruled NLRC and the Court of Appeals saw fit to accord
that only Timbal was illegally dismissed. credence to Piqueros testimony.

Issues: The Disloyalty Board may have appreciated Piqueros

testimony in its own finding that Timbal was guilty, yet
1. or not Del Monte Philippines is guilty of unfair the said board cannot be considered as a wholly neutral
labor practice. or dispassionate tribunal since it was constituted by the
very organization that stood as the offended party in the
2. Whether or not Timbal was illegally dismissed.
disloyalty charge. Without impugning the integrity of
Held: ALU and the mechanisms it has employed for the
internal discipline of its members, we nonetheless hold
1. No. that in order that the dismissal of an employee may be
validated by this Court, it is necessary that the grounds
It bears elaboration that Timbal’s dismissal is not
for dismissal are justified by substantial evidence as duly
predicated on any of the just or authorized causes for
appreciated by an impartial trier of facts. The existence
dismissal under Book Six, Title I of the Labor Code but
of Piqueros testimony was appreciated only by the
on the union security clause in the CBA between Del
Disloyalty Board, but not by any of the impartial
Monte and ALU. Stipulations in the CBA authorizing the
tribunals which heard Timbals case. The appreciation of
dismissal of employees are of equal import as the
such testimony by the Disloyalty Board without any
statutory provisions on dismissal under the Labor Code,
similar affirmation or concurrence by the NLRC-RAB, the
since a CBA is the law between the company and the
NLRC, or the Court of Appeals, cannot satisfy the
union and compliance therewith is mandated by the
substantive due process requirement as a means of
express policy to give protection to labor. The CBA,
upholding Timbals dismissal.
which covers all regular hourly paid employees at the
pineapple plantation in Bukidnon stipulates that all All told, we see no error on the part of the Court of
present and subsequent employees shall be required to Appeals when it held that Timbal was illegally dismissed.
become a member of ALU as a condition of continued
employment. A CBA provision for a closed-shop is a valid Case # 13:
form of union security and it is not a restriction on the
BPI vs. BPI-EU Davao Chapter
right or freedom of association guaranteed by the
Constitution. Facts:
Timbal’s expulsion from ALU was premised on the On March 23, 2000, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
ground of disloyalty to the union, which under Section approved the Articles of Merger executed on January 20,
4(3), Article II of the CBA, also stands as a ground for 2000 by and between BPI, herein petitioner, and FEBTC.
her dismissal from Del Monte to wit: that loss of This Article and Plan of Merger was approved by the
membership in the union shall not be a ground for Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2000.
dismissal by the company except where loss of
membership is due to disloyalty to ALU in accordance Respondent BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter -
with its Constitution and By-Laws as duly registered with Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank (hereinafter the
the Department of Labor and Employment. Indeed, Union, for brevity) is the exclusive bargaining agent of
Section 5, Article II of the CBA enjoins Del Monte to BPIs rank and file employees in Davao City. The former
dismiss from employment those employees expelled FEBTC rank-and-file employees in Davao City did not
from ALU for disloyalty, albeit with the qualification in belong to any labor union at the time of the merger.
accordance with law. Prior to the effectivity of the merger, or on March 31,
2000, respondent Union invited said FEBTC employees
2. Yes to a meeting regarding the Union Shop Clause (Article
II, Section 2) of the existing CBA between petitioner BPI
Even if the dismissal of an employee is conditioned not
and respondent Union.
on the grounds for termination under the Labor Code,
but pursuant to the provisions of a CBA, it still is The parties both advert to certain provisions of the
necessary to observe substantive due process in order to existing CBA, which are quoted below:
validate the dismissal. As applied to the Labor Code,
adherence to substantive due process is a requisite for a Section 2. Union Shop - New employees falling within
valid determination that just or authorized causes the bargaining unit as defined in Article I of this
existed to justify the dismissal. As applied to the Agreement, who may hereafter be regularly employed
dismissals grounded on violations of the CBA, by the Bank shall, within thirty (30) days after they
observance of substantial due process is indispensable in become regular employees, join the Union as a condition
establishing the presence of the cause or causes for of their continued employment. It is understood that
dismissal as provided for in the CBA. The dismissal for membership in good standing in the Union is a condition
cause of employees must be justified by substantial
of their continued employment with the Bank.[8] regular employee who was regularized weeks or months
(Emphases supplied.) after his hiring and a new employee who was absorbed
from another bank as a regular employee pursuant to a
Respondent Union then sent notices to the former merger, for purposes of applying the Union Shop Clause.
FEBTC employees who refused to join, as well as those Both employees were hired/employed only after the CBA
who retracted their membership, and called them to a was signed. At the time they are being required to join
hearing regarding the matter. When these former FEBTC the Union, they are both already regular rank and file
employees refused to attend the hearing, the president employees of BPI. They belong to the same bargaining
of the Union requested BPI to implement the Union unit being represented by the Union. They both enjoy
Shop Clause of the CBA and to terminate their benefits that the Union was able to secure for them
employment pursuant thereto. under the CBA. When they both entered the employ of
BPI, the CBA and the Union Shop Clause therein were
After two months of management inaction on the
already in effect and neither of them had the
request, respondent Union informed petitioner BPI of its
opportunity to express their preference for unionism or
decision to refer the issue of the implementation of the
not. We see no cogent reason why the Union Shop
Union Shop Clause of the CBA to the Grievance
Clause should not be applied equally to these two types
Committee. However, the issue remained unresolved at
of new employees, for they are undeniably similarly
this level and so it was subsequently submitted for
situated.
voluntary arbitration by the parties.
The effect or consequence of BPIs so-called absorption
Issue(s):
of former FEBTC employees should be limited to what
Whether or not the former FEBTC employees they actually agreed to, i.e. recognition of the FEBTC
that were absorbed by petitioner upon the merger employees years of service, salary rate and other
between FEBTC and BPI should be covered by the Union benefits with their previous employer. The effect should
Shop Clause found in the existing CBA between not be stretched so far as to exempt former FEBTC
petitioner and respondent Union. employees from the existing CBA terms, company
policies and rules which apply to employees similarly
Yes, all employees in the bargaining unit covered by a situated. If the Union Shop Clause is valid as to other
Union Shop Clause in their CBA with management are new regular BPI employees, there is no reason why the
subject to its terms. However, under law and same clause would be a violation of the absorbed
jurisprudence, the following kinds of employees are employees freedom of association.
exempted from its coverage, namely, employees who at
the time the union shop agreement takes effect are Right of an Employee not to Join a Union is not Absolute
bona fide members of a religious organization which and Must Give Way to the Collective Good of All
prohibits its members from joining labor unions on Members of the Bargaining Unit (note: relevant to ULP
religious grounds; employees already in the service and topic)
already members of a union other than the majority at
However, Victoriano is consistent with Juat since they
the time the union shop agreement took effect;
both affirm that the right to refrain from joining a union
confidential employees who are excluded from the rank
is not absolute. The relevant portion of Victoriano is
and file bargaining unit; and employees excluded from
quoted below:
the union shop by express terms of the agreement.
The right to refrain from joining labor organizations
Indeed, the situation of the former FEBTC employees in
recognized by Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act is,
this case clearly does not fall within the first three
however, limited. The legal protection granted to such
exceptions to the application of the Union Shop Clause
right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of
discussed earlier. No allegation or evidence of religious
law, where a labor union and an employer have agreed
exemption or prior membership in another union or
on a closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may
engagement as a confidential employee was presented
employ only member of the collective bargaining union,
by both parties. The sole category therefore in which
and the employees must continue to be members of the
petitioner may prove its claim is the fourth recognized
union for the duration of the contract in order to keep
exception or whether the former FEBTC employees are
their jobs. Thus Section 4 (a) (4) of the Industrial Peace
excluded by the express terms of the existing CBA
Act, before its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350,
between petitioner and respondent.
provides that although it would be an unfair labor
practice for an employer "to discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
No Substantial Distinction Under the CBA Between employment to encourage or discourage membership in
Regular Employees Hired After Probationary Status and any labor organization" the employer is, however, not
Regular Employees Hired After the Merger precluded "from making an agreement with a labor
organization to require as a condition of employment
membership therein, if such labor organization is the
Verily, we agree with the Court of Appeals that there are representative of the employees."
no substantial differences between a newly hired non-
By virtue, therefore, of a closed shop agreement, before Issue:
the enactment of Republic Act No. 3350, if any person,
regardless of his religious beliefs, wishes to be employed Whether or not the UNION is entitled to collect
or to keep his employment, he must become a member agency fees from non-union members, and if so,
of the collective bargaining union. Hence, the right of whether an individual written authorization is necessary
said employee not to join the labor union is curtailed and for a valid check off.
withdrawn.
Held: YES. Union is entitled to agency fees.
Case # 14
NO. No need for individual authorization.
G.R. No. 170112 April 30, 2008
The collection of agency fees in an amount
DEL PILAR ACADEMY, EDUARDO ESPEJO and equivalent to union dues and fees, from employees who
ELISEO OCAMPO, JR., petitioners, vs. DEL PILAR are not union members, is recognized by Article 248(e)
ACADEMY EMPLOYEES UNION, respondents. of the Labor Code, thus:

Doctrine: Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit

who are not members of the recognized collective
The employee's acceptance of benefits resulting from a bargaining agent may be assessed reasonable fees
collective bargaining agreement justifies the deduction equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by the
of agency fees from his pay and the union's entitlement recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union
thereto. In this aspect, the legal basis of the union's members accept the benefits under the collective
right to agency fees is neither contractual nor statutory, bargaining agreement. Provided, That the individual
but quasi-contractual, deriving from the established authorization required under Article 241, paragraph (o)
principle that non-union employees may not unjustly of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of
enrich themselves by benefiting from employment recognized collective bargaining agent.
conditions negotiated by the bargaining union.
The grant of annual salary increase is not the only
Facts: provision in the CBA that benefited the non-union
employees. The UNION negotiated for other benefits,
Respondent Del Pilar Academy Employees Union (the namely, limitations on teaching assignments to 23 hours
UNION) is the certified collective bargaining per week, additional compensation for overload units or
representative of teaching and non-teaching personnel teaching assignments in excess of the 23 hour per week
of petitioner Del Pilar Academy (DEL PILAR), an limit, and payment of longevity pay. It also negotiated
educational institution operating in Imus, Cavite. for entitlement to summer vacation leave with pay for
two (2) months for teaching staff who have rendered six
The UNION and DEL PILAR entered into a Collective
(6) consecutive semesters of service. For the non-
Bargaining Agreement (CBA)3granting salary increase
teaching personnel, the UNION worked for their
and other benefits to the teaching and non-teaching
entitlement to fifteen (15) days leave with pay.13 These
staff.
provisions in the CBA surely benefited the non-union
The UNION then assessed agency fees from non-union employees, justifying the collection of, and the UNION’s
employees, and requested DEL PILAR to deduct said entitlement to, agency fees.
assessment from the employees’ salaries and wages.
No requirement of written authorization from the non-
DEL PILAR, however, refused to effect deductions
union employees is needed to effect a valid check off.
claiming that the non-union employees were not
Article 248(e) makes it explicit that Article 241(o),
amenable to it.
requiring written authorization is inapplicable to non-
The UNION negotiated for the renewal of the CBA. DEL union members, especially in this case where the non-
PILAR, however, refused to renew the same unless the union employees receive several benefits under the CBA.
provision regarding entitlement to two (2) months
As explained by this Court in Holy Cross of Davao
summer vacation leave with pay will be amended. The
College, Inc. v. Hon. Joaquin. The employee's
UNION objected to the proposal claiming diminution of
acceptance of benefits resulting from a collective
benefits.
bargaining agreement justifies the deduction of agency
The UNION requested DEL PILAR to submit the case for fees from his pay and the union's entitlement thereto. In
voluntary arbitration, but the latter allegedly refused, this aspect, the legal basis of the union's right to agency
prompting the UNION to file a case for unfair labor fees is neither contractual nor statutory, but quasi-
practice with the Labor Arbiter against DEL PILAR. contractual, deriving from the established principle that
non-union employees may not unjustly enrich
DEL PILAR denied committing unfair labor practices themselves by benefiting from employment conditions
against the UNION. It justified the non-deduction of the negotiated by the bargaining union.
agency fees by the absence of individual check off
authorization from the non-union employees.
Case # 15: discriminate against an employee for having given or
being about to give testimony" 25 under the Labor
NORMA MABEZA, vs. NLRC Code. For in not giving positive testimony in favor of her
employer, petitioner had reserved not only her right to
Facts:
dispute the claim and proffer evidence in support thereof
Petitioner Norma Mabeza filed a complaint for illegal but also to work for better terms and conditions of
dismissal before the NLRC. She alleged that she and her employment.
co-employees at the Hotel Supreme were asked by the
Case #16:
hotel's management to sign an instrument attesting to
the latter's compliance with minimum wage and other SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-
labor standard provisions of law, to which she signed PTGWO vs. HON. JESUS G. BERSAMIRA
but refused to swear to the veracity and contents
affidavit before a prosecutor as instructed by Facts:
management. Subsequently, she was ordered by the
hotel management to turn over the keys to her living SanMig contracted the services of Lipercon and D'Rite,
quarters and to remove her belongings from the hotel which were duly licensed by the DOLE as independent
premises. She thereafter filed a leave of absence from contractors. In said contracts, it was expressly
her job which was denied by management. When she understood and agreed that the workers employed by
attempted to return to work, the same was the contractors were to be paid by the latter and that
denied.Respondent claimed that petitioner’s none of them were to be deemed employees or agents
abandonment of her job and and loss of confidence are of SanMig. There was to be no employer-employee
sufficient cause for her termination. relation between the contractors and/or its workers, on
the one hand, and SanMig on the other.
Issue:
Petitioner Union is the duly authorized representative of
1. W/N the dismissal is legal. the monthly paid rank-and-file employees of SanMig
with whom the latter executed a CBA. The Union
2. W/N the dismissal constitutes ULP. advised SanMig that some Lipercon and D'Rite workers
had signed up for union membership and sought the
regularization of their employment with SMC.
Ruling:
On the ground that it had failed to receive any favorable
1. NO. Respondent’s claim that petitioner response from SanMig, the Union filed a notice of strike
"abandoned" her job were not enough to constitute just for unfair labor practice, CBA violations, and union
cause to sanction the termination of her services under busting. On the other hand, SanMig denies the existence
Article 283 of the Labor Code. For abandonment to of any employer-employee relationship and consequently
arise, there must be concurrence of two things: 1) lack of any labor dispute between itself and the Union.
of intention to work; and 2) the presence of overt acts
Issue:
signifying the employee's intention not to work.
1. W/N there exist an Unfair Labor Practice.
In the instant case, the fact that she made this attempt
clearly indicates not an intention to abandon but an Ruling:
intention to return to work after the period of her leave
of absence, had it been granted, shall have expired. 1. YES. SanMig, resists that Union demand on the
Furthermore, while absence from work for a prolonged ground that there is no employer-employee relationship
period may suggest abandonment in certain instances, between it and those workers and because the demand
mere absence of one or two days would not be enough violates the terms of their CBA. Obvious then is that
to sustain such a claim. representation and association, for the purpose of
negotiating the conditions of employment are also
2. YES. The act of compelling employees to sign involved. In fact, the injunction sought by SanMig was
an instrument indicating that the employer observed precisely also to prevent such representation. Again, the
labor standards provisions of law when he might have matter of representation falls within the scope of a labor
not, together with the act of terminating or coercing dispute. Neither can it be denied that the controversy
those who refuse to cooperate with the employer's below is directly connected with the labor dispute
scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. The first act already taken cognizance of by the NCMB-DOLE.
clearly preempts the right of the hotel's workers to seek
better terms and conditions of employment through As the case is indisputably linked with a labor dispute,
concerted action. jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals. As explicitly
provided for in Article 217 of the Labor Code, prior to its
This actuation . . . is analogous to the situation amendment by R.A. No. 6715 on 21 March 1989, since
envisaged in paragraph (f) of Article 248 of the Labor the suit below was instituted on 6 March 1989, Labor
Code" 24 which distinctly makes it an unfair labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear
practice "to dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or and decide the following cases involving all workers
including "1. unfair labor practice cases; 2. those that (2) Imposing upon GMC the draft CBA proposed by the
workers may file involving wages, hours of work and union for two years to begin from the expiration of the
other terms and conditions of employment; ... and 5. original CBA.
cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this
Code, including questions involving the legality of striker Held: 1. Yes(Duty to bargain), Under Article 252
and lockouts. ..." Article 217 lays down the plain abovecited, both parties are required to perform their
command of the law. mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating
Case # 17: an agreement. The union lived up to this obligation
when it presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC
General Milling Corporation vs. CA within three (3) years from the effectivity of the original
CBA. But GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What
Facts:
it did was to devise a flimsy excuse, by questioning the
In its two plants located at Cebu City and Lapu-Lapu existence of the union and the status of its
City, petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC)
(Interfering) The CA found that the letters between
employed 190 workers. They were all members of
February to June 1993 by 13 union members signifying
private respondent General Milling Corporation
their resignation from the union clearly indicated that
Independent Labor Union (union, for brevity), a duly
GMC exerted pressure on its employees. The records
certified bargaining agent.
show that GMC presented these letters to prove that the
On April 28, 1989, GMC and the union concluded a union no longer enjoyed the support of the workers. The
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which included fact that the resignations of the union members
the issue of representation effective for a term of three occurred during the pendency of the case before the
years. The CBA was effective for three years retroactive labor arbiter shows GMCs desperate attempts to cast
to December 1, 1988. Hence, it would expire on doubt on the legitimate status of the union. We agree
November 30, 1991. with the CAs conclusion that the ill-timed letters of
resignation from the union members indicate that GMC
On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of had interfered with the right of its employees to self-
the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a organization. Thus, we hold that the appellate court did
request that a counter-proposal be submitted within ten not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding GMC
(10) days. guilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with the
right of its employees to self-organization.
As early as October 1991, however, GMC had received
collective and individual letters from workers who stated 2. No. The general rule is that when a CBA already
that they had withdrawn from their union membership, exists, its provision shall continue to govern the
on grounds of religious affiliation and personal relationship between the parties, until a new one is
differences. Believing that the union no longer had agreed upon. The rule necessarily presupposes that all
standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not send any other things are equal. That is, that neither party is
counter-proposal. guilty of bad faith. However, when one of the parties
abuses this grace period by purposely delaying the
On December 16, 1991, GMC wrote a letter to the
bargaining process, a departure from the general rule is
unions officers, Rito Mangubat and Victor Lastimoso.
warranted.
The letter stated that it felt there was no basis to
negotiate with a union which no longer existed, but that Case #19 ST. JOHN COLLEGES, INC., VS. ST.
management was nonetheless always willing to dialogue JOHN ACADEMY FACULTY AND EMPLOYEES
with them on matters of common concern and was open UNION
to suggestions on how the company may improve its
operations. G.R. No. 167892 October 27, 2006

In answer, the union officers wrote a letter dated FACTS:

December 19, 1991 disclaiming any massive disaffiliation
Petitioner St. John Colleges, Inc. (SJCI) is a domestic
or resignation from the union and submitted a
corporation which owns and operates the St. John’s
manifesto, signed by its members, stating that they had
Academy (later renamed St. John Colleges) in Calamba,
not withdrawn from the union.
Laguna. Prior to 1998, the Academy offered a secondary
Issues: course only. The high school then employed about 80
teaching and non-teaching personnel who were
(1) Finding GMC guilty of unfair labor practice for members of the St. John Academy Faculty & Employees
violating the duty to bargain collectively and/or Union (Union).
interfering with the right of its employees to self-
organization. The CBA between SJCI and the Union was set to expire
on May 31, 1997. During the ensuing collective
bargaining negotiations, SJCI rejected all the proposals
of the Union for an increase in worker’s benefits.
This resulted to a bargaining deadlock which led to the decision of the Labor Arbiter, SJCI resolved to reopen
holding of a valid strike by the Union on November 10, the high school for school year 1999-2000.
1997.In order to end the strike, SJCI and the Union,
through the efforts of the NCMB, agreed to refer the However, it did not restore the high school teaching and
labor dispute to the Secretary of Labor and Employment non-teaching employees it earlier terminated. That same
(SOLE) for assumption of jurisdiction. school year SJCI opened an elementary and college
department.
After which, the strike ended and classes resumed.
Subsequently, the SOLE issued an Order assuming The NLRC rendered judgment reversing the decision of
jurisdiction over the labor dispute pursuant to Article 263 the Labor Arbiter. It found SJCI guilty of ULP and illegal
of the Labor Code. The parties were required to submit dismissal and ordered it to reinstate the 25 employees to
their respective position papers. their former positions without loss of seniority rights and
other benefits, and with full back wages.
Pending resolution of the labor dispute before the SOLE,
the Board of Directors of SJCI approved on February 22, It also required SJCI to pay moral and exemplary
1998 a resolution recommending the closure of the high damages, attorney’s fees, and two (2) months
school which was approved by the stockholders on even summer/vacation pay.
date.
Moreover, it ruled that the mass actions conducted by
Thereafter, SJCI informed the DOLE, DECS, parents, the 25 employees on May 4, 1998 could not be
students and the Union of the impending closure of the considered as a strike since, by then, the employer-
high school. Subsequently, some teaching and non- employee relationship had already been terminated due
teaching personnel of the high school agreed to the to the closure of the high school.
closure. Some 51 employees had received their
On appeal the CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
separation compensation package while 25 employees
refused to accept the same. ISSUE:

Instead, these employees conducted a protest action Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of ULP and illegal
within the perimeter of the high school. The Union filed dismissal.
a notice of strike. Thereafter SJCI filed a petition to
declare the strike illegal before the NLRC. It claimed that HELD:
the strike was conducted in violation of the procedural
YES, SJCI is liable for ULP and illegal dismissal.
requirements for holding a valid strike under the Labor
Code. Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, the following
requisites must concur for a valid closure of the
Subsequently, the 25 employees filed a complaint for
business:
unfair labor practice (ULP), illegal dismissal and non-
payment of monetary benefits against SJCI before the (1) Serving a written notice on the workers at least one
NLRC, alleging that the closure of the high school was (1) month before the intended date thereof;
done in bad faith in order to get rid of the Union and
render useless any decision of the SOLE on the CBA (2) Serving a notice with the DOLE one month before
deadlocked issues. the taking effect of the closure;

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the Union’s complaint for (3) Payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1)
ULP and illegal dismissal while granting SJCI’s petition to month or at least one half (1/2) month pay for every
declare the strike illegal coupled with a declaration of year of service, whichever is higher, with a fraction of at
loss of employment status of the 25 Union members least six (6) months to be considered as a whole year;
involved in the strike. and

The Union filed a manifestation to maintain the status (4) Cessation of the operation must be bona fide.
quo on March 30, 1998 praying that SJCI be enjoined
from closing the high school. It is not disputed that the first two requisites were
satisfied. The third requisite would have been satisfied
It claimed that the decision of SJCI to close the high were it not for the refusal of the herein private
school violated the SOLE’s assumption order and the respondents to accept the separation compensation
agreement of the parties not to take any retaliatory package.
action against the other.
The instant case, thus, revolves around the fourth
For its part, SJCI filed a motion to dismiss with entry of requisite, i.e., whether SJCI closed the high school in
appearance on October 14, 1998 claiming that the good faith.
closure of the high school rendered the CBA deadlocked
issues moot. In sum, the SC held that the timing of, and the reasons
for the closure of the high school and its reopening after
The SOLE denied SJCI’s motions to dismiss and certified only one year from the time it was closed down, show
the CBA deadlock case to the NLRC. After the favorable that the closure was done in bad faith for the purpose of
circumventing the Union’s right to collective bargaining However, the pictures were never authenticated and, on
and its members’ right to security of tenure. its face, only show that some students watched the
Union members while they conducted their protest
FIRST: As to the timing of and reason for closure of the actions. It is the employer carries the burden of proof to
high school. establish that the closure of the business was done in
good faith.
(a) SJCI contended that it was forced to close down the
high school due to alleged difficult labor problems that it In the instant case, SJCI had the burden of proving that,
encountered while dealing with the Union since 1995, indeed, the closure of the school was necessary to
specifically, the Union’s illegal demands in violation of uphold the safety and well-being of the students.
R.A. 6728.
SJCI presented no evidence to show that the protest
Under R.A. 6728, the income from tuition fee increase is actions turned violent; that the parents did not give their
to be used as follows: consent to their children who allegedly joined the
protest actions; that the Union did not take the
(a) 70% of the tuition fee shall go to the payment of
necessary steps to protect some of the students who
salaries, wages, allowances, and other benefits of
allegedly joined the same; or that the Union forced or
teaching and non- teaching personnel, and;
pressured the said students to join the protest actions
(b) 20% of the tuition fee increase shall go to the
Even assuming arguendo that the safety and well-being
improvement or modernization of the buildings,
of some of the students who allegedly joined the protest
equipment, and other facilities as well as payment of the
actions were compromised, still, the closure was done in
cost of operations.
bad faith because it was done long after the strike had
The alleged illegality and excessiveness of the Union’s ended. Thus, there is no more danger to the students’
demands were not sufficiently proved by SJCI. The well-being posed by the strike to speak of.
alleged illegality or excessiveness of the Union’s
Furthermore, if SJCI was after the interests of the
demands were the issues to be resolved by the SOLE
students, then it should not have closed the school
after the parties agreed to refer the said labor dispute to
because the parents and the students were vehemently
the latter for assumption of jurisdiction.
opposed to the same.
The SOLE certified the case to the NLRC, which
SECOND: As to the timing and reason for the reopening
rendered a decision finding that there was insufficient
of the school. SJCI next contends that the subsequent
evidence to determine the reasonableness of the Union’s
reopening of the high school after only one year from its
proposals.
closure did not show that the previous decision to close
At any rate, even assuming that the Union’s demands the high school was tainted with bad faith because the
were illegal or excessive, the important and crucial point reopening was done due to the clamor of the high
is that these alleged illegal or excessive demands did not school’s former students and their parents.
justify the closure of the high school and do not, in
The contention was untenable.
anyway, establish SJCI’s good faith.
First, the fact that after one year from the time it closed
The Labor Code does not authorize the employer to
its high school, SJCI opened a college and elementary
close down the establishment on the ground of illegal or
department, and reopened its high school department
excessive demands of the Union.
showed that it never intended to cease operating as an
Instead, aside from the remedy of submitting the educational institution.
dispute for voluntary or compulsory arbitration, the
Second, there is evidence on record contesting the
employer may file a complaint for ULP against the Union
alleged reason of SJCI for reopening the high school,
for bargaining in bad faith.
i.e., that its former students and their parents allegedly
If found guilty, this gives rise to civil and criminal clamored for the reopening of the high school.
liabilities and allows the employer to implement a lock
Finally, when SJCI reopened its high school, it did not
out, but not the closure of the establishment resulting to
rehire the Union members; evidently, the closure had
the permanent loss of employment of the whole
achieved its purpose, that is, to get rid of the Union
workforce.
members.
(b) SJCI also contended that the Union unduly
endangered the safety and well-being of the students
who joined the valid strike held on November, thus it
closed down the high school on March 31, 1998.

SJCI provided no evidence to substantiate these claims

except for its self-serving statements in its position
paper before the Labor Arbiter and pictures belatedly
attached to the instant petition before this Court.
Case # 20: RUC, thru its personnel manager, terminated the
services of respondent Cruz allegedly on the basis of the
Arellano Universty v. CA latter's "record and after careful analysis and
deliberation." Respondent's wife, Felicidad Cruz, who
Facts:
was also an employee of RUC, was likewise terminated.
The Arellano University Employees and Workers Thus, RUWU called a strike.
Union is the exclusive bargaining representative of about
RUWU-PTGWO and Petitioner Corporation entered into a
380 rank-and-file employees of Arellano University. The
Return-to-Work Agreement thru the conciliation efforts
union filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike charging the
of the Department of Labor. The records do not disclose
University with Unfair Labor Practice ULP. After several
the results of the consent election. Subsequently
controversies and petitions, a strike was staged.
however, Cruz and his wife were both re-employed and
Upon the lifting of the strike, the University filed a reinstated by RUC, thereby indicating the victory of
Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal before the NLRC. RUWU-PTGWO in the consent election. RUWU-PTGWO
The NLRC issued a Resolution holding that the University and RUC entered into a collective bargaining agreement
was not guilty of ULP. Consequently, the strike was which contained a grievance procedure for the
declared illegal. All the employees who participated in settlement of disputes.
the illegal strike were thereafter declared to have lost
Such grievance procedure was applied on several
their employment status.
occasions involving suspensions of union members-
Issue: employees through the help and active participation of
respondent Cruz as union president. The PTGWO urged
W/N an employee is deemed to have lost his its member-unions to stage a nationwide strike. Thus,
employment by mere participation in an illegal strike. respondent Cruz campaigned among the members of
RUWU to join the strike.
Ruling:
The general manager of RUC placed Cruz on preventive
No. Under Art. 264 of the LC, an ordinary
suspension for threatening "the lives of four employees"
striking worker may not be declared to have lost his
and for having 'been reported under the influence of
employment status by mere participation in an illegal
liquor," both acts are "contrary to rules and regulations."
strike. There must be proof that he knowingly
Upon the request of Cruz and PTGWO, RUC conducted a
participated in the commission of illegal acts during the
conference which was in the nature of an investigation
strike. While the University adduced photographs
of the incident. RUC dismissed Cruz for being under the
showing strikers picketing outside the university
influence of liquor and for having threatened the lives of
premises, it failed to identify who they were. It thus
four of his co-employees.
failed to meet the substantiality of evidence test
applicable in dismissal cases. Cruz filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against
RUC with the Court of Industrial Relations. The
However, with respect to the union officers, as already
respondent industrial court, while affirming the findings
discussed, their mere participation in the illegal strike
of the healing examiner, rendered a decision. Hence,
warrants their dismissal.
this petition for review on certiorari with the RUC.
Hence, an employee cannot be outrightly dismissed by
Issues:
mere participation in illegal strike.
1. Whether or not the corporation is guilty of unfair
Case # 21:
labor practice.
ROYAL UNDERGARMENT CORPORATION OF THE
2. Whether or not Antonio Cruz was illegally
PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
dismissed.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ROYAL
UNDERGARMENT WORKERS UNION (PTGWO) and Held:
ANTONIO CRUZ, respondents.
1. Yes.
Facts:
The Court of Industrial Relations found from the
Antonio Cruz was employed by Royal surrounding circumstances of the case, a valid and
Undergarment Corporation (RUC) as an electrician. He sufficient basis for the charge of unfair labor practice
was elected president of the Royal Undergarment against the company. On the part of the company there
Workers Union (RUWU), a legitimate labor organization appears to be an attitude of antipathy towards Antonio
which became affiliated with the Philippine Transport Cruz. We have on record the undisputed facts that
and General Workers Organization (PTGWO). The private respondent, as president of RUWU, was known
RUWU-PTGWO, represented by the National Secretary of for his aggressive and militant union activities; that he
PTGWO and Cruz as RUWU President, sent proposals to and his wife had been previously dismissed on the
RUC for the purpose of collective bargaining. ground of active participation in union affairs; that they
were re¬employed only pursuant to the express terms
of the Return-to-Work Agreement executed by petitioner Case # 22:
corporation and RUWU when the latter won in the
consent election; that respondent Cruz was dismissed NATIONAL LABOR UNION vs. COURT OF
again for the second time in the course of his campaign INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, EVERLASTING
among RUWU members to join the nationwide strike of MANUFACTURING, ANG WO LONG and BENITO S.
PTGWO in which RUWU is a member union. The incident ESTANISLAO
was simply blown into such proportion so as to provide a
FACTS: Petitioner charged respondent Everlasting
supposed valid cause for Cruz’ dismissal. In the light of
Manufacturing of ULP. After the conclusion of their CBA,
the initial attitude of the company earlier discussed, the
respondent company began hiring 24 new workers. On
inducing cause directly contributing to Cruz’ dismissal is
the pretext of selling and closing its business, and
the company's antipathy to Antonio Cruz’ union activity
without any justifiable reason respondent company
and not his misconduct.
dismissed and/or locked out all the members of
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, known as the The complainant.
Industrial Peace Act, as amended, provides that
Respondent company continued with its business
employees shall have the right to self-organization and
operations by availing of the services of the above-
to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own
mentioned 24 new workers who are non-union
choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining
members, using the same premises, business name,
through representatives of their own choosing and to
machineries, tool and implements, same officials and
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
supervisors. Respondent failed and refused and
collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection.
continues to fail and refuse to reinstate them to their
Hence, it shall be unfair labor practice for an employer
jobs.
to discriminate in regard to tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment to encourage or Respondent contended that the establishment was no
discourage membership in any labor organization longer owned by Estanislao but by Ang Wo Long who
(Section 4 (a)(4), R.A. No. 875). purchased the same and that the new owner is not duty
bound to respect whatever agreement has been entered
2. Yes.
into by the former owner and the workers.
Based on the totality of evidence as found by the CIR
ISSUE:
supports the conclusion that respondent Cruz has been
unjustly dismissed by reason of his union activities. The Whether or not respondent has committed an unfair
charge by petitioner against respondent Cruz for being labor practice.
under the influence of liquor on a certain date and for
having threatened the lives of his co-employees is too HELD: Yes.
flimsy to merit serious consideration.
The evidence on record shows that some eight
It has previously been indicated that an employer may days before the sale, Ang Wo Long filed an application
treat freely with an employee and is not obliged to for the registration of 'Everlasting Manufacturing' as a
support his actions with a reason or purpose. However, firm name or business name and that the corresponding
where the attendant circumstances, the history of the certificate of registration was issued to him by said office
employer's past conduct and like considerations, coupled the same day that the collective bargaining contract with
with an intimate connection between the employer's the union was executed.
action and the union affiliations or activities of the
Contrary to his claim, respondent Ang Wo Long
particular employee or employees taken as a whole raise
was already taking an active hand in the operation of
a suspicion as to the motivation for the employer's
the business establishment after it was sold to him, and
action, the failure of the employer to ascribe a valid
that the 21 complaining employees since then were
reason therefor may justify an inference that his
already working for him as new owner. The respondent
unexplained conduct in respect of the particular
Ang Wo Long did not show any just cause for dispensing
employee or employees was inspired by the latter's
with the services of all the 21 union members. "The
union membership or activities.
conclusion becomes inescapable that he (Mr. Ang)
dismissed the complainants in order to break the union
and do away with the existing CBA which it has obtained
only after a strike and bargaining negotiations.”

The person found guilty of unfair labor practice

did not show up at the reopened hearings and as far as
the records before US show, had disappeared. The
concatenation of circumstances clearly indicates the
participation of both Mr. Estanislao and Mr. Ang in the
unfair labor practice.
 The face of these known facts would be Case # 24:
tantamount to sanctioning a deception and conspiracy to
defraud the workers of their rights already obtained in CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION
the contract. petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC), and e.g. GOCHANGCO,
Case #23: INC., respondents.

Geronimo Quadra v. CA FACTS:

Facts: Petitioner union is a local chapter of the Central

Luzon Labor Congress (CLLC), a legitimate labor
While being the Chief Legal Officer of PCSO, federation duly registered with the Ministry of Labor and
Quadra was in active participation to the labor Employment (MOLE), while the individual petitioners are
organizations of both rank-and-file and supervisory former employees of private respondent who were
employees. Meanwhile, PCSO charged Quadra officers and members of the petitioner union.
administratively before the CSC on the ground of neglect
of duty, misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the Sometime in January 1980, the majority of the
service. The CSC found Quadra guilty on the charges rank and file employees of respondent firm organized
and recommended his dismissal. Quadra with the unions the e.g. Gochangco Workers Union as an affiliate of the
file a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor CLLC. The union filed a petition for certification election.
practice before the CIR against PCSO and its officers. The MOLE Region 111 office set the hearing for the
CIR found that the dismissal was illegal as it constitutes petition on February 27,1980.
unfair labor practice and ordered the reinstatement of
Quadra. PCSO heeded to the order and filed a petition The CLLC national president wrote the general
for certiorari before the SC. During the pendency of the manager of respondent firm informing him of the
case, Quadra filed a claim for moral and exemplary organization of the union and requesting for a labor
damages before the CIR. Since the CIR was abolished management conference to normalize employer-
and NLRC was constituted, the latter granted moral and employee relations. The union sent a written notice to
exemplary damages to Quadra. On appeal, CA reversed respondent firm requesting permission for certain
the decision. member officers and members of the union to attend
the hearing of the petition for certification election.
Issue:
On February 28, 1980, private respondent
W/N an award to moral and exemplary damages preventively suspended the union officers and members
to an illegally dismissed employee where dismissal who attended the hearing. The common ground alleged
constitutes unfair labor practice is proper. by private respondent for its action was "abandonment
of work on February 27, 1980." On the same date, all
Ruling: the gate passes of all the above-mentioned employees
to Clark Air Base were confiscated by a Base guard.
Yes. A dismissed employee is entitled to moral
damages when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or Claiming that private respondent instigated the
fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is confiscation of their gate passes to prevent them from
done in a manner contrary to good morals, good performing their duties and that respondent firm did not
customs or public policy. Exemplary damages may be pay them their overtime pay, , petitioner union and its
awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, members filed a complaint for constructive lockout and
oppressive or malevolent manner. unfair labor practice against private respondent.
It appears from the facts that petitioner was deliberately While private respondent filed an application for
dismissed from the service by reason of his active clearance to dismiss said employees. The services of
involvement in the activities of the union groups of both nine (9) more union members, were terminated by
the rank and file and the supervisory employees of private respondent on the ground that its contract with
PCSO, which unions he himself organized and headed. the U.S. Air Force had expired.
PCSO may not impute to the Civil Service Commission Labor Arbiter denied respondent's application for
the responsibility for petitioners illegal dismissal as it clearance. NLRC set aside the LA decision. Hence this
was respondent PCSO that first filed the administrative petition.
charge against him. As found by the CIR, petitioners
dismissal constituted unfair labor practice. It was done ISSUE 1:
to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization. WON respondent company is guilty of an unfair
labor practice.
Hence, it is proper to award moral and exemplary
damages to illegally dismissed employees as their
dismissal was tainted with unfair labor practice like the
dismissal of Quadra.
HELD: Yes. cases and not the instant unfair labor practice
controversy. In any event, we have held that unfair
It is no coincidence that at the time said labor practice cases are not, in view of the public
respondent issued its suspension and termination interest involved, subject to compromises.
orders, the petitioners were in the midst of a
certification election preliminary to a labor management
conference. It was within the legal right of the
petitioners to do so, and in which management may not
as a rule interfere. It is a brazen interference as well
with the employees right to self-organization, contrary to
the prohibition of the Labor Code against unfair labor
practices.

Furthermore, 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. There is a clear effort
by management to punish the petitioners for their union
activities.

As a consequence of such a suspension, the Clark Air

Base guards confiscated the employees' gate passes,
and banned them from the base premise. Those passes
would not have been confiscated had not management
ordered the suspension.

ISSUE 2:

WON petitioners were illegally dismissed.

HELD: YES.

Court was not persuaded by the respondent

firm's argument that final termination should be effected
as the contract has expired." Petitioners were regular
employees and as such, their tenure did not end with
the expiration of the contract. We quote:

The records show that petitioners employees

whose employment did not terminate with the expiration
of private respondent's contract with the U.S. Air Force.
As regular employees, the petitioners' tenure are secure,
and their dismissal must be premised on a just cause.

We find none here. There is no merit in the claim that

the petitioners' terms were coterminous with the
duration of the contract. There is nothing in the records
that would show that the petitioners were parties to that
contract. It appears furthermore that the petitioners
were in the employ of the respondent company long
before that contract was concluded. But even if dismissal
were warranted, the same nonetheless faces our
disapproval in the absence of a proper clearance then
required under the Labor Code. It is true that efforts
were undertaken to seek such a clearance, yet there is
no showing that it was issued. That still taints the
dismissal with the vice of illegality.

The Court likewise rejects the claims of an

alleged waiver by the petitioners of their economic
demands, in the light of an alleged order issued by
Labor Arbiter with another case(s) involving the same
parties Labor Arbiter Aquino's resolution refers to other