[9] ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY ASSOCIATION (AFA) vs.

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT, INC. (AIM) |G.R. NO. 219025|September 9, 2020

FACTS: The court resolves a petition filed by Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association (AFA),
assailing the decision of the CA affirming the NLRC decision holding that Asian Institute of Management
(AIM) is not guilty of unfair labor practice.

AFA is a labor organization registered with the DOLE formed by faculty members of AIM to act as a
collective body on behalf of its members for all matters concerning their rights and interests as
employees.

On September 6, 2005, AFA filed a Resolution asking AIM's management to recognize it as a legitimate
labor organization. AIM disregarded this, but the issue was elevated to AIM's Board of Trustees, headed
by Mr. Washington Sycip (Sycip). The Board refused to recognize AFA for "philosophical, economic[,] and
governance" considerations.

During the “Leadership Week” with its alumni and members of the Board of Trustees, the AFA, through a
law firm, slipped a letter to the hotel doors of members of the Board, claiming that AIM failed to allocate a
portion of the money received from the students’ tuition fee increases to the salaries of the professors. It
demanded AIM to pay them the salary increases for the faulty and other employees.

AFA filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against AIM. AFA stated in its Position Paper that AIM's
management abused and discriminated against its members.

AFA filed a Petition for Certification Election with the DOLE, which AIM subsequently opposed, claiming
that the faculty members of AIM were managerial employees prohibited from forming a union.

The CA held that to be considered unfair labor practice, the acts committed must “violate the workers’
right to organize.” However, there was no indication that AIM's actions in
suspending or refusing to renew the contracts of any of its teachers led to
"discrimination or harassment." 24 On the contrary, AIM's exercise of its
management prerogative was in good faith.

Before the Court, petitioner argues that respondent's acts against it could not be considered management
prerogative, as they were in bad faith and were clearly intended to harass and discriminate against
petitioner, its officers, members, and organizers. Furthermore, it submits that the Court of Appeals erred
in holding that respondent's opposition against its Petition for Certification Election does not equate to
unfair labor practice. Further, it claims that the Court of Appeals "should have sanctioned [respondent]"
for violating Section 1, Rule VIII of Department of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 40-F-03,
which mandates that in certification election proceedings, " the employer shall not be considered a party
with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election[.]"

ISSUE: Whether respondent’s actions constitute unfair labor practice. – YES.

HELD: The CA failed to consider that unfair labor practice not only involves acts that violate the right to
self-organization, but also covers several acts enumerated in Article 259* of the Labor Code.
The law explicitly states that any act or practice that interferes or deters an employee from joining,
participating, or assisting in the formation and administration of a labor organization constitutes
unfair labor practice.

The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of
subsection (a)(1) is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said
tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act, and it is not
necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by
statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the
employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.

Although respondent asserts that all its complained acts were done in good faith and exercised
management prerogative, However, while respondent's actions may be considered as lawful acts, they
should not be taken as singular, individual actions, but must be lumped together with prior or succeeding
acts of respondent or its representatives. This is based on the Totality of Conduct Doctrine which states
that "the culpability of an employer's remarks were to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implicit
implications but were to be appraised against the background of and in conjunction with collateral
circumstances."

In this case, respondent’s questioned acts, when taken in context with the dispute between its
management and that of petitioner’s, indicate interference. The complained acts show respondent's
continuous refusal to recognize petitioner as a labor organization. The refusal was manifested through the
letter of Sycip, the then-AIM Chairman Board of Trustees, replying to petitioner’s letter in seeking
recognition as a formal labor organization. In the letter, respondent’s Alumni Association objected
petitioner’s intent to unionize, short of withdrawing their support to their alma mater if petitioner is
successful in their endeavor for a union. The sentiment was also shared by Wyeth, one of respondent’s
clients.

Although these letters were not written by respondent, it cannot be denied that they played a role in
influencing its decision. The correspondences demonstrate how the idea of a union looms over the heads
of the institution and how it is treated, not as a tool to improve the working relationship between employer
and employees, but as a threat to the institution's development and efficiency.

INSTANCES OF INVALID EXERCISES OF MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE

- The two-year delay on then-Vice Chairman Dr. Gloria Chan’s application for full professorship
was unreasonably and purposely stretched out. (The deliberations on the application took place 2
YEARS after its submission.) – the Court noted that Dr. Chan was a prominent figure in the union
and is more susceptible to being a target of unfair labor practice to serve as an example to other
members of the labor organization.
- Respondent’s denial of another professor’s application for financial support. The denial was
allegedly due to the course chosen. The Court notes that record shows that another professor
was approved of financial assistance for the same PhD course.
- Respondent's act of circulating an e-mail to all its faculty members informing that some of the
union’s active members will be subjected to an investigation for alleged acts of conflict of interest
— only to not pursue the investigation without retracting its statement, displays respondent's
intent to malign and discredit the officers and active members of the labor organization.
- Non-renewal of contracts of specific members of the union.
- Removal of professors from faculty line-up and assignment of another professor to teach the
class.
- Giving of warning letters
 - One-year suspension without pay of one professor

Thus, respondent's questioned actions towards petitioner's different officers and prominent personalities
must not be taken individually. Instead, they must be taken in light of these statements by key members
of respondent's management and administration, and vis-à-vis the preceding and subsequent attending
circumstances, in accordance with the totality of conduct doctrine.

Hence, this Court cannot agree with the Court of Appeals and the NLRC in absolving respondent of any
liability. Respondent's actions, when taken together, are unfair labor practices. The Court of Appeals
erred in finding that the acts were valid exercises of their management prerogative. While we respect
employer's discretion in deciding what is best for their operations, this cannot be left unbridled and
unchecked. Although respondent's actions may appear legal, we must determine whether these were
discriminatory against union officers or its members. Since their actions are motivated by ill will, we find
that their acts were unjust.

Petition for Certification Election

Petitioner filed for Certification Election with DOLE which was met with vehement opposition from
respondent on the ground that petitioner’s members are managerial employees and are thus
prohibited from forming a union.

Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code defines a managerial employee as "one who is vested with the powers
or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off,
recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees . . . [or to] effectively recommend such managerial
actions[.]

As respondent demonstrated through the years, it is respondent, as the institution, which controls the
workload, courses, and subjects assigned to a faculty member. Moreover, respondent decides whether to
amend, renew, or terminate a professor's contract altogether, leaving their faculty members at its mercy .
All of these contradict its stand that the professors are managerial employees.

All told, applying the totality of conduct doctrine, it is apparent that respondent's acts amount to
interference which constitutes unfair labor practices under Article 259 (a) of the Labor Code of the
Philippines.

*Article 259 [248]. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any
of the following unfair labor practices:

(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization; lawphi1.net

(b) To require as a condition for employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor
organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;

(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization; lawphi1.net
 (d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any
labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or
officers;

(e) To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of

employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing
in this Code or in any other law shall prevent the parties from requiring membership in a
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except of those employees
who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining
agreement. Employees belonging to an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not
members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee
equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining
agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective agreement: Provided,
That the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o), of this Code shall not
apply to non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent;

(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having
given or being about to give testimony under this Code;

(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;

(h) To pay negotiation or attorney's fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the
settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of corporations,
associations, or partnerships who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices
shall be held criminally liable.