UST Faculty Union, Petitioner, v. University of Sto. Tomas, Respondents., G.R. No.

180892, 584 SCRA 648, April 7, 2009

Topic: Unfair Labor Practice: Employer and Labor Organization Acts Violating Right of Self-Organization- Interference, Restraint and
Coercion

Brinez, Michelle O.
FACTS OF THE CASE
 Petitioner University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU) wrote a letter to all its members informing them
of a General Assembly (GA). The letter contained an agenda for the GA which included an election of officers.
The then incumbent president of the USTFU was Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño, Jr.
 Fr. Rodel Aligan, O.P., Secretary General of the UST, issued a Memorandum allowing the request of the
Faculty Clubs of the university to hold a convocation.
 Members of the faculties of the university attended, including members of the USTFU, without the
participation of the members of the UST administration. Also during the convocation, an election for the
officers of the USTFU was conducted by a group called the Reformist Alliance. Upon learning that the
convocation was intended to be an election, members of the USTFU walked out. Meanwhile, an election was
conducted among those present, and Gil Gamilla and other faculty members were elected as the president and
officers, respectively, of the union. Such election was communicated to the UST administration in a
letter. Thus, there were two (2) groups claiming to be the USTFU: the Gamilla Group and the group led by
Atty. Mariño, Jr. (Mariño Group).
 The Mariño Group filed a complaint for ULP against the UST with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. A
Collective Bargaining Agreement8 (CBA) was entered into by the Gamilla Group and the UST. The CBA
superseded an existing CBA entered into by the UST and USTFU
FACTS OF THE CASE
 Gamilla, accompanied by the barangay captain in the area with Chief Security Officer of the UST, padlocked
the office of the USTFU. Afterwards, an armed security guard of the UST was posted in front of the USTFU
office.
 The med-arbiter issued a Resolution, declaring the election of the Gamilla group as null and void and ordering
that this group cease and desist from performing the duties and responsibilities of USTFU officers. This
Resolution was appealed to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). Later, the director issued a
Resolution affirming the Resolution of the med-arbiter. His Resolution was then appealed to this Court which
rendered Decision upholding the ruling of the BLR.
 USTFU filed a Manifestation with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, informing it of the Decision of the
Court. Thereafter, the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC issued a Decision dismissing the complaint for lack of
merit.
 The USTFU appealed the labor arbiter's Decision to the Third Division of the NLRC which rendered a
Resolution affirming the Decision of the labor arbiter. USTFU's Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC's
Resolution was denied.
 The case was then elevated to the CA which rendered the assailed Decision affirming the Resolutions of the
NLRC.
ISSUE(S)

 Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed serious and reversible error when it
dismissed the Petition and sustained the National Labor Relations Commission's ruling that the
herein respondents are not guilty of Unfair Labor Practice despite abundance of evidence showing
that Unfair Labor Practices were indeed committed.
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed
serious and reversible error when it dismissed the Petition
RULING and sustained the National Labor Relations Commission's
ruling that the herein respondents are not guilty of Unfair
Labor Practice despite abundance of evidence showing that
Unfair Labor Practices were indeed committed.
 Art. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for
an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:
a. To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
 No. The general principle is that one who makes an
their right to self-organization; allegation has the burden of proving it. While there are
 Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’
exceptions to this general rule, in the case of ULP, the
participation in policy and decision-making. The labor organization alleging party has the burden of proving such ULP.
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate  Thus, we ruled in De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor
collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the
employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, v. NLRC that "a party alleging a critical fact must
an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any support his allegation with substantial evidence. Any
time to present grievances to their employer. decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall stand as it will offend due process.“
have the right, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor
and Employment may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-
 In sum, petitioner makes several allegations that UST
making processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as committed ULP. In the petition at bar, petitioner
said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this miserably failed to adduce substantial evidence as basis
purpose, workers and employers may form labor- management councils: for the grant of relief.
Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such labor-
management councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all
employees in said establishment. (As amended by Section 22, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed
serious and reversible error when it dismissed the Petition
RULING and sustained the National Labor Relations Commission's
ruling that the herein respondents are not guilty of Unfair
Labor Practice despite abundance of evidence showing that
Unfair Labor Practices were indeed committed.
Art. 277. Miscellaneous provisions.
 It is not the duty or obligation of respondents to inquire into the validity of the election of the Gamilla
g. The Ministry shall help promote and gradually develop, with the agreement Group. Such issue is properly an intra-union controversy subject to the jurisdiction of the med-arbiter
of labor organizations and employers, labor-management cooperation of the DOLE. Respondents could not have been expected to stop dealing with the Gamilla Group on
programs at appropriate levels of the enterprise based on the shared the mere accusation of the Mariño Group that the former was not validly elected into office.
responsibility and mutual respect in order to ensure industrial peace and  The subsequent ruling of this Court in G.R. No. 131235 that the Gamilla Group was not validly
improvement in productivity, working conditions and the quality of working elected into office cannot support petitioner's allegation of ULP. Had respondents dealt with the
life. (Incorporated by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981) Gamilla Group after our ruling in G.R. No. 131235 had become final and executory, it would have
been a different story. As the CA ruled correctly, until the validity of the election of the Gamilla
h. In establishments where no legitimate labor organization exists, labor- Group is resolved with finality, respondents could not be faulted for negotiating with said group.
management committees may be formed voluntarily by workers and Dissenting Opinion
employers for the purpose of promoting industrial peace. The Department of  In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU v.s. Insular Life Assurance Cp.,
Labor and Employment shall endeavor to enlighten and educate the workers Ltd., this Court held that the test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees
and employers on their rights and responsibilities through labor education in the exercise of their self-organization is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it
may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’rights; and that it is not
with emphasis on the policy thrusts of this Code. (As amended by Section 33, necessary that there direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) 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. Petitioner’s
Art. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. It shall be unfair questioned acts-allowing the conduct of the convocation which led to the election of the Gamilla
labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives: Group; having its Chief Security Officer participate in the padlocking of the union office at the
instance of the Gamillla Group; and significantly; entering into a new CBA while the old one was still
a. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self- subsiting and during the pendecy of an intra-union dispute-reek of interference.
organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe
its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;
 
END OF CASE