Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 96490 February 3, 1992
INDOPI! TE"TI!E MI!! #OR$ERS UNION%PTG#O, petitioner,
vs.
&O!UNT'R( 'R)ITR'TOR TEODORICO P. C'!IC' a*+ INDOPI! TE"TI!E MI!!S, INC.,
respondents.
Romeo C. Lagman for petitioner.
Borreta, Gutierrez & Leogardo for respondent Indophil Textile Mills, Inc.

MEDI'!DE', J.:
This is a petition for certiorari seein! the nullification of the a"ard issued b# the respondent
Voluntar# $rbitrator Teodorico P. %alica dated Dece&ber ', ())* findin! that Section ( +c,, $rticle I of
the %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent bet"een Indophil Te.tile Mills, Inc. and Indophil Te.tile Mill
/orers 0nion1PT2/O does not e.tend to the e&plo#ees of Indophil $cr#lic Manufacturin!
%orporation as an e.tension or e.pansion of Indophil Te.tile Mills, Incorporated.
The antecedent facts are as follo"s3
Petitioner Indophil Te.tile Mill /orers 0nion1PT2/O is a le!iti&ate labor or!ani4ation dul#
re!istered "ith the Depart&ent of 5abor and 6&plo#&ent and the e.clusive bar!ainin! a!ent of all
the ran1and1file e&plo#ees of Indophil Te.tile Mills, Incorporated. Respondent Teodorico P. %alica is
i&pleaded in his official capacit# as the Voluntar# $rbitrator of the National %onciliation and
Mediation -oard of the Depart&ent of 5abor and 6&plo#&ent, "hile private respondent Indophil
Te.tile Mills, Inc. is a corporation en!a!ed in the &anufacture, sale and e.port of #arns of various
counts and inds and of &aterials of indred character and has its plants at -arrio 5a&bain.
Marilao, -ulacan.
In $pril, ()'7, petitioner Indophil Te.tile Mill /orers 0nion1PT2/O and private respondent Indophil
Te.tile Mills, Inc. e.ecuted a collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent effective fro& $pril (, ()'7 to March
8(, ())*.
On Nove&ber 8, ()97 Indophil $cr#lic Manufacturin! %orporation "as for&ed and re!istered "ith
the Securities and 6.chan!e %o&&ission. Subse:uentl#, $cr#lic applied for re!istration "ith the
-oard of Invest&ents for incentives under the ()'7 O&nibus Invest&ents %ode. The application
"as approved on a preferred non1pioneer status.
In ()'', $cr#lic beca&e operational and hired "orers accordin! to its o"n criteria and standards.
So&eti&e in ;ul#, ()'), the "orers of $cr#lic unioni4ed and a dul# certified collective bar!ainin!
a!ree&ent "as e.ecuted.
In ())* or a #ear after the "orers of $cr#lic have been unioni4ed and a %-$ e.ecuted, the
petitioner union clai&ed that the plant facilities built and set up b# $cr#lic should be considered as an
e.tension or e.pansion of the facilities of private respondent %o&pan# pursuant to Section (+c,,
$rticle I of the %-$, to "it,.
c, This $!ree&ent shall appl# to the %o&pan#<s plant facilities and
installations and to an# e.tension and e.pansion thereat. +Rollo, p.=,
In other "ords, it is the petitioner<s contention that $cr#lic is part of the Indophil bar!ainin!
unit.
The petitioner<s contention "as opposed b# private respondent "hich sub&its that it is a >uridical
entit# separate and distinct fro& $cr#lic.
The e.istin! i&passe led the petitioner and private respondent to enter into a sub&ission a!ree&ent
on Septe&ber 9, ())*. The parties >ointl# re:uested the public respondent to act as voluntar#
arbitrator in the resolution of the pendin! labor dispute pertainin! to the proper interpretation of the
%-$ provision.
$fter the parties sub&itted their respective position papers and replies, the public respondent
Voluntar# $rbitrator rendered its a"ard on Dece&ber ', ())*, the dispositive portion of "hich
provides as follo"s3
PR6MIS6S %ONSID6R6D, it "ould be a strained interpretation and application of
the :uestioned %-$ provision if "e "ould e.tend to the e&plo#ees of $cr#lic the
covera!e clause of Indophil Te.tile Mills %-$. /herefore, an a"ard is &ade to the
effect that the proper interpretation and application of Sec. l, +c,, $rt. I, of the ()'7
%-$ do +sic, not e.tend to the e&plo#ees of $cr#lic as an e.tension or e.pansion of
Indophil Te.tile Mills, Inc. +Rollo, p.?(,
@ence, this petition raisin! four +=, issues, to "it3
(. /@6T@6R OR NOT T@6 R6SPOND6NT $R-ITR$TOR 6RR6D
IN INT6RPR6TIN2 S6%TION (+c,, $RT I OF T@6 %-$ -6T/66N
P6TITION6R 0NION $ND R6SPOND6NT %OMP$NA.
?. /@6T@6R OR NOT INDOP@I5 $%RA5I% IS $ S6P$R$T6 $ND
DISTIN%T 6NTITA FROM R6SPOND6NT %OMP$NA FOR
P0RPOS6S OF 0NION R6PR6S6NT$TION.
8. /@6T@6R OR NOT T@6 R6SPOND6NT $R-ITR$TOR
2R$V65A $-0S6D @IS DIS%R6TION $MO0NTIN2 TO 5$%B OR
IN 6C%6SS OF @IS ;0RISDI%TION.
=. /@6T@6R OR NOT T@6 R6SPOND6NT $R-ITR$TOR
VIO5$T6D P6TITION6R 0NION<S %$RDIN$5 PRIM$RA RI2@T TO
D06 PRO%6SS. +Rollo, pp. 917,
The central issue sub&itted for arbitration is "hether or not the operations in Indophil $cr#lic
%orporation are an e.tension or e.pansion of private respondent %o&pan#. %orollar# to the
afore&entioned issue is the :uestion of "hether or not the ran1and1file e&plo#ees "orin! at
Indophil $cr#lic should be reco!ni4ed as part of, andDor "ithin the scope of the bar!ainin! unit.
Petitioner &aintains that public respondent $rbitrator !ravel# erred in interpretin! Section l+c,, $rticle
I of the %-$ in its literal &eanin! "ithout tain! co!ni4ance of the facts adduced that the creation of
the aforesaid Indophil $cr#lic is but a devise of respondent %o&pan# to evade the application of the
%-$ bet"een petitioner 0nion and respondent %o&pan#.
Petitioner stresses that the articles of incorporation of the t"o corporations establish that the t"o
entities are en!a!ed in the sa&e ind of business, "hich is the &anufacture and sale of #arns of
various counts and inds and of other &aterials of indred character or nature.
%ontrar# to petitioner<s assertion, the public respondent throu!h the Solicitor 2eneral ar!ues that the
Indophil $cr#lic Manufacturin! %orporation is not an alter e!o or an ad>unct or business conduit of
private respondent because it has a separate le!iti&ate business purpose. In addition, the Solicitor
2eneral alle!es that the pri&ar# purpose of private respondent is to en!a!e in the business of
&anufacturin! #arns of various counts and inds and te.tiles. On the other hand, the pri&ar#
purpose of Indophil $cr#lic is to &anufacture, bu#, sell at "holesale basis, barter, i&port, e.port and
other"ise deal in #arns of various counts and inds. @ence, unlie private respondent, Indophil
$cr#lic cannot &anufacture te.tiles "hile private respondent cannot bu# or i&port #arns.
Further&ore, petitioner e&phasi4es that the t"o corporations have practicall# the sa&e
incorporators, directors and officers. In fact, of the total stoc subscription of Indophil $cr#lic,
P(,7=),)7*.** "hich represents sevent# percent +7*E, of the total subscription of P?,F**,***.**
"as subscribed to b# respondent %o&pan#.
On this point, private respondent cited the case of iatagon La!or "ederation #. $ple, 2.R. No. 51
===)81)=, Dece&ber 8, ()'*, (*l S%R$ F8=, "hich ruled that t"o corporations cannot be treated as
a sin!le bar!ainin! unit even if their businesses are related. It sub&its that the fact that there are as
&an# bar!ainin! units as there are co&panies in a con!lo&eration of co&panies is a positive proof
that a corporation is endo"ed "ith a le!al personalit# distinctl# its o"n, independent and separate
fro& other corporations +see Rollo, pp. (9*1(9(,.
Petitioner notes that the fore!oin! evidence sufficientl# establish that $cr#lic is but an e.tension or
e.pansion of private respondent, to "it3
+a, the t"o corporations have their ph#sical plants, offices and
facilities situated in the sa&e co&pound, at -arrio 5a&bain, Marilao,
-ulacanG
+b, &an# of private respondent<s o"n &achineries, such as d#ein!
&achines, reelin!, boiler, Ba&itsus a&on! others, "ere transferred to
and are no" installed and bein! used in the $cr#lic plantG
+c, the services of a nu&ber of units, depart&ents or sections of
private respondent are provided to $cr#licG and
+d, the e&plo#ees of private respondent are the sa&e persons
&annin! and servicin! the units of $cr#lic. +see Rollo, pp. (?1(8,
Private respondent insists that the e.istence of a bonafide business relationship bet"een $cr#lic and
private respondent is not a proof of bein! a sin!le corporate entit# because the services "hich are
supposedl# provided b# it to $cr#lic are au.iliar# services or activities "hich are not reall# essential
in the actual production of $cr#lic. It also pointed out that the essential services are dischar!ed
e.clusivel# b# $cr#lic personnel under the control and supervision of $cr#lic &ana!ers and
supervisors.
In su&, petitioner insists that the public respondent co&&itted !rave abuse of discretion a&ountin!
to lac or in e.cess of >urisdiction in erroneousl# interpretin! the %-$ provision and in failin! to
disre!ard the corporate entit# of $cr#lic.
/e find the petition devoid of &erit.
Ti&e and a!ain, /e stress that the decisions of voluntar# arbitrators are to be !iven the hi!hest
respect and a certain &easure of finalit#, but this is not a hard and fast rule, it does not preclude
>udicial revie" thereof "here "ant of >urisdiction, !rave abuse of discretion, violation of due process,
denial of substantial >ustice, or erroneous interpretation of the la" "ere brou!ht to our attention. +see
Oca&po, et al. v. National 5abor Relations %o&&ission, 2.R. No. '(977, ?F ;ul# ())*, First Division
Minute Resolution citing Oceanic -ic Division +FF/, v. Ro&ero, 2.R. No. 51=8')*, ;ul# (9, ()'=,
(8* S%R$ 8)?,
It should be e&phasi4ed that in renderin! the sub>ect arbitral a"ard, the voluntar# arbitrator
Teodorico %alica, a professor of the 0.P. $sian 5abor 6ducation %enter, no" the Institute for
Industrial Relations, found that the e.istin! la" and >urisprudence on the &atter, supported the
private respondent<s contentions. %ontrar# to petitioner<s assertion, public respondent cited facts and
the la" upon "hich he based the a"ard. @ence, public respondent did not abuse his discretion.
0nder the doctrine of piercin! the veil of corporate entit#, "hen valid !rounds therefore e.ist, the
le!al fiction that a corporation is an entit# "ith a >uridical personalit# separate and distinct fro& its
&e&bers or stocholders &a# be disre!arded. In such cases, the corporation "ill be considered as
a &ere association of persons. The &e&bers or stocholders of the corporation "ill be considered
as the corporation, that is liabilit# "ill attach directl# to the officers and stocholders. The doctrine
applies "hen the corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, >ustif# "ron!, protect fraud,
or defend cri&e, or "hen it is &ade as a shield to confuse the le!iti&ate issues, or "here a
corporation is the &ere alter e!o or business conduit of a person, or "here the corporation is so
or!ani4ed and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to &ae it &erel# an instru&entalit#,
a!enc#, conduit or ad>unct of another corporation. +0&ali et al. v. %ourt of $ppeals, 2.R. No. ')F9(,
Septe&ber (8, ())*, (') S%R$ F?), F=?,
In the case at bar, petitioner sees to pierce the veil of corporate entit# of $cr#lic, alle!in! that the
creation of the corporation is a devise to evade the application of the %-$ bet"een petitioner 0nion
and private respondent %o&pan#. /hile "e do not discount the possibilit# of the si&ilarities of the
businesses of private respondent and $cr#lic, neither are "e inclined to appl# the doctrine invoed
b# petitioner in !rantin! the relief sou!ht. The fact that the businesses of private respondent and
$cr#lic are related, that so&e of the e&plo#ees of the private respondent are the sa&e persons
&annin! and providin! for au.illiar# services to the units of $cr#lic, and that the ph#sical plants,
offices and facilities are situated in the sa&e co&pound, it is our considered opinion that these facts
are not sufficient to >ustif# the piercin! of the corporate veil of $cr#lic.
In the sa&e case of %mali, et al. #. Court of &ppeals +supra,, /e alread# e&phasi4ed that Hthe le!al
corporate entit# is disre!arded onl# if it is sou!ht to hold the officers and stocholders directl# liable
for a corporate debt or obli!ation.H In the instant case, petitioner does not see to i&pose a clai&
a!ainst the &e&bers of the $cr#lic.
Further&ore, /e alread# ruled in the case of iatagon La!or "ederation Local ''( of the %LG)* #.
$ple +supra, that it is !rave abuse of discretion to treat t"o co&panies as a sin!le bar!ainin! unit
"hen these co&panies are indubitabl# distinct entities "ith separate >uridical personalities.
@ence, the $cr#lic not bein! an e.tension or e.pansion of private respondent, the ran1and1file
e&plo#ees "orin! at $cr#lic should not be reco!ni4ed as part of, andDor "ithin the scope of the
petitioner, as the bar!ainin! representative of private respondent.
$ll pre&ises considered, the %ourt is convinced that the public respondent Voluntar# $rbitrator did
not co&&it !rave abuse of discretion in its interpretation of Section l+c,, $rticle I of the %-$ that the
$cr#lic is not an e.tension or e.pansion of private respondent.
$%%ORDIN25A, the petition is D6NI6D and the a"ard of the respondent Voluntar# $rbitrator are
hereb# $FFIRM6D.
SO ORD6R6D.
+ar#asa, C.,., Cruz and Grino-&.uino, ,,., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 111262 Se,-e.ber 19, 1996
S'N MIGUE! CORPOR'TION EMP!O(EES UNION%PTG#O, re,re/e*-e+ by 0-/ Pre/0+e*-
R'(MUNDO IPO!ITO, 1R., petitioner,
vs.
ON. M'. NIE&ES D. CONFESOR, Se2re-ary o3 !abor, De,-. o3 !abor 4 E.,5oy.e*-, S'N
MIGUE! CORPOR'TION, M'GNO!I' CORPOR'TION 6For.er5y, Ma7*o50a P5a*-8 a*+ S'N
MIGUE! FOODS, INC. 6For.er5y, )%Me7 P5a*-8, respondents.

$'PUN'N, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari assailin! the Order of the Secretar# of 5abor rendered on
Februar# (F, ())8 involvin! a labor dispute at San Mi!uel %orporation.
The facts are as follo"s3
On ;une ?', ())*, petitioner1union San Mi!uel %orporation 6&plo#ees 0nion I PT2/O
entered into a %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent +%-$, "ith private respondent San Mi!uel
%orporation +SM%, to tae effect upon the e.piration of the previous %-$ or on ;une 8*,
()').
This %-$ provided, a&on! others, that3
$RTI%56 CIV
%R&TI$+ $" &GR//M/+T
Sec. (. This &greement 0hich shall !e !inding upon the parties hereto and their
respecti#e successors-in-interest, shall !ecome effecti#e and shall remain in force
and effect until ,une 1(, '223.
Sec. ?. In accordance 0ith &rticle 341-& of the La!or Code as amended, the term of
this &greement insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, shall !e for fi#e 546
7ears from ,ul7 ', '282 to ,une 1(, '229. :ence, the freedom period for purposes of
such representation shall !e sixt7 5;(6 da7s prior to ,une 1(, '229.
Sec. 8. <ixt7 5;(6 da7s prior to ,une 1(, '223 either part7 ma7 initiate negotiations of
all pro#isions of this &greement, except insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned. If no agreement is reached in such negotiations, this &greement shall
ne#ertheless remain in force up to the time a su!se.uent agreement is reached !7
the parties.
1
In eepin! "ith their vision and lon! ter& strate!# for business e.pansion, SM%
&ana!e&ent infor&ed its e&plo#ees in a letter dated $u!ust (8, ())(
2
that the co&pan#
"hich "as co&posed of four operatin! divisions na&el#3 +(, -eer, +?, Paca!in!, +8, Feeds
and 5ivestocs, +=, Ma!nolia and $!ri1business "ould under!o a restructurin!.
3
6ffective October (, ())(, Ma!nolia and Feeds and 5ivestoc Division "ere spun1off and
beca&e t"o separate and distinct corporations3 Ma!nolia %orporation +Ma!nolia, and San
Mi!uel Foods, Inc. +SMFI,. Not"ithstandin! the spin1offs, the %-$ re&ained in force and
effect.
$fter ;une 8*, ())?, the %-$ "as rene!otiated in accordance "ith the ter&s of the %-$ and
$rticle ?F81$ of the 5abor %ode. Ne!otiations started so&eti&e in ;ul#, ())? "ith the t"o
parties sub&ittin! their respective proposals and counterproposals.
Durin! the ne!otiations, the petitioner1union insisted that the bar!ainin! unit of SM% should
still include the e&plo#ees of the spun1off corporations3 Ma!nolia and SMFIG and that the
rene!otiated ter&s of the %-$ shall be effective onl# for the re&ainin! period of t"o #ears or
until ;une 8*, ())=.
SM%, on the other hand, contended that the &e&bersDe&plo#ees "ho had &oved to
Ma!nolia and SMFI, auto&aticall# ceased to be part of the bar!ainin! unit at the SM%.
Further&ore, the %-$ should be effective for three #ears in accordance "ith $rt. ?F81$ of the
5abor %ode.
0nable to a!ree on these issues "ith respect to the bar!ainin! unit and duration of the %-$,
petitioner1union declared a deadloc on Septe&ber ?), ())*.
On October ?, ())?, a Notice of Strie "as filed a!ainst SM%.
In order to avert a strie, SM% re:uested the National %onciliation and Mediation -oard
+N%M-, to conduct preventive &ediation. No settle&ent "as arrived at despite several
&eetin!s held bet"een the parties.
On Nove&ber 8, ())?, a strie vote "as conducted "hich resulted in a H#es voteH in favor of
a strie.
On Nove&ber =, ())?, private respondents SM%, Ma!nolia and SMFI filed a petition "ith the
Secretar# of 5abor pra#in! that the latter assu&e >urisdiction over the labor dispute in a vital
industr#.
$s pra#ed for, the Secretar# of 5abor assu&ed >urisdiction over the labor dispute on
Nove&ber (*, ())?.
4
Several conciliation &eetin!s "ere held but still no
a!ree&entDsettle&ent "as arrived at b# both parties.
$fter the parties sub&itted their respective position papers, the Secretar# of 5abor issued the
assailed Order on Februar# (F, ())8 directin!, a&on! others, that the rene!otiated ter&s of
the %-$ shall be effective for the period of three +8, #ears fro& ;une 8*, ())?G and that such
%-$ shall cover onl# the e&plo#ees of SM% and not of Ma!nolia and SMFI.
Dissatisfied, petitioner1union no" co&es to this %ourt :uestionin! this Order of the Secretar#
of 5abor.
Subse:uentl#, on March 8*, ())F,
9
petitioner1union filed a Motion for Issuance of a
Te&porar# Restrainin! Order or /rit of Preli&inar# In>unction to en>oin the holdin! of the
certification elections in the different co&panies, &aintainin! that the e&plo#ees of Ma!nolia
and SMFI fall "ithin the bar!ainin! unit of SM%.
On March ?), ())F, the %ourt issued a resolution !rantin! the te&porar# restrainin! order
pra#ed for.
6
Mean"hile, an ur!ent &otion for leave to intervene
:
in the case "as filed b# the Sa&ahan
n! Mala#an! Man!!a!a"a1San Mi!uel %orporation1Federation of Free /orers +SMM1
SM%1FF/, throu!h its authori4ed representative, 6l&er S. $r&ando, alle!in! that it is one of
the contendin! parties adversel# affected b# the te&porar# restrainin! order.
The Intervenor cited the case of aniel <.L. Bor!on #. :on. Bien#enido B. Laguesma,
;
2.R.
No. (*(799, March F, ())8, "here the %ourt reco!ni4ed the separation of the e&plo#ees of
Ma!nolia fro& the SM% bar!ainin! unit. It then pra#ed for the liftin! of the te&porar#
restrainin! order.
5ie"ise, 6fren %arreon, $ctin! President of the SM%601PT2/O, filed a petition for the
"ithdra"alDdis&issal of the petition considerin! that the te&porar# restrainin! order
>eopardi4ed the e&plo#ees< ri!ht to conclude a ne" %-$. $t the sa&e ti&e, he challen!ed
the le!al personalit# of Mr. Ra#&undo @ipolito, ;r. to represent the 0nion as its president
"hen the latter "as alread# officiall# dis&issed fro& the co&pan# on October =, ())=.
$&idst all these pleadin!s, the follo"in! pri&ordial issues arise3
(, /hether or not the duration of the rene!otiated ter&s of the %-$ is to be effective for
three #ears of for onl# t"o #earsG and
?, /hether or not the bar!ainin! unit of SM% includes also the e&plo#ees of the Ma!nolia
and SMFI.
Petitioner1union contends that the duration for the non1representation provisions of the %-$
should be coter&inous "ith the ter& of the bar!ainin! a!enc# "hich in effect shall be for the
re&ainin! t"o #ears of the current %-$, citin! a previous decision of the Secretar# of 5abor
on Dece&ber (=, ())? in the &atter of the labor dispute at Philippine Refinin! %o&pan#.
@o"ever, the Secretar# of 5abor, in her :uestioned Order of Februar# (F, ())8 ruled that the
rene!otiated ter&s of the %-$ at SM% should run for a period of three +8, #ears.
/e a!ree "ith the Secretar# of 5abor.
Pertinent to the first issue is $rt. ?F81$ of the 5abor %ode as a&ended "hich reads3
$rt. ?F81$. Terms of a Collecti#e Bargaining &greement. I &n7 Collecti#e
Bargaining &greement that the parties ma7 enter into shall, insofar as the
representation aspect is concerned, !e for a term of fi#e 546 7ears. No petition
:uestionin! the &a>orit# status of the incu&bent bar!ainin! a!ent shall be
entertained and no certification election shall be conducted b# the Depart&ent of
5abor and 6&plo#&ent outside of the si.t#1da# period i&&ediatel# before the date of
e.pir# of such five #ear ter& of the %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent. &ll other
pro#isions of the Collecti#e Bargaining &greement shall !e renegotiated not later
than three 516 7ears after its execution. $n# a!ree&ent on such other provisions of
the %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent entered into "ithin si. +9, &onths fro& the date
of e.pir# of the ter& of such other provisions as fi.ed in such %ollective -ar!ainin!
$!ree&ent, shall retroact to the da# i&&ediatel# follo"in! such date. If an# such
a!ree&ent is entered into be#ond si. &onths, the parties shall a!ree on the duration
of retroactivit# thereof. In case of a deadloc in the rene!otiation of the collective
bar!ainin! a!ree&ent, the parties &a# e.ercise their ri!hts under this %ode.
+6&phasis supplied.,
$rticle ?F81$ is a ne" provision. This "as incorporated b# Section ?( of Republic $ct No.
97(F +the @errera1Veloso 5a", "hich too effect on March ?(, ()'). This ne" provision
states that the %-$ has a ter& of five +F, #ears instead of three #ears, before the
a&end&ent of the la" as far as the representation aspect is concerned. $ll other provisions
of the %-$ shall be ne!otiated not later than three +8, #ears after its e.ecution. The
Hrepresentation aspectH refers to the identit# and &a>orit# status of the union that ne!otiated
the %-$ as the e.clusive bar!ainin! representative of the appropriate bar!ainin! unit
concerned. H$ll other provisionsH si&pl# refers to the rest of the %-$, econo&ic as "ell as
non1econo&ic provisions, e.cept representation.
10
$s the Secretar# of 5abor herself observed in the instant case, the la" is clear and definite
on the duration of the %-$ insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, but is :uite
a&bi!uous "ith the ter&s of the other provisions of the %-$. It is a cardinal principle of
statutor# construction that the %ourt &ust ascertain the le!islative intent for the purpose of
!ivin! effect to an# statute. The histor# of the ti&es and state of the thin!s e.istin! "hen the
act "as fra&ed or adopted &ust be follo"ed and the conditions of the thin!s at the ti&e of
the enact&ent of the la" should be considered to deter&ine the le!islative intent.
11
/e loo
into the discussions leadin! to the passa!e of the la"3
T@6 %@$IRM$N +R6P. V65$S%O,3 . . .the CB&, insofar as the economic pro#isions
are concerned . . .
T@6 %@$IRM$N +S6N. @6RR6R$,3 Maximum of three 7earsJ
T@6 %@$IRM$N +S6N. V65OSO,3 Maximum of three 7ears.
T@6 %@$IRM$N +S6N. @6RR6R$,3 Present practiceJ
T@6 %@$IRM$N +R6P. V65OSO,3 In other "ords, after three #ears p"ede nan!
&a!ne!otiate in the %-$ for the re&ainin! t"o #ears.
T@6 %@$IRM$N +R6P. @6RR6R$,3 Aou can ne!otiate for one #ear, t"o #ears or
three #ears but assu&in! three #ears "hich, I thin, that<s the lielihood. . .
T@6 %@$IRM$N +R6P. V65OSO,3 Aes.
T@6 %@$IRM$N +S6N. @6RR6R$,3 Three 7ears, the ne0 union, assuming there
0ill !e a change of agent, at least he has one 7ear to administer and to ad=ust, to
de#elop rapport 0ith the management. >an ang importante.
Aou no", for us na na!ne1ne!otiate, an! ha4ard tala!a sa ne!otiation, "hen "e
ne!otiate "ith so&ebod# na hindi natin ilala, then, "e are !overned b# our biases
na ito a# destro#er n! 5aborG an! &!a e&plo#er, ito ba#aran o lan! ito oa# na.
<Aan an! nan!#a#ari, but let us !ive that allo"ance for the one #ear to let the& no".
&ctuall7, ang thrust natin a7 industrial peace, and there can !e no industrial peace if
7ou encourage union to fight each other. <Aan an! proble&a.
12
... ... ...
@ON. ISIDRO3 Madali i#an, asi these t"o periods that are &entioned in the %-$
see& to provide so&e doubts later on in the i&ple&entation. Sabi asi rito, insofar as
representation issue is concerned, seven #ears and lifeti&e. . .
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 Five #ears.
@ON. ISIDRO3 Five #ears, all the others three #ears.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 +o. &ng three 7ears duon sa terms and conditions,
not later than three 7ears.
@ON. ISIDRO3 Not later than three #ears, so "ithin three #ears #ou have to &ae a
ne" %-$.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 Aes.
@ON. ISIDRO3 That is a!ain for purposes of rene"in! the ter&s, three #ears na
na&an i#an I then, seven #ears. . .
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 Not later than three #ears.
@ON. ISIDRO3 $ssu&in! that the# usuall# follo" the period I three #ears nan!
three #ears, but under this la" "ith respect to representation I five #ears, anoJ
No", after three #ears, na!aroon n! ba!on! ter&s, tapos na i#on! ter&, rene"ed
na i#on! ter&s, an! arapatan noon sa representation issue &a#roon pan! t"o
#ears left.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 One #ear na lan! because si. #ears nan! lahat, three
plus three.
@ON. ISIDRO3 @indi, t"o #ears pa rin an! natitira, eh. Three #ears pa lan! an!
natatapos. So, another %-$ "as for&ed and this %-$ &a#roon na na&an si#an!
ba!on! five #ears "ith respect to representation issue.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 @indi. @indi na. 2anito i#an. I#on! ter&s and
conditions for three #ears.
@ON. ISIDRO3 Aes.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 $ne the third 7ear 7ou can start negotiating to
change the terms and conditions.
@ON. ISIDRO3 Aes.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 $ssu&in! #ou "ill follo" the practice . . .
@ON. ISIDRO3 Oo.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 But on the fifth 7ear, ang representation status no0
can !e .uestioned, so !a?a pu0edeng mag?aroon ng certification election. If the
incum!ent union loses, then the ne0 union administers the contract for one 7ear to
gi#e him time to ?no0 his counterpart @ the emplo7er, !efore he can negotiate for a
ne0 term. I7an ang ad#antage.
@ON. ISIDRO3 Basi, "hen the %-$ has onl# a three1#ear lifeti&e "ith respect to the
ter&s and conditions and then, so #ou have to rene" that in three #ears I #ou
rene" for another three #ears, &a#roon na na&an another five #ears i#on! ano . . .
@ON. $NI$23 @indi, an! natitira duon sa representation t"o #ears na lan!.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 T"o #ears na lan! sa representation.
@ON. $NI$23 So that if the# chan!ed the union, i#on! last #ear . . .
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 I#on lan!, that #ou have to ad&inister the contract.
Then, voluntar# arbitration na a#o and then &a#roon a nan! probis#on Hretroact on
the date of the e.pir# dateH. Pa!natalo an! incu&bent un#on, &a!1aassu&e an!
ne" union, ad&inister the contract. &s far as the term and condition, for one 7ear,
and that 0ill gi#e him time and the emplo7er to ?no0 each other.
@ON. ;$-$R3 -o#, let us be realistic. I thin if a ne" union "ins a certification
election, it "ould not "ant to ad&inister a %-$ "hich has not been ne!otiated b# the
union itself.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 That is not true, @on. This is true because "hat is
happenin! no" in the countr# is that the ter& n! contract natin, duon din &a!e1
e.pire an! representation. I#on an! nan!#ari. That is "here #ou have the !ulo.
2anoon an! nan!#ari. So, an! nan!#ari di#an, pa!1&a#roon certification election,
e.pire an! contract, ano an! usual issue I co&pan# union. I can #ou +sic, !ive #ou
&ore "hat the incu&bent union is !ivin!. So an! &an!#a#ari di#an, pa!1ne!otiate
&o hardline na a!ad.
@ON. %@$IRM$N V65OSO 3 Mon, for four #earsJ
@ON. ISIDRO3 $n! tin!in o lan! dito, i#on! distinction bet"een the ter&s and the
representation aspect I "h# do "e have to distin!uish bet"een three and fiveJ
/hat<s "ron! "ith havin! a unifor& e.piration periodJ
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 Five #ears.
@ON. ISIDRO3 Puro three #ears.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 That is "hat "e are tr#in! to avoid because an!
realit# di#an, Mart, pa!paso &o sa u&pan#a, &a!1ne1ne!otiate a n! si. &onths,
that<s the avera!e, aabot pa &insan n! one #ear. Pa!tapos n! ne!otiation &o,
si!nin! a#o. There "ill be an allo"ed period of one #ear. Third #ear na, uu&pisahan
na&an an! or!ani4ations, papaso na an! iban! un#on because the realit# in Trade
0nion co&&ittee, the# or!ani4e, "e or!ani4e. So, actuall#, #ou have onl# industrial
peace for one #ear, effective industrial peace. That is "hat "e are tr#in! to chan!e.
Other"ise, "e "ill continue to discoura!e the investors and the union "ill never !ro"
because ever# other #ear it has to use its &one# for the certification election. $n!
!rabe pan! practice di#an, &a!1a1advance an! federation for three #ears union dues
para pan!!astos lan! sa certification election. That is "hat "e are tr#in! to avoid.
@ON. ;$-$R3 $lthou!h there are unions "hich reall# !et advances.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 Pa! na!1surve# ta#o sa &!a un#on, !anoon an!
&an!#a#ari. &nd I thin? our responsi!ilit7 here is to create a legal frame0or? to
promote industrial peace and to de#elop responsi!le and fair la!or mo#ement.
@ON. %@$IRM$N V65OSO3 In other 0ords, the longer the period of the effecti#it7 . .
.
... ... ...
@ON %@$IRM$N V65OSO. +continuing, . . . in other 0ords, the longer the period of
effecti#it7 of the CB&, the !etter for industrial peace.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 representation status.
@ON. %@$IRM$N V65OSO3 Onl# on I
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 I the representations.
@ON. %@$IRM$N V65OSO3 But on the economic issues.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 >ou ha#e to re#ie0 that. The parties 0ill ha#e to
re#ie0 that.
@ON. %@$IRM$N V65OSO3 $t least on second #ear.
@ON. %@$IRM$N @6RR6R$3 Not later than 8 #ears, an! ara&ihan n! &!a &a!1
ne!otiate "hen the co&pan#is +interrupted,
13
Fro& the aforesaid discussions, the le!islators "ere &ore inclined to have the period of
effectivit# for three +8, #ears insofar as the econo&ic as "ell as non1econo&ic provisions are
concerned, e.cept representation.
Obviousl#, the fra&ers of the la" "anted to &aintain industrial peace and stabilit# b# havin!
both &ana!e&ent and labor "or har&oniousl# to!ether "ithout an# disturbance. Thus, no
outside union can enter the establish&ent "ithin five +F, #ears and challen!e the status of
the incu&bent union as the e.clusive bar!ainin! a!ent. 5ie"ise, the ter&s and conditions of
e&plo#&ent +econo&ic and non1econo&ic, can not be :uestioned b# the e&plo#ers or
e&plo#ees durin! the period of effectivit# of the %-$. The %-$ is a contract bet"een the
parties and the parties &ust respect the ter&s and conditions of the a!ree&ent.
14
Notabl#,
the fra&ers of the la" did not !ive a fi.ed ter& as to the effectivit# of the ter&s and
conditions of e&plo#&ent. It can be !leaned fro& their discussions that it "as left to the
parties to fi. the period.
In the instant case, it is not difficult to deter&ine the period of effectivit# for the non1
representation provisions of the %-$. Tain! it fro& the histor# of their %-$s, SM% intended
to have the ter&s of the %-$ effective for three +8, #ears reconed fro& the e.piration of the
old or previous %-$ "hich "as on ;une 8*, ()'), as it provides3
Sec. (. This $!ree&ent "hich shall be bindin! upon the parties hereto and their
respective successors1in1interest, shall beco&e effective and shall re&ain in force
and effect until ;une 8*, ())?.
The ar!u&ent that the PR% case is applicable is indeed &isplaced. /e :uote "ith favor the
Order of the Secretar# of 5abor in the li!ht of SM%<s peculiar situation as co&pared "ith
PR%<s co&pan# situation.
It is true that in the Philippine Refinin! %o&pan# case +OS1$;1**8(1)(, +sic,, 5abor
Dispute at Philippine Refinin! %o&pan#,, "e ruled that the ter& of the rene!otiated
provisions of the %-$ should coincide "ith the re&ainin! ter& of the a!enc#. In
doin! so, "e placed pre&iu& on the fact that PR% has onl# t"o +?, unions and no
other union had #et e.ecuted a rene"ed ter& of 8 #ears. Nonetheless, in rulin! for a
shortened ter&, "e "ere !uided b# our considered perception that the said ter&
"ould i&prove, rather than ruin, the !eneral "elfare of both the "orers and the
co&pan#. It is e:uall# true that once the econo&ic provisions of the %-$ e.pire, the
residual representative status of the union is effective for onl# ? &ore #ears.
@o"ever, if circu&stances "arrant that the contract duration "hich it is solicitin! fro&
the co&pan# for the benefit of the "orers, shall be a little bit lon!er than its lifespan,
then this Office cannot stand in the "a# of a &ore ideal situation. /e &ust not lose
si!ht of the fact that the pri&ordial purpose of a collective contract is to pro&ote
industrial har&on# and stabilit# in the ter&s and conditions of e&plo#&ent. To our
&ind, this ob>ective cannot be achieved "ithout !ivin! due consideration to the
peculiarities and uni:ue characteristics of the e&plo#er. In the case at bar, there is
no dispute that the &other corporation +SM%, spun1off t"o of its divisions and
thereb# !ave birth to t"o +?, other entities no" no"n as Ma!nolia %orporation and
San Mi!uel Foods, Inc. In order to effect a s&ooth transition, the co&panies
concerned continued to reco!ni4e the e.istin! unions as the bar!ainin! a!ents of
their respective bar!ainin! units. In the &eanti&e, the other unions in these
co&panies eventuall# concluded their %-$ ne!otiations on the re&ainin! ter& and
all of the& a!reed on a 81#ear c#cle. Notabl#, the follo"in! %-$s "ere for!ed
incorporatin! a ter& of 81#ears on the rene!otiated provisions, to "it3
(. SM% I dail#1paid e&plo#ees union +I-M,
?. SMFI I &onthl#1paid e&plo#ees and dail#1paid e&plo#ees at the %abu#ao Plant.
There is a direct lin bet"een the voluntar# reco!nition b# the co&pan# of the
continuin! representative status of the unions after the afore&entioned spin1offs and
the stand of the co&pan# for a 81#ear rene!otiated c#cle "hen the econo&ic
provisions of the e.istin! %-$s e.pired, i.e., the &aintain stabilit# and avoid
confusion "hen the u&bilical cord of the t"o divisions "ere severed fro& their
parent. These t"o cannot be considered independentl# of each other for the# "ere
intended to reinforce one another. Precisel#, the co&pan# conceded to face the
sa&e union not"ithstandin! the spin1offs in order to preserve industrial peace durin!
the infanc# of the t"o corporations. If the union "ould insist on a shorter rene!otiated
ter&, then all the advanta!es !ained b# both parties in this re!ard, "ould have !one
to nau!ht. /ith this in &ind, this office feels that it "ill betra# its &andate should "e
order the parties to e.ecute a ?1#ear rene!otiated ter& for then chaos and confusion,
rather than tran:uillit#, "ould be the order of the da#. /orse, there is a stron!
lielihood that such a rulin! &i!ht spa"n discontent and possible &ass actions
a!ainst the co&pan# co&in! fro& the other unions "ho had alread# a!reed to a 81
#ear rene!otiated ter&s. If this happens, the purpose of this Office<s intervention into
the parties< controvers# "ould have been defeated.
19
The issue as to the ter& of the non1representation provisions of the %-$ need not belabored
especiall# "hen "e tae note of the Me&orandu& of the Secretar# of 5abor dated Februar#
?=, ())= "hich "as &entioned in the Resolution of 0ndersecretar# -ienvenido 5a!ues&a
on ;anuar# (9, ())F in the certification election case involvin! the SM% e&plo#ees.
16
In
said &e&orandu&, the Secretar# of 5abor had occasion to clarif# the ter& of the
rene!otiated ter&s of the %-$ #is-a-#is the ter& of the bar!ainin! a!ent, to "it3
$s a &atter of polic# the parties are encoura!es +sic, to enter into a rene!otiated
%-$ "ith a ter& "hich "ould coincide +sic, "ith the aforesaid five +F, #ear ter& of
the bar!ainin! representative.
In the event ho"ever, that the parties, b# &utual a!ree&ent, enter into a
rene!otiated contract "ith a ter& of three +8, #ears or one "hich does not coincide
"ith the said F1#ear ter&, and said a!ree&ent is ratified b# &a>orit# of the &e&bers
in the bar!ainin! unit, the sub>ect contract is valid and le!al and therefore, binds the
contractin! parties. The sa&e "ill ho"ever not adversel# affect the ri!ht of another
union to challen!e the &a>orit# status of the incu&bent bar!ainin! a!ent "ithin si.t#
+9*, da#s before the lapse of the ori!inal five +F, #ear ter& of the %-$.
Thus, "e do not find an# !rave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretar# of 5abor in
rulin! that the effectivit# of the rene!otiated ter&s of the %-$ shall be for three +8, #ears.
/ith respect to the second issue, there is, lie"ise, no &erit in petitioner1union<s assertion
that the e&plo#ees of Ma!nolia and SMFI should still be considered part of the bar!ainin!
unit of SM%.
Ma!nolia and SMFI "ere spun1off to operate as distinct co&panies on October (, ())(.
Mana!e&ent sa" the need for these transfor&ations in eepin! "ith its vision and lon! ter&
strate!# as it e.plained in its letter addressed to the e&plo#ees dated $u!ust (8, ())(3
. . . $s earl# as ()'9, "e announced the decentrali4ation pro!ra& and spoe of the
need for structures that can react fast to co&petition, a chan!in! environ&ent,
shorter product life c#cles and shifts in consu&er preference. /e further stated in the
()'7 $nnual Report to Stocholders that San Mi!uel<s businesses "ill be &ore
autono&ous and self sufficient so as to better ac:uire and &aster ne" technolo!ies,
cope "ith a labor force "ith different e.pertises and e.pectations, and &aster and
satisf# the chan!in! needs of our custo&ers and end1consu&ers. $s subsidiaries,
Ma!nolia and F5D "ill !ain better industr# focus and fle.ibilit#, !reater a"areness of
operatin! results, and speedier, &ore responsive decision &ain!.
... ... ...
/e onl# have to loo at the e.perience of %oca1%ola -ottlers Philippines, Inc., since
this co&pan# "as or!ani4ed about ten #ears a!o, to see the benefits that arise fro&
restructurin! a division of San Mi!uel into a &ore co&petitive or!ani4ation. $s a
stand1alone enterprise, %%-PI en!ineered a dra&atic turnaround and has sustained
its sales and &aret share leadership ever since.
/e are confident that histor# "ill repeat itself, and the transfor&ation of Ma!nolia
and F5D "ill be successful as that of %%-PI.
1:
0ndeniabl#, the transfor&ation of the co&panies "as a &ana!e&ent prero!ative and
business >ud!&ent "hich the courts can not loo into unless it is contrar# to la", public polic#
or &orals. Neither can "e i&pute an# bad faith on the part of SM% so as to >ustif# the
application of the doctrine of piercin! the corporate veil.
1;
6ver &indful of the e&plo#ees<
interests, &ana!e&ent has assured the concerned e&plo#ees that the# "ill be absorbed b#
the ne" corporations "ithout loss of tenure and retainin! their present pa# and benefits
accordin! to the e.istin! %-$s.
19
The# "ere advised that upon the e.piration of the %-$s,
ne" a!ree&ents "ill be ne!otiated bet"een the &ana!e&ent of the ne" corporations and
the bar!ainin! representatives of the e&plo#ees concerned. $s a result of the spin1offs3
(. 6ach of the co&panies are run b#, supervised and controlled b# different
&ana!e&ent tea&s includin! separate hu&an resourceDpersonnel &ana!ers.
?. 6ach %o&pan# enforces its o"n ad&inistrative and operational rules and policies
and are not dependent on each other in their operations.
8. 6ach entit# &aintains separate financial state&ents and are audited separatel#
fro& each other.
20
Indubitabl#, therefore, Ma!nolia and SMFI beca&e distinct entities "ith separate >uridical
personalities. Thus, the# can not belon! to a sin!le bar!ainin! unit as held in the case of
iatagon La!or "ederation Local ''( of the %LG)* #. $ple.
21
/e elucidate3
The fact that their businesses are related and that the ?89 e&plo#ees of the 2eor!ia
Pacific International %orporation "ere ori!inall# e&plo#ees of 5ian!a -a# 5o!!in!
%o., Inc. is not a >ustification for disre!ardin! their separate personalities. @ence, the
?89 e&plo#ees, "ho are no" attached to 2eor!ia Pacific International %orporation,
should not be allo"ed to vote in the certification election at the 5ian!a -a# 5o!!in!
%o., Inc. The# should vote at a separate certification election to deter&ine the
collective bar!ainin! representative of the e&plo#ees of 2eor!ia Pacific International
%orporation.
Petition1union<s atte&pt to include the e&plo#ees of Ma!nolia and SMFI in the SM%
bar!ainin! unit so as to have a bi!!er &ass base of e&plo#ees has, therefore, no &ore valid
!round.
Moreover, in deter&inin! an appropriate bar!ainin! unit, the test of !roupin! is &utualit# or
co&&onalit# of interests. The e&plo#ees sou!ht to be represented b# the collective
bar!ainin! a!ent &ust have substantial &utual interests in ter&s of e&plo#&ent and "orin!
conditions as evinced b# the t#pe of "or the# perfor&ed.
22
%onsiderin! the spin1offs, the
co&panies "ould conse:uentl# have their respective and distinctive concerns in ter&s of the
nature of "or, "a!es, hours of "or and other conditions of e&plo#&ent. Interests of
e&plo#ees in the different co&panies perforce differ. SM% is en!a!ed in the business of the
beer &anufacturin!. Ma!nolia is involved in the &anufacturin! and processin! of diar#
products
23
"hile SMFI is involved in the production of feeds and the processin! of chicen.
24
The nature of their products and scales of business &a# re:uire different sills "hich &ust
necessaril# be co&&ensurated b# different co&pensation paca!es. The different
co&panies &a# have different volu&es of "or and different "orin! conditions. For such
reason, the e&plo#ees of the different co&panies see the need to !roup the&selves
to!ether and or!ani4e the&selves into distinctive and different !roups. It "ould then be best
to have separate bar!ainin! units for the different co&panies "here the e&plo#ees can
bar!ain separatel# accordin! to their needs and accordin! to their o"n "orin! conditions.
/e reiterate "hat "e have e.plained in the case of %ni#ersit7 of the *hilippines #. "errer-
Calle=a
29
that3
KTLhere are various factors "hich &ust be satisfied and considered in deter&inin! the
proper constituenc# of a bar!ainin! unit. No one particular factor is itself decisive of
the deter&ination. The "ei!ht accorded to an# particular factor varies in accordance
"ith the particular :uestion or :uestions that &a# arise in a !iven case. /hat are
these factorsJ Rothenber! &entions a !ood nu&ber, but the &ost pertinent to our
case are3 +(, "ill of the e&plo#ees +2lobe Doctrine,G +?, affinit# and unit of
e&plo#ees< interest, such as substantial si&ilarit# of "or and duties, or si&ilarit# of
co&pensation and "orin! conditionsG +8, prior collective bar!ainin! histor#G and +=,
e&plo#&ent status, such as te&porar#, seasonal and probationar# e&plo#ees. . . .
... ... ...
$n enli!htenin! appraisal of the proble& of definin! an appropriate bar!ainin! unit is
!iven in the (*th $nnual Report of the National 5abor Relations -oard "herein it is
e&phasi4ed that the factors "hich said board &a# consider and "ei!h in fi.in!
appropriate units are3 the histor#, e.tent and t#pe of or!ani4ation of e&plo#eesG the
histor# of their collective bar!ainin!G the histor#, e.tent and t#pe of or!ani4ation of
e&plo#ees in other plants of the sa&e e&plo#er, or other e&plo#ers in the sa&e
industr#G the sill, "a!es, "or, and "orin! conditions of the e&plo#eesG the desires
of the e&plo#eesG the eli!ibilit# of the e&plo#ees for &e&bership in the union or
unions involvedG and the relationship bet"een the unit or units proposed and the
e&plo#er<s or!ani4ation, &ana!e&ent, and operation . . .
. . . In said report, it is lie"ise e&phasi4ed that the basic test in deter&inin! the
appropriate bar!ainin! unit is that a unit, to be appropriate, &ust affect a !roupin! of
e&plo#ees "ho have substantial, &utual interests in "a!es, hours, "orin!
conditions and other sub>ects of collective bar!ainin! +citing S&ith on 5abor 5a"s,
8(918(7G Francisco, 5abor 5a"s, (9?,. . .
Finall#, "e tae note of the fact that the separate interests of the e&plo#ees of Ma!nolia and
SMFI fro& those of SM% has been reco!ni4ed in the case of aniel Bor!on #. Laguesma.
26

/e :uote3
6ven assu&in! in gratia argumenti that at the ti&e of the election the# "ere re!ular
e&plo#ees of San Mi!uel, nonetheless, these "orers are no lon!er connected "ith
San Mi!uel %orporation in an# &anner because Ma!nolia has ceased to be a
division of San Mi!uel %orporation and has been for&ed into a separate corporation
"ith a personalit# of its o"n +p. 8*F, Rollo,. This develop&ent, "hich "as brou!ht to
our attention b# private respondents, necessaril# renders &oot and acade&ic an#
further discourse on the propriet# of the elections "hich petitioners i&pu!n #ia the
recourse +p. 8(), Rollo,.
In vie" of all the fore!oin!, "e do not find an# !rave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Secretar# of 5abor in renderin! the assailed Order.
/@6R6FOR6, the petition is DISMISS6D for lac of &erit. The Te&porar# Restrainin!
Order issued on March ?), ())F is lifted.
SO ORD6R6D.
Bellosillo, Aitug and :ermosisima, ,r., ,,., concur.
*adilla, ,., too? no part.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
S6%OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 9:020 1u*e ;, 1992
C'!IFORNI' M'NUF'CTURING CORPOR'TION, petitioner,
vs.
TE ONOR')!E UNDERSECRET'R( OF !')OR )IEN&ENIDO E. !'GUESM', ')D
FEDER'TION OF FREE #OR$ERS 6FF#8, C'!IFORNI' MFG. CORP. SUPER&ISORS UNION
C'PTER 6C'!M'SUCO8, respondents.

P'R'S, J.:
This is a petition for revie" on certiorari "ith pra#er for preli&inar# in>unction andDor te&porar#
restrainin! order seein! to annul and set aside the +a, resolution < of the Depart&ent of 5abor and
6&plo#&ent dated October (9, ())* in OS1$1(*1?'81)* +N%R1OD1M1)*1*F1*)F, entitled HIn Re3
Petition for %ertification 6lection $&on! the Supervisors of %alifornia Manufacturin! %orporation,
Federation of Free /orers +FF/, %alifornia Mf!. %orp. Supervisors 0nion %hapter
+%$5M$S0%O,, petitioner1appellee, %alifornia Manufacturin! %orporation, e&plo#er1appellantH
"hich denied herein petitioner<s appeal and affir&ed the order of Med1$rbiter $rsenia M. Oca&po
dated $u!ust ??, ())* directin! the conduct of a certification election a&on! the supervisor#
e&plo#ees of %alifornia Manufacturin! %orporation, and +b, the Order << of the sa&e Depart&ent
den#in! petitioner<s &otion for reconsideration.
$s culled fro& the records, the follo"in! facts appear undisputed3
On Ma# ?=, ())*, a petition for certification election a&on! the supervisors of %alifornia
Manufacturin! %orporation +%M% for brevit#, "as filed b# the Federation of Free /orers +FF/, I
%alifornia Manufacturin! %orporation Supervisors 0nion %hapter +%$5M$S0%O,, alle!in! inter alia,
that it is a dul# re!istered federation "ith re!istr# certificate no. ()F?1TTT1IP, "hile FF/1
%$5M$S0%O %hapter is a dul# re!istered chapter "ith re!istr# certificate no. (1$F-I1*8' issued on
Ma# ?(, ())* +$nne. H$H, Rollo, p. 98,G that the e&plo#er %M% e&plo#s one hundred fift# +(F*,
supervisorsG that there is no reco!ni4ed supervisors union e.istin! in the co&pan#G that the petition
is filed in accordance "ith $rticle ?F7 of the 5abor %ode, as a&ended b# Republic $ct No. 97(FG and
that the petition is nevertheless supported b# a substantial &e&ber of si!natures of the e&plo#ees
concerned +$nne.es H6H and HFH, I!id., pp. ?'1?),.
In its ans"er, %M%, no" petitioner herein, alle!ed a&on! others, that the petition for the holdin! of a
certification election should be denied as it is not supported b# the re:uired t"ent#1five percent
+?FE, of all its supervisors and that a bi! nu&ber of the supposed si!natories to the petition are not
actuall# supervisors as the# have no subordinates to supervise, nor do the# have the po"ers and
functions "hich under the la" "ould classif# the& as supervisors +$nne. HDH, I!id., P. ?F,.
On ;ul# ?=. ())*, FF/I%$5M$S0%O filed its repl# &aintainin! that under the la", "hen there is
no e.istin! unit #et in a particular !argaining unit at the ti&e a petition for certification election is
filed, the ?FE rule on the si!natories does not appl#G that the Hor!ani4ed establish&entH
conte&plated b# la" does not refer to a Hco&pan#H per se but rather refers to a Hbar!ainin! unitH
"hich &a# be of different classifications in a sin!le co&pan#G that %M% has at least t"o +?, different
bar!ainin! units, na&el#, the supervisor# +unor!ani4ed, and the ran1and1file +or!ani4ed,G that the
si!natories to the petition have been perfor&in! supervisor# functionsG that since it is %M% "hich
pro&oted the& to the positions, of supervisors. it is alread# estopped fro& clai&in! that the# are not
supervisorsG that the said supervisors "ere e.cluded fro& the covera!e of the collective bar!ainin!
a!ree&ent of its ran1and1file e&plo#eesG and that the contested si!natories are indeed supervisors
as sho"n in the H%M% Master 5ist of 6&plo#eesH of ;anuar# ?, ())* and the %MS Publication
+$nne. H2H, I!id., p 8*,.
On $u!ust (?, ())*, the Med1$rbiter issued an order, the decretal portion of "hich reads3
/@6R6FOR6, pre&ises considered, it is hereb# ordered that a certification election
be conducted a&on! the supervisor# e&plo#ees of %alifornia Manufacturin!
%orporation "ithin t"ent# +?*, da#s fro& receipt hereof "ith the usual pre1election
conference of the parties to thresh out the &echanics of the election The pa#roll of
the co&pan# three +8, &onths prior to the filin! of the petition shall be used as the
basis in deter&inin! the list of eli!ible voters.
The choices are3
(. Federation of Free /orers +FF/, %alifornia Manufacturin!
%orporation Supervisors 0nion %hapter +%$5M$S0%O,G and
?. No union.
SO ORD6R6D. +$nne. H@H I!id., p. 88,.
%M% thereafter appealed to the Depart&ent of 5abor and 6&plo#&ent "hich, ho"ever, affir&ed the
above order in its assailed resolution dated October (9, ())* +$nne., H-H, I!id, a (', %M%<s
subse:uent &otion for reconsideration "as also denied in its order dated Nove&ber (7, ())*
+$nne. H$H, I!id., p. (F,, hence, his petition.
a, "hether or not the ter& Hunor!ani4ed establish&ent< in $rticle ?F7 of the tabor
%ode refers to a bar!ainin! unit or a business establish&entG
b, "hether or not non1supervisors can participate in a supervisor<s certification
electionG and
c, "hether or not the t"o +?, different and separate plants of herein petitioner in
ParaNa:ue and 5as PiNas can be treated as a sin!le bar!ainin! unit.
The petition &ust be denied.
The %ourt has alread# cate!oricall# ruled that $rticle ?F7 of the 5abor code is applicable to
unorganized la!or organizations and not to esta!lishments 0here there exists a certified !argaining
agent "hich had previousl# entered into a collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent "ith the &ana!e&ent
+$ssociated 5abor 0nions K$50L v. %alle>a, 2.R. No. 'F*'F, Nove&ber 9, ()'), (7) S%R$ (?7,
+6&phasis supplied,. Other"ise stated, the establish&ent concerned &ust have no certified
bar!ainin! a!ent +$ssociated 5abor 0nions K$50L v. %alle>a 2.R. No. '??9*, ;ul# (), ()'), (7F
S%R$ =)*,. In the instant case, it is be#ond cavil that the supervisors of %M% "hich constitute a
bar!ainin! unit separate and distinct fro& that of the ran1and1file, have no such a!ent. thus the#
correctl# filed a petition for certification election thru union FF/1%$5M$S0%O, lie"ise indubitabl# a
le!iti&ate labor or!ani4ation. %M%<s insistence on the ?FE subscription re:uire&ent, is clearl#
i&&aterial. The sa&e has been e.pressl# deleted b# Section ?= of Republic $ct No. 97(F and is
presentl# prescribed onl# in or!ani4ed establish&ents, that is, those "ith e.istin! bar!ainin! a!ents.
%o&pliance "ith the said re:uire&ent need not even be established "ith absolute certaint#. The
%ourt has consistentl# ruled that Heven concedin! that the statutor# re:uire&ent of 8*E +no" ?FE,
of the labor force asin! for a certification election had not been strictl# co&piled "ith, the Director
+no" the Med1$rbiter, is still e&po"ered to order that it be held precisel# for the purpose of
ascertainin! "hich of the contendin! labor or!ani4ations shall be the e.clusive collective bar!ainin!
a!ent +$tlas Free /orers 0nion +$F/0,1PSS50 5ocal v. Noriel, 2.R. No. 51F()*F, Ma# ?9, ()'(,
(*= S%R$ F9F,. The re:uire&ent then is relevant onl# "hen it beco&es mandator7 to conduct a
certification election. In all other instances, the discretion, accordin! to the rulin!s of this Tribunal,
ou!ht to be ordinaril# e.ercised in favor of a petition for certification +National Mines and $llied
/orers 0nion +N$M$/010IF, v. 5una, et al., 2.R. No. 51=97??, ;une (F, ()7', '8 S%R$ 9*7,.
In an# event, %M% as e&plo#er has no standin! to :uestion a certification election +$sian Desi!n
and Manufacturin! %orporation v. %alle>a, et al., 2.R. No. 77=(F, ;une ?), ()'), (7= S%R$ =77,.
Such is the sole concern of the "orers. The onl# e.ception is "here the e&plo#er has to file the
petition for certification election pursuant to $rticle ?F) +no" ?F', of the 5abor %ode because it "as
re:uested to bar!ain collectivel#. Thereafter, the role of the e&plo#er in the certification process
ceases. The e&plo#er beco&es &erel# a b#stander. Oft1:uoted is the pronounce&ent of the %ourt
on &ana!e&ent interference in certification elections, thus3
On &atters that should be the e.clusive concern of labor, the choice of a collective
bar!ainin! representative, the e&plo#er is definitel# an intruder, @is participation, to
sa# the least, deserves no encoura!e&ent. This %ourt should be the last a!enc# to
lend support to such an atte&pt at interference "ith purel# internal affair of labor.
+Trade 0nions of the Philippines and $llied Services +T0P$S, v. Tra>ano. 2.R. No. 51
9((F8 ;anuar# (7, ()'8, (?* S%R$ 9= citing %onsolidated Far&s, Inc. v. Noriel, 2.R
No. 51=77F? ;ul# 8(, ()7', '= S%R$ =9), =78,.
PR6MIS6S %ONSID6R6D, the petition is DISMISS6D for utter lac of &erit.
SO ORD6R6D.
+ar#asa, C.,., *adilla and Regalado, ,,. concur.
+ocon, ,., is on lea#e.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. ;90;9 No=e.ber 6, 19;9
'SSOCI'TED !')OR UNIONS 6'!U8, petitioner,
vs.
ON. PUR' FERRER%C'!!E1', DIRECTOR, )URE'U OF !')OR RE!'TIONS, DEP'RTMENT
OF !')OR 'ND EMP!O(MENT, N'TION'! FEDER'TION OF !')OR UNIONS 6N'F!U8,
respondents.

G'NC'(CO, J.:
Is the contract bar rule applicable "here a collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent "as hastil# concluded in
defiance of the order of the &ed1arbiter en>oinin! the parties fro& enterin! into a %-$ until the issue
on representation is finall# resolvedJ This is the pri&ar# issue in this special civil action for certiorari.
The Philippine $ssociated S&eltin! and Refinin! %orporation +P$S$R, is a corporation established
and e.istin! pursuant to Philippine la"s and is en!a!ed in the &anufacture and processin! of
copper cathodes "ith a plant operatin! in Isabel, 5e#te. It e&plo#s &ore or less ei!ht hundred fift#
+'F*, ran1and1file e&plo#ees in its depart&ents.
Petitioner $ssociated 5abor 0nion +$50, had a collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent +%-$, "ith P$S$R
"hich e.pired on $pril (, ()'7. Several da#s before the e.piration of the said %-$ or on March ?8,
()'7, private respondent National Federation of 5abor 0nions +N$F50, filed a petition for
certification election "ith the -ureau of 5abor Relations Re!ional Office in Tacloban %it# doceted as
M6D1$R-1RO VII %ase No. 81?'1'7, alle!in!, a&on! others, that no certification election had been
held in P$S$R "ithin t"elve +(?, &onths i&&ediatel# precedin! the filin! of the said petition.
Petitioner &oved to intervene and sou!ht the dis&issal of the petition on the !round that N$F50
failed to present the necessar# si!natures in support of its petition. In the order dated $pril ?(, ()'7,
1
Med1$rbiter -ienvenido %. 6lorcha dis&issed the petition. @o"ever, the order of dis&issal "as set
aside in another order dated Ma# ', ()'7 and the case "as rescheduled for hearin! on Ma# ?),
()'7. The said order lie"ise en>oined P$S$R fro& enterin! into a collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent
"ith an# union until after the issue of representation is finall# resolved. In the order dated ;une (,
()'7,
2
the petition for certification "as dis&issed for failure of N$F50 to solicit ?*H7c of the total
nu&ber of ran and file e&plo#ees "hile $50 sub&itted 88 pa!es containin! the si!natures of
''.FE of the ran and file e&plo#ees at P$S$R.
Private respondent appealed the order of dis&issal to the -ureau of 5abor Relations. /hile the
appeal "as pendin!, petitioner $50 concluded ne!otiations "ith P$S$R on the proposed %-$. On
;ul# ?=, ()'7, copies of the ne"l# concluded %-$ "ere posted in four +=, conspicuous places in the
co&pan# pre&ises. The said %-$ "as ratified b# the &e&bers of the bar!ainin! unit on ;ul# ?',
()'7.
3
Thereafter, petitioner $50 &oved for the dis&issal of the appeal alle!in! that it had >ust
concluded a %-$ "ith P$S$R and that the said %-$ had been ratified b# )'E of the re!ular ran1
and1file e&plo#ees and that at least 7F of N$F50<s &e&bers renounced their &e&bership thereat
and affir&ed &e&bership "ith P6$1$50 in separate affidavits.
In a resolution dated Septe&ber 8*, ()'7, the public respondent !ave due course to the appeal b#
orderin! the conduct of a certification election a&on! the ran1and1file e&plo#ees of P$S$R "ith
$50, N$F50 and no union as choices, and denied petitioner <s &otion to dis&iss.
4
-oth parties &oved for reconsideration of the said resolution. @o"ever, both &otions "ere denied b#
public respondent in the order dated $pril ??, ()''.
@ence, the present petition.
9
The petition is anchored on the ar!u&ent that the holdin! of certification elections in or!ani4ed
establish&ents is &andated onl# "here a petition is filed :uestionin! the &a>orit# status of the
incu&bent union and that it is onl# after due hearin! "here it is established that the union clai&in!
the &a>orit# status in the bar!ainin! unit has indeed a considerable support that a certification
election should be ordered, other"ise, the petition should be su&&aril# dis&issed.
6
Petitioner adds
that public respondent &issed the le!al intent of $rticle ?F7 of the 5abor %ode as a&ended b#
6.ecutive Order No. (((.
:

In effect, petitioner is of the vie" that $rticle ?F7 of the 5abor %ode "hich re:uires the si!nature of at
least ?*E of the total nu&ber of ran1and1file e&plo#ees should be applied in the case at bar.
The petition is devoid of &erit.
$s it has been ruled in a lon! line of decisions,
;
a certification proceedin!s is not a liti!ation in the
sense that the ter& is ordinaril# understood, but an investi!ation of a non1adversarial and fact1
findin! character. $s such, it is not covered b# the technical rules of evidence. Thus, as provided
under $rticle ??( of the 5abor %ode, proceedin!s before the National 5abor Relations %o&&ission
+N5R%, are not covered b# the technical rules of procedure and evidence. The %ourt had previousl#
construed $rticle ??( as to allo" the N5R% or the labor arbiter to decide the case on the basis of
position papers and other docu&ents sub&itted "ithout resortin! to technical rules of evidence as
observed in re!ular courts of >ustice.
9

On the other hand, $rticle ?F7 is applicable onl# to unor!ani4ed labor or!ani4ations and not to
establish&ents lie P$S$R "here there e.ists a certified bar!ainin! a!ent, petitioner $50, "hich as
the record sho"s had previousl# entered into a %-$ "ith the &ana!e&ent. This could be discerned
fro& the clear intent of the la" "hich provides that I
$RT. ?F7. *etitions in unorganized esta!lishments. I In an# establish&ent
"here there is no certified bar!ainin! a!ent, the petition for certification
election filed b# a le!iti&ate labor or!ani4ation shall be supported b# the
"ritten consent of at least t"ent# per cent +?*E, of all the e&plo#ees in the
bar!ainin! unit. 0pon receipt and verification of such petition, the Med1$rbiter
shall auto&aticall# order the conduct of a certification election.
Said article traverses the clai& of the petitioner that in this case there is a need for a considerable
support of the ran1and1file e&plo#ees in order that a certification election &a# be ordered. No"here
in the said provision does it re:uire that the petition in or!ani4ed establish&ent should be
acco&panied b# the "ritten consent of at least t"ent# percent +?*E, of the e&plo#ees of the
bar!ainin! unit concerned &uch less a re:uire&ent that the petition be supported b# the &a>orit# of
the ran1and1file e&plo#ees. $s above stated, $rticle ?F7 is applicable onl# to unor!ani4ed
establish&ents.
The %ourt reiterates that in cases of or!ani4ed establish&ents "here there e.ists a certified
bar!ainin! a!ent, "hat is essential is "hether the petition for certification election "asfiled "ithin the
si.t#1da# freedo& period. $rticle ?F9 of the 5abor %ode, as a&ended b# 6.ecutive Order No. (((,
provides3
$RT. ?F9. Representation issue in organized esta!lishments. I In or!ani4ed
esta!lishments, "hen a petition :uestionin! the &a>orit# status of the
incu&bent bar!ainin! a!ent is filed before the Depart&ent "ithin the si.t#1
da# period before the e.piration of the collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent, the
Med1$rbiter shall auto&aticall# order an election b# secret ballot to ascertain
the "ill of the e&plo#ees in the appropriate bar!ainin! unit. To have a valid
election, at least a &a>orit# of all eli!ible voters in the unit &ust have cast
their votes. The labor union receivin! the &a>orit# of the valid votes cast shall
be certified as the e.clusive bar!ainin! a!ent of all the "orers in the unit.
/hen an election "hich provides for three or &ore choices results in no
choice receivin! a &a>orit# of the valid votes cast, a run1off election shall be
conducted bet"een the choices receivin! the t"o hi!hest nu&ber of votes.
$rticle ?F9 is clear and leaves no roo& for interpretation. The &ere filin! of a petition for certification
election "ithin the freedo& period is sufficient basis for the respondent Director to order the holdin!
of a certification election.
/as the petition filed b# N$F50 instituted "ithin the freedo& periodJ The record speas for itself.
The previous %-$ entered into b# petitioner $50 "as due to e.pire on $pril (, ()'7. The petition for
certification "as filed b# N$F50 on March ?8, ()'7, "ell "ithin the freedo& period.
The contract bar rule is applicable onl# "here the petition for certification election "as filed either
before or after the freedo& period. Petitioner, ho"ever, contends that since the ne" %-$ had
alread# been ratified over"hel&in!l# b# the &e&bers of the bar!ainin! unit and that said %-$ had
alread# been consu&&ated and the &e&bers of the bar!ainin! unit have been continuousl#
en>o#in! the benefits under the said %-$, no certification election &a# be conducted,
10
citin!,
"oamtex La!or %nion-T%*&< #s. +oriel,
11
and Trade %nions of the *hil. and &llied <er#ices #s.
Inciong.
12
The reliance on the afore&entioned cases is &isplaced. In "oamtex the petition for certiorari
:uestionin! the validit# of the order of the Director of 5abor Relations "hich in turn affir&ed the order
of the Med1$rbiter callin! for a certification election "as dis&issed b# the %ourt on the !round that
althou!h a ne" %-$ "as concluded bet"een the petitioner and the &ana!e&ent, onl# a certified
%-$ "ould serve as a bar to the holdin! of a certification election, citin! $rticle ?8? of the 5abor
%ode.
"oamtex "eaens rather than stren!thens petitioner<s stand. $s pointed out b# public respondent,
the ne" %-$ entered into bet"een petitioner on one hand and b# the &ana!e&ent on the other has
not been certified as #et b# the -ureau of 5abor Relations.
There is an appreciable difference in Trade %nions of the *hil. and &llied <er#ices +T0P$S for short,.
@ere, as in "oamtex the %-$ "as not #et certified and #et the %ourt affir&ed the order of the
Director of the -ureau of 5abor Relations "hich dis&issed the petition for certification election filed
b# the labor union. In T0P$S, the dis&issal of the petition for certification, "as based on the fact that
the contendin! union had a clear &a>orit# of the "orers concerned since out of 9=( of the total
"orin! force, the said union had =)) "ho did not onl# ratif# the %-$ concluded bet"een the said
union and the &ana!e&ent but also affir&ed their &e&bership in the said union so that apparentl#
petitioners therein did not have the support of 8*E of all the e&plo#ees of the bar!ainin! unit.
Nevertheless, even assu&in! for the sae of ar!u&ent that the petitioner herein has the &a>orit# of
the ran1and1file e&plo#ees and that so&e &e&bers of the N$F50 even renounced their
&e&bership thereat and affir&ed &e&bership "ith the petitioner, /e cannot, ho"ever, appl#
T0P$S in the case at bar. 0nlie in the case of herein petitioner, in T0P$S, the petition for
certification election "as filed nineteen +(), da#s after the %-$ "as si!ned "hich "as "ell be#ond
the freedo& period.
On the other hand, as earlier &entioned, the petition for certification election in this case "as filed
"ithin the freedo& period but the petitioner and P$S$R hastil# concluded a %-$ despite the order of
the Med1$rbiter en>oinin! the& fro& doin! so until the issue of representation is finall# resolved. $s
pointed out b# public respondent in its co&&ent,
13
the parties "ere in bad faith "hen the#
concluded the %-$. Their act "as clearl# intended to bar the petition for certification election filed b#
N$F50. $ collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent "hich "as pre&aturel# rene"ed is not a bar to the
holdin! of a certification election.
14
Such indecent haste in rene"in! the %-$ despite an order
en>oinin! the& fro& doin! so
19
is desi!ned to frustrate the constitutional ri!ht of the e&plo#ees to
self1or!ani4ation.
16
Moreover, /e cannot countenance the actuation of the petitioner and the
&ana!e&ent in this case "hich is not conducive to industrial peace.
The rene"ed %-$ cannot constitute a bar to the instant petition for certification election for the ver#
reason that the sa&e "as not #et in e.istence "hen the said petition "as filed.
1:
The holdin! of a
certification election is a statutor# polic# that should not be circu&vented.
1;

Petitioner posits the vie" that to !rant the petition for certification election "ould open the flood!ates
to unbridled and scrupulous petitions the ob>ective of "hich is to pre>udice the industrial peace and
stabilit# e.istin! in the co&pan#.
This %ourt believes other"ise. Our established >urisprudence adheres to the polic# of enhancin! the
"elfare of the "orers. Their freedo& to choose "ho should be their bar!ainin! representative is of
para&ount i&portance. The fact that there alread# e.ists a bar!ainin! representative in the unit
concerned is of no &o&ent as lon! as the petition for certification "as filed "ithin the freedo&
period. /hat is i&perative is that b# such a petition for certification election the e&plo#ees are !iven
the opportunit# to &ae no"n "ho shall have the ri!ht to represent the& thereafter. Not onl# so&e
but all of the& should have the ri!ht to do so.
19
Petitioner<s contention that it has the support of the
&a>orit# is i&&aterial. /hat is e:uall# i&portant is that ever#one be !iven a de&ocratic space in the
bar!ainin! unit concerned. Ti&e and a!ain, /e have reiterated that the &ost effective "a# of
deter&inin! "hich labor or!ani4ation can trul# represent the "orin! force is b# certification election.
20
Finall#, petitioner insists that to allo" a certification election to be conducted "ill pro&ote
divisiveness and eventuall# cause polari4ation of the &e&bers of the bar!ainin! unit at the e.pense
of national interest.
21

The clai& is bereft of &erit. Petitioner failed to establish that the callin! of certification election "ill be
pre>udicial to the e&plo#ees concerned andDor to the national interest. The fear perceived b# the
petitioner is &ore i&a!inar# than real. If it is true, as pointed out b# the petitioner, that it has the
support of &ore than the &a>orit# and that there "as even a bi!!er nu&ber of &e&bers of N$F50
"ho affir&ed their &e&bership to petitioner1union, then /e see no reason "h# petitioner should be
apprehensive over the issue. If their clai& is true, then &ost liel# the conduct of a certification
election "ill stren!then their hold as an# doubt "ill be erased thereb#. /ith the resolution of such
doubts, fra!&entation of the bar!ainin! unit "ill be avoided, and hence coherence a&on! the
"orers "ill liel# follo".
Petitioner<s clai& that the holdin! of a certification election "ill be ini&ical to the national interest is
far fetched. The "orers are at peace "ith one another and their "orin! condition is s&ooth. There
has been no stoppa!e of "or or an occurrence of a strie. /ith these facts on hand, to order
other"ise "ill be repu!nant to the "ell1entrenched ri!ht of the "orers to unionis&.
/@6R6FOR6, pre&ises considered, the instant petition is DISMISS6D for lac of &erit. The
te&porar# restrainin! order issued b# the %ourt in the resolution dated October (*, ()''
22
is hereb#
lifted. This decision is i&&ediatel# e.ecutor#. No costs.
SO ORD6R6D.
+ar#asa, Cruz, GriBo-&.uino and Medialdea, ,,., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
S6%OND DIVISION
G.R. No. !%94334 1a*uary 22, 19;6
$IO$ !O(, +o0*7 bu/0*e// u*+er ->e *a.e a*+ /-y5e S#EDEN ICE CRE'M P!'NT, petitioner,
vs.
N'TION'! !')OR RE!'TIONS COMMISSION 6N!RC8 a*+ P'M)'NS'NG $I!US'N NG
P'GG'#' 6$I!US'N8, respondents.
&!lan and &ssociates for petitioner.
&!dulcadir T. I!rahim for pri#ate respondent.

CUE&'S, J.:
Petition for certiorari to annul the decision
1
of the National 5abor Relations %o&&ission +N5R%,
dated ;ul# ?*, ()7) "hich found petitioner S"eden Ice %rea& !uilt# of unfair labor practice for
un>ustified refusal to bar!ain, in violation of par. +!, of $rticle ?=)
2
of the Ne" 5abor %ode,
3
and
declared the draft proposal of the 0nion for a collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent as the !overnin!
collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent bet"een the e&plo#ees and the &ana!e&ent.
The pertinent bac!round facts are as follo"s3
In a certification election held on October 8, ()7', the Pa&bansan! Bilusan! Pa!!a"a +0nion for
short,, a le!iti&ate late labor federation, "on and "as subse:uentl# certified in a resolution dated
Nove&ber ?), ()7' b# the -ureau of 5abor Relations as the sole and e.clusive bar!ainin! a!ent of
the ran1and1file e&plo#ees of S"eden Ice %rea& Plant +%o&pan# for short,. The %o&pan#<s
&otion for reconsideration of the said resolution "as denied on ;anuar# ?F, ()7'.
Thereafter, and &ore specificall# on Dece&ber 7, ()7', the 0nion furnished
4
the %o&pan# "ith t"o
copies of its proposed collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent. $t the sa&e ti&e, it re:uested the %o&pan#
for its counter proposals. 6licitin! no response to the aforesaid re:uest, the 0nion a!ain "rote the
%o&pan# reiteratin! its re:uest for collective bar!ainin! ne!otiations and for the %o&pan# to furnish
the& "ith its counter proposals. -oth re:uests "ere i!nored and re&ained unacted upon b# the
%o&pan#.
5eft "ith no other alternative in its atte&pt to brin! the %o&pan# to the bar!ainin! table, the 0nion,
on Februar# (=, ()7), filed a HNotice of StrieH, "ith the -ureau of 5abor Relations +-5R, on !round
of unresolved econo&ic issues in collective bar!ainin!.
9

%onciliation proceedin!s then follo"ed durin! the thirt#1da# statutor# coolin!1off period. -ut all
atte&pts to"ards an a&icable settle&ent failed, pro&ptin! the -ureau of 5abor Relations to certif#
the case to the National 5abor Relations %o&&ission +N5R%, for co&pulsor# arbitration pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. '?8, as a&ended. The labor arbiter, $ndres Fidelino, to "ho& the case "as
assi!ned, set the initial hearin! for $pril ?), ()7). For failure ho"ever, of the parties to sub&it their
respective position papers as re:uired, the said hearin! "as cancelled and reset to another date.
Mean"hile, the 0nion sub&itted its position paper. The %o&pan# did not, and instead re:uested for
a resettin! "hich "as !ranted. The %o&pan# "as directed ane" to sub&it its financial state&ents
for the #ears ()79, ()77, and ()7'.
The case "as further reset to Ma# ((, ()7) due to the "ithdra"al of the %o&pan#<s counsel of
record, $tt#. Rodolfo dela %ru4. On Ma# ?=, ()7', $tt#. Fortunato Pan!aniban for&all# entered his
appearance as counsel for the %o&pan# onl# to re:uest for another postpone&ent alle!edl# for the
purpose of ac:uaintin! hi&self "ith the case. Mean"hile, the %o&pan# sub&itted its position paper
on Ma# ?', ()7).
/hen the case "as called for hearin! on ;une =, ()7) as scheduled, the %o&pan#<s representative,
Mr. %hin!, "ho "as supposed to be e.a&ined, failed to appear. $tt#. Pan!aniban then re:uested for
another postpone&ent "hich the labor arbiter denied. @e also ruled that the %o&pan# has "aived
its ri!ht to present further evidence and, therefore, considered the case sub&itted for resolution.
On ;ul# (', ()7), labor arbiter $ndres Fidelino sub&itted its report to the National 5abor Relations
%o&&ission. On ;ul# ?*, ()7), the National 5abor Relations %o&&ission rendered its decision, the
dispositive portion of "hich reads as follo"s3
/@6R6FOR6, the respondent S"eden Ice %rea& is hereb# declared !uilt# of
un>ustified refusal to bar!ain, in violation of Section +!, $rticle ?=' +no" $rticle ?=),,
of P.D. ==?, as a&ended. Further, the draft proposal for a collective bar!ainin!
a!ree&ent +6.h. H6 H, hereto attached and &ade an inte!ral part of this decision,
sent b# the 0nion +Private respondent, to the respondent +petitioner herein, and
"hich is hereb# found to be reasonable under the pre&ises, is hereb# declared to be
the collective a!ree&ent "hich should !overn the relationship bet"een the parties
herein.
SO ORD6R6D. +6&phasis supplied,
Petitioner no" co&es before 0s assailin! the aforesaid decision contendin! that the National 5abor
Relations %o&&ission acted "ithout or in e.cess of its >urisdiction or "ith !rave abuse of discretion
a&ountin! to lac of >urisdiction in renderin! the challen!ed decision. On $u!ust =, ()'*, this %ourt
dis&issed the petition for lac of &erit. 0pon &otion of the petitioner, ho"ever, the Resolution of
dis&issal "as reconsidered and the petition "as !iven due course in a Resolution dated $pril (,
()'(.
Petitioner %o&pan# no" &aintains that its ri!ht to procedural due process has been violated "hen it
"as precluded fro& presentin! further evidence in support of its stand and "hen its re:uest for
further postpone&ent "as denied. Petitioner further contends that the National 5abor Relations
%o&&ission<s findin! of unfair labor practice for refusal to bar!ain is not supported b# la" and the
evidence considerin! that it "as onl# on Ma# ?=, ()7) "hen the 0nion furnished the& "ith a cop# of
the proposed %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent and it "as onl# then that the# ca&e to no" of the
0nion<s de&andsG and finall#, that the %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent approved and adopted b#
the National 5abor Relations %o&&ission is unreasonable and lacs le!al basis.
The petition lacs &erit. %onse:uentl#, its dis&issal is in order.
%ollective bar!ainin! "hich is defined as ne!otiations to"ards a collective a!ree&ent,
6
is one of the
de&ocratic fra&e"ors under the Ne" 5abor %ode, desi!ned to stabili4e the relation bet"een labor
and &ana!e&ent and to create a cli&ate of sound and stable industrial peace. It is a &utual
responsibilit# of the e&plo#er and the 0nion and is characteri4ed as a le!al obli!ation. So &uch so
that $rticle ?=), par. +!, of the 5abor %ode &aes it an unfair labor practice for an e&plo#er to refuse
Hto &eet and convene pro&ptl# and e.peditiousl# in !ood faith for the purpose of ne!otiatin! an
a!ree&ent "ith respect to "a!es, hours of "or, and all other ter&s and conditions of e&plo#&ent
includin! proposals for ad>ustin! an# !rievance or :uestion arisin! under such an a!ree&ent and
e.ecutin! a contract incorporatin! such a!ree&ent, if re:uested b# either part#.
/hile it is a &utual obli!ation of the parties to bar!ain, the e&plo#er, ho"ever, is not under an# le!al
dut# to initiate contract ne!otiation.
:
The &echanics of collective bar!ainin! is set in &otion onl#
"hen the follo"in! >urisdictional preconditions are present, na&el#, +(, possession of the status of
&a>orit# representation of the e&plo#ees< representative in accordance "ith an# of the &eans of
selection or desi!nation provided for b# the 5abor %odeG +?, proof of &a>orit# representationG and +8,
a de&and to bar!ain under $rticle ?F(, par. +a, of the Ne" 5abor %ode . ... all of "hich preconditions
are undisputedl# present in the instant case.
Fro& the over1all conduct of petitioner co&pan# in relation to the tas of ne!otiation, there can be no
doubt that the 0nion has a valid cause to co&plain a!ainst its +%o&pan#<s, attitude, the totalit# of
"hich is indicative of the latter<s disre!ard of, and failure to live up to, "hat is en>oined b# the 5abor
%ode I to bar!ain in !ood faith.
/e are in total confor&it# "ith respondent N5R%<s pronounce&ent that petitioner %o&pan# is
20I5TA of unfair labor practice. It has been indubitabl# established that +(, respondent 0nion "as a
dul# certified bar!ainin! a!entG +?, it &ade a definite re:uest to bar!ain, acco&panied "ith a cop# of
the proposed %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent, to the %o&pan# not onl# once but t"ice "hich "ere
left unans"ered and unacted uponG and +8, the %o&pan# &ade no counter proposal "hatsoever all
of "hich conclusivel# indicate lac of a sincere desire to ne!otiate.
;
$ %o&pan#<s refusal to &ae
counter proposal if considered in relation to the entire bar!ainin! process, &a# indicate bad faith and
this is speciall# true "here the 0nion<s re:uest for a counter proposal is left unans"ered.
9
6ven
durin! the period of co&pulsor# arbitration before the N5R%, petitioner %o&pan#<s approach and
attitude1stallin! the ne!otiation b# a series of postpone&ents, non1appearance at the hearin!
conducted, and undue dela# in sub&ittin! its financial state&ents, lead to no other conclusion
e.cept that it is un"illin! to ne!otiate and reach an a!ree&ent "ith the 0nion. Petitioner has not at
an# instance, evinced !ood faith or "illin!ness to discuss freel# and full# the clai&s and de&ands
set forth b# the 0nion &uch less >ustif# its opposition thereto.
10

The case at bar is not a case of first i&pression, for in the :erald eli#er7 Carriers %nion 5*&"L%6
#s. :erald *u!lications
11
the rule had been laid do"n that Hunfair labor practice is co&&itted "hen it
is sho"n that the respondent e&plo#er, after havin! been served "ith a "ritten bar!ainin! proposal
b# the petitionin! 0nion, did not even bother to sub&it an ans"er or repl# to the said proposal This
doctrine "as reiterated ane" in Bradman #s. Court of Industrial Relations
12
"herein it "as further
ruled that H"hile the la" does not co&pel the parties to reach an a!ree&ent, it does conte&plate
that both parties "ill approach the ne!otiation "ith an open &ind and &ae a reasonable effort to
reach a co&&on !round of a!ree&ent
$s a last1ditch atte&pt to effect a reversal of the decision sou!ht to be revie"ed, petitioner
capitali4es on the issue of due process clai&in!, that it "as denied the ri!ht to be heard and present
its side "hen the 5abor $rbiter denied the %o&pan#<s &otion for further postpone&ent.
Petitioner<s aforesaid sub&ittal failed to i&press 0s. %onsiderin! the various postpone&ents !ranted
in its behalf, the clai&ed denial of due process appeared totall# bereft of an# le!al and factual
support. $s herein earlier stated, petitioner had not even honored respondent 0nion "ith an# repl# to
the latter<s successive letters, all !eared to"ards brin!in! the %o&pan# to the bar!ainin! table. It did
not even bother to furnish or serve the 0nion "ith its counter proposal despite persistent re:uests
&ade therefor. %ertainl#, the &oves and overall behavior of petitioner1co&pan# "ere in total
dero!ation of the polic# enshrined in the Ne" 5abor %ode "hich is ai&ed to"ards e.peditin!
settle&ent of econo&ic disputes. @ence, this %ourt is not prepared to affi. its i&pri&atur to such an
ille!al sche&e and dubious &aneuvers.
Neither are /6 persuaded b# petitioner1co&pan#<s stand that the %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent
"hich "as approved and adopted b# the N5R% is a total nullit# for it lacs the co&pan#<s consent,
&uch less its ar!u&ent that once the %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent is i&ple&ented, the
%o&pan# "ill face the prospect of closin! do"n because it has to pa# a sta!!erin! a&ount of
econo&ic benefits to the 0nion that "ill e:ual if not e.ceed its capital. Such a stand and the
evidence in support thereof should have been presented before the 5abor $rbiter "hich is the proper
foru& for the purpose.
/e a!ree "ith the pronounce&ent that it is not obli!ator# upon either side of a labor controvers# to
precipitatel# accept or a!ree to the proposals of the other. -ut an errin! part# should not be tolerated
and allo"ed "ith i&punit# to resort to sche&es fei!nin! ne!otiations b# !oin! throu!h e&pt#
!estures.
13
More so, as in the instant case, "here the intervention of the National 5abor Relations
%o&&ission "as properl# sou!ht for after conciliation efforts undertaen b# the -5R failed. The
instant case bein! a certified one, it &ust be resolved b# the N5R% pursuant to the &andate of P.D.
'78, as a&ended, "hich authori4es the said bod# to deter&ine the reasonableness of the ter&s and
conditions of e&plo#&ent e&bodied in an# %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent. To that e.tent, ut&ost
deference to its findin!s of reasonableness of an# %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent as the !overnin!
a!ree&ent b# the e&plo#ees and &ana!e&ent &ust be accorded due respect b# this %ourt.
/@6R6FOR6, the instant petition is DISMISS6D. The te&porar# restrainin! order issued on $u!ust
?7, ()'*, is 5IFT6D and S6T $SID6.
No pronounce&ent as to costs.
SO ORD6R6D.
Concepcion, ,r., 5Chairman6, &!ad <antos, /scolin and &lampa7, ,,., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
S6%OND DIVISION
G.R. No. 1149:4 1u*e 16, 2004
ST'ND'RD C'RTERED )'N$ EMP!O(EES UNION 6NU)E8, petitioner,
vs.
T>e o*orab5e M'. NIE&ES R. CONFESOR, 0* >er 2a,a20-y a/ SECRET'R( OF !')OR 'ND
EMP!O(MENT? a*+ ->e ST'ND'RD C'RTERED )'N$, respondents.
D 6 % I S I O N
C'!!E1O, SR., J.:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 9F of the Rules of %ourt filed b# the Standard %hartered
-an 6&plo#ees 0nion, seein! the nullification of the October ?), ())8 Order
(
of then Secretar# of
5abor and 6&plo#&ent Nieves R. %onfesor and her resolutions dated Dece&ber (9, ())8 and
Februar# (*, ())=.
The $ntecedents
Standard %hartered -an +the -an, for brevit#, is a forei!n banin! corporation doin! business in
the Philippines. The e.clusive bar!ainin! a!ent of the ran and file e&plo#ees of the -an is the
Standard %hartered -an 6&plo#ees 0nion +the 0nion, for brevit#,.
In $u!ust of ())*, the -an and the 0nion si!ned a five1#ear collective bar!ainin! a!ree&ent +%-$,
"ith a provision to rene!otiate the ter&s thereof on the third #ear. Prior to the e.piration of the three1
#ear period
?
but "ithin the si.t#1da# freedo& period, the 0nion initiated the ne!otiations. On
Februar# (', ())8, the 0nion, throu!h its President, 6ddie 5. Divina!racia, sent a letter
8
containin!
its proposals
=
coverin! political provisions
F
and thirt#1four +8=, econo&ic provisions.
9
Included therein
"as a list of the na&es of the &e&bers of the 0nionOs ne!otiatin! panel.
7

In a 5etter dated Februar# ?=, ())8, the -an, throu!h its %ountr# Mana!er Peter @. @arris, too
note of the 0nionOs proposals. The -an attached its counter1proposal to the non1econo&ic
provisions proposed b# the 0nion.
'
The -an posited that it "ould be in a better position to present
its counter1proposals on the econo&ic ite&s after the 0nion had presented its >ustifications for the
econo&ic proposals.
)
The -an, lie"ise, listed the &e&bers of its ne!otiatin! panel.
(*
The parties
a!reed to set &eetin!s to settle their differences on the proposed %-$.
-efore the co&&ence&ent of the ne!otiation, the 0nion, throu!h Divina!racia, su!!ested to the
-anOs @u&an Resource Mana!er and head of the ne!otiatin! panel, %ielito Diono, that the ban
la"#ers should be e.cluded fro& the ne!otiatin! tea&. The -an acceded.
((
Mean"hile, Diono
su!!ested to Divina!racia that ;ose P. 0&ali, ;r., the President of the National 0nion of -an
6&plo#ees +N0-6,, the federation to "hich the 0nion "as affiliated, be e.cluded fro& the 0nionOs
ne!otiatin! panel.
(?
@o"ever, 0&ali "as retained as a &e&ber thereof.
On March (?, ())8, the parties &et and set the !round rules for the ne!otiation. Diono su!!ested
that the ne!otiation be ept a Hfa&il# affair.H The proposed non1econo&ic provisions of the %-$ "ere
discussed first.
(8
6ven durin! the final readin! of the non1econo&ic provisions on Ma# =, ())8, there
"ere still provisions on "hich the 0nion and the -an could not a!ree. Te&poraril#, the notation
HD6F6RR6DH "as placed therein. To"ards the end of the &eetin!, the 0nion &anifested that the
sa&e should be chan!ed to HD6$D5O%B6DH to indicate that such ite&s re&ained unresolved. -oth
parties a!reed to place the notation HD6F6RR6DDD6$D5O%B6D.H
(=

On Ma# (', ())8, the ne!otiation for econo&ic provisions co&&enced. $ presentation of the basis
of the 0nionOs econo&ic proposals "as &ade. The ne.t &eetin!, the -an &ade a si&ilar
presentation. To"ards the end of the -anOs presentation, 0&ali re:uested the -an to validate the
0nionOs Hguestimates,H especiall# the fi!ures for the ran and file staff.
(F
In the succeedin! &eetin!s,
0&ali chided the -an for the insufficienc# of its counter1proposal on the provisions on salar#
increase, !roup hospitali4ation, death assistance and dental benefits. @e re&inded the -an, ho"
the 0nion !ot "hat it "anted in ()'7, and stated that if need be, the 0nion "ould !o throu!h the
sa&e route to !et "hat it "anted.
(9
0pon the -anOs insistence, the parties a!reed to tacle the econo&ic paca!e ite& b# ite&. 0pon
the 0nionOs su!!estion, the -an indicated "hich provisions it "ould accept, re>ect, retain and a!ree
to discuss.
(7
The -an su!!ested that the 0nion prioriti4e its econo&ic proposals, considerin! that
&an# of such econo&ic provisions re&ained unresolved. The 0nion, ho"ever, de&anded that the
-an &ae a revised ite&i4ed proposal.
In the succeedin! &eetin!s, the 0nion &ade the follo"in! proposals3
/a!e Increase3
(st Aear P Reduced fro& =FE to =*E
?nd Aear 1 Retain at ?*E
Total Q 9*E
2roup @ospitali4ation Insurance3
Ma.i&u& disabilit# benefit reduced fro& P7F,***.** to P9*,***.** per illness
annuall#
Death $ssistance3
For the e&plo#ee P Reduced fro& PF*,***.** to P=F,***.**
For I&&ediate Fa&il# Me&ber P Reduced fro& P8*,***.** to P?F,***.**
Dental and all others P No chan!e fro& the ori!inal de&and.
('
In the &ornin! of the ;une (F, ())8 &eetin!, the 0nion su!!ested that if the -an "ould not &ae
the necessar# revisions on its counter1proposal, it "ould be best to see a third part# assistance.
()

$fter the brea, the -an presented its revised counter1proposal
?*
as follo"s3
/a!e Increase 3 (st Aear P fro& P(,*** to P(,*F*.**
?nd Aear P P'**.** P no chan!e
2roup @ospitali4ation Insurance
Fro&3 P8F,***.** per illness
To 3 P8F,***.** per illness per #ear
Death $ssistance P For e&plo#ee
Fro&3 P?*,***.**
To 3 P?F,***.**
Dental Retainer P Ori!inal offer re&ains the sa&e
?(
The 0nion, for its part, &ade the follo"in! counter1proposal3
/a!e Increase3 (st Aear 1 =*E
?nd Aear 1 ().FE
2roup @ospitali4ation Insurance
Fro&3 P9*,***.** per #ear
To 3 PF*,***.** per #ear
Dental3
Te&porar# Fillin!D P P(F*.**
Tooth 6.traction
Per&anent Fillin! P ?**.**
Proph#la.is P ?F*.**
Root %anal P Fro& P?,*** per tooth
To3 (,'**.** per tooth
Death $ssistance3
For 6&plo#ees3 Fro& P=F,***.** to P=*,***.**
For I&&ediate Fa&il# Me&ber3 Fro& P?F,***.** to P?*,***.**.
??
The 0nionOs ori!inal proposals, aside fro& the above1:uoted, re&ained the sa&e.
$nother set of counter1offer follo"ed3
Mana!e&ent 0nion
/a!e Increase
(st Aear P P(,*F*.** =*E
?nd Aear 1 'F*.** ().*E
?8
Diono stated that, in order for the -an to &ae a better offer, the 0nion should clearl# identif# "hat
it "anted to be included in the total econo&ic paca!e. 0&ali replied that it 0as impossi!le to do so
!ecause the Ban?Cs counter-proposal 0as unaccepta!le. :e furthered asserted that it 0ould ha#e
!een easier to !argain if the atmosphere 0as the same as !efore, 0here !oth panels trusted each
other. Diono re:uested the 0nion panel to refrain fro& involvin! personalities and to instead focus
on the ne!otiations.
?=
@e su!!ested that in order to brea the i&passe, the 0nion should prioriti4e
the ite&s it "anted to iron out. Divina!racia stated that the -an should &ae the first &ove and
&ae a list of ite&s it "anted to be included in the econo&ic paca!e. 6.cept for the provisions on
si!nin! bonus and unifor&s, the 0nion and the -an failed to a!ree on the re&ainin! econo&ic
provisions of the %-$. The 0nion declared a deadloc
?F
and filed a Notice of Strie before the
National %onciliation and Mediation -oard +N%M-, on ;une ?(, ())8, doceted as N%M-1N%R1NS1
*918'*1)8.
?9
On the other hand, the -an filed a co&plaint for 0nfair 5abor Practice +05P, and Da&a!es before
the $rbitration -ranch of the National 5abor Relations %o&&ission +N5R%, in Manila, doceted as
N5R% %ase No. **1*91*=()(1)8 a!ainst the 0nion on ;une ?', ())8. The -an alle!ed that the
0nion violated its dut# to bar!ain, as it did not bar!ain in !ood faith. It contended that the 0nion
de&anded Ds# hi!h econo&ic de&ands,H indicative of !lue-s?7 !argaining.
?7
Further, the 0nion
violated its no strie1 no locout clause b# filin! a notice of strie before the N%M-. %onsiderin! that
the filin! of notice of strie "as an ille!al act, the 0nion officers should be dis&issed. Finall#, the
-an alle!ed that as a conse:uence of the ille!al act, the -an suffered no&inal and actual
da&a!es and "as forced to liti!ate and hire the services of the la"#er.
?'
On ;ul# ?(, ())8, then Secretar# of 5abor and 6&plo#&ent +SO56, Nieves R. %onfesor, pursuant to
$rticle ?98+!, of the 5abor %ode, issued an Order assu&in! >urisdiction over the labor dispute at the
-an. The co&plaint for 05P filed b# the -an before the N5R% "as consolidated "ith the co&plaint
over "hich the SO56 assu&ed >urisdiction. $fter the parties sub&itted their respective position
papers, the SO56 issued an Order on October ?), ())8, the dispositive portion of "hich is herein
:uoted3
/@6R6FOR6, the Standard %hartered -an and the Standard %hartered -an
6&plo#ees 0nion P N0-6 are hereb# ordered to e.ecute a collective bar!ainin!
a!ree&ent incorporatin! the dispositions contained herein. The %-$ shall be
retroactive to *( $pril ())8 and shall re&ain effective for t"o #ears thereafter, or until
such ti&e as a ne" %-$ has superseded it. $ll provisions in the e.pired %-$ not
e.pressl# &odified or not passed upon herein are dee&ed retained "hile all ne"
provisions "hich are bein! de&anded b# either part# are dee&ed denied, but "ithout
pre>udice to such a!ree&ents as the parties &a# have arrived at in the &eanti&e.
The -anOs char!e for unfair labor practice "hich it ori!inall# filed "ith the N5R% as
N5R%1N%R %ase No. **1*91*=()(1)8 but "hich is dee&ed consolidated herein, is
dis&issed for lac of &erit. On the other hand, the 0nionOs char!e for unfair labor
practice is si&ilarl# dis&issed.
5et a cop# of this order be furnished the 5abor $rbiter in "hose sala N5R%1N%R
%ase No. **1*91*=()(1)8 is pendin! for his !uidance and appropriate action.
?)

The SO56 !ave the follo"in! econo&ic a"ards3
(. /a!e Increase3
a, To be incorporated to present salar# rates3
Fourth #ear 3 7E of basic &onthl# salar#
Fifth #ear 3 FE of basic &onthl# salar# based on the =th #ear ad>usted salar#
b, $dditional fi.ed a&ount3
Fourth #ear 3 P9**.** per &onth
Fifth #ear 3 P=**.** per &onth
?. 2roup Insurance
a, @ospitali4ation 3 P=F,***.**
b, 5ife 3 P(8*,***.**
c, $ccident 3 P(8*,***.**
8. Medicine $llo"ance
Fourth #ear 3 PF,F**.**
Fifth #ear 3 P9,***.**
=. Dental -enefits
Provision of dental retainer as proposed b# the -an, but "ithout di&inishin! e.istin!
benefits
F. Optical $llo"ance
Fourth #ear3 P?,***.**
Fifth #ear 3 P?,F**.**
9. Death $ssistance
a, 6&plo#ee 3 P8*,***.**
b, I&&ediate Fa&il# Me&ber 3 PF,***.**
7. 6&er!enc# 5eave P Five +F, da#s for each contin!enc#
'. 5oans
a, %ar 5oan 3 P?**,***.**
b, @ousin! 5oan 3 It cannot be denied that the costs attendant to havin!
oneOs o"n ho&e have tre&endousl# !one up. The need, therefore, to
i&prove on this benefit cannot be overe&phasi4ed. Thus, the &ana!e&ent is
ur!ed to increase the e.istin! and allo"able housin! loan that the -an
e.tends to its e&plo#ees to an a&ount that "ill !ive &eanin! and substance
to this %-$ benefit.
8*
The SO56 dis&issed the char!es of 05P of both the 0nion and the -an, e.plainin! that both
parties failed to substantiate their clai&s. %itin! +ational La!or %nion #. Insular->e!ana To!acco
Corporation,
8(
the SO56 stated that 05P char!es "ould prosper onl# if sho"n to have directl#
pre>udiced the public interest.
Dissatisfied, the 0nion filed a &otion for reconsideration "ith clarification, "hile the -an filed a
&otion for reconsideration. On Dece&ber (9, ())8, the SO56 issued a Resolution den#in! the
&otions. The 0nion filed a second &otion for reconsideration, "hich "as, lie"ise, denied on
Februar# (*, ())=.
On March ??, ())=, the -an and the 0nion si!ned the %-$.
8?
I&&ediatel# thereafter, the "a!e
increase "as effected and the si!nin! bonuses based on the increased "a!e "ere distributed to the
e&plo#ees covered b# the %-$.
T>e Pre/e*- Pe-0-0o*
On $pril ?', ())=, the 0nion filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 9F of the Rules of Procedure
alle!in! as follo"s3
$. R6SPOND6NT @ONOR$-56 S6%R6T$RA %OMMITT6D 2R$V6 $-0S6 OF
DIS%R6TION $MO0NTIN2 TO 5$%B OF ;0RISDI%TION IN DISMISSIN2 T@6
0NIONOS %@$R26 OF 0NF$IR 5$-OR PR$%TI%6 IN VI6/ OF T@6 %56$R
6VID6N%6 OF R6%ORD $ND $DMISSIONS PROVIN2 T@6 0NF$IR 5$-OR
PR$%TI%6S %@$R26D.
88
-. R6SPOND6NT @ONOR$-56 S6%R6T$RA %OMMITT6D 2R$V6 $-0S6 OF
DIS%R6TION $MO0NTIN2 TO 5$%B OF ;0RISDI%TION IN F$I5IN2 TO R056 ON
OT@6R 0NF$IR 5$-OR PR$%TI%6S %@$R26D.
8=
%. R6SPOND6NT @ONOR$-56 S6%R6T$RA %OMMITT6D 2R$V6 $-0S6 OF
DIS%R6TION $MO0NTIN2 TO 5$%B OF ;0RISDI%TION IN DISMISSIN2 T@6
%@$R26S OF 0NF$IR 5$-OR PR$%TI%6S ON T@6 2RO0ND T@$T NO PROOF
OF IN;0RA TO T@6 P0-5I% INT6R6ST /$S PR6S6NT6D.
8F
The 0nion alle!es that the SO56 acted "ith !rave abuse of discretion a&ountin! to lac or e.cess
of >urisdiction "hen it found that the -an did not co&&it unfair labor practice "hen it interfered "ith
the 0nionOs choice of ne!otiator. It ar!ued that, DionoOs su!!estion that the ne!otiation be li&ited as
a Hfa&il# affairH "as tanta&ount to su!!estin! that Federation President ;ose 0&ali, ;r. be e.cluded
fro& the 0nionOs ne!otiatin! panel. It further ar!ued that contrar# to the rulin! of the public
respondent, da&a!e or in>ur# to the public interest need not be present in order for unfair labor
practice to prosper.
The 0nion, lie"ise, pointed out that the public respondent failed to rule on the 05P char!es arisin!
fro& the -anOs surface bar!ainin!. The 0nion contended that the -an &erel# "ent throu!h the
&otions of collective bar!ainin! "ithout the intent to reach an a!ree&ent, and &ade bad faith
proposals "hen it announced that the parties should be!in fro& a clean slate. It ar!ued that the
-an opened the political provisions Hup for !rabs,H "hich had the effect of di&inishin! or obliteratin!
the !ains that the 0nion had &ade.
The 0nion also accused the -an of refusin! to disclose &aterial and necessar# data, even after a
re:uest "as &ade b# the 0nion to validate its Hguestimates.H
In its %o&&ent, the -an pra#ed that the petition be dis&issed as the 0nion "as estopped,
considerin! that it si!ned the %ollective -ar!ainin! $!ree&ent +%-$, on $pril ??, ())=. It asserted
that contrar# to the 0nionOs alle!ations, it "as the 0nion that co&&itted 05P "hen ne!otiator ;ose
0&ali, ;r. hurled invectives at the -anOs head ne!otiator, %ielito Diono, and de&anded that she be
e.cluded fro& the -anOs ne!otiatin! tea&. Moreover, the 0nion en!a!ed in !lue-s?7 !argaining
and isolated the no strie1no locout clause of the e.istin! %-$.
The Office of the Solicitor 2eneral, in representation of the public respondent, pra#ed that the
petition be dis&issed. It asserted that the 0nion failed to prove its 05P char!es and that the public
respondent did not co&&it an# !rave abuse of discretion in issuin! the assailed order and
resolutions.
T>e I//ue/
The issues presented for resolution are the follo"in!3 +a, "hether or not the 0nion "as able to
substantiate its clai& of unfair labor practice a!ainst the -an arisin! fro& the latterOs alle!ed
HinterferenceH "ith its choice of ne!otiatorG surface bar!ainin!G &ain! bad faith non1econo&ic
proposalsG and refusal to furnish the 0nion "ith copies of the relevant dataG +b, "hether or not the
public respondent acted "ith !rave abuse of discretion a&ountin! to lac or e.cess of >urisdiction
"hen she issued the assailed order and resolutionsG and, +c, "hether or not the petitioner is
estopped fro& filin! the instant action.
T>e Cour-@/ Ru50*7
The petition is bereft of &erit.
DInterferenceD under &rticle
398 5a6 of the La!or Code
The petitioner asserts that the private respondent co&&itted 05P, i.e., interference in the selection
of the 0nionOs ne!otiatin! panel, "hen %ielito Diono, the -anOs @u&an Resource Mana!er,
su!!ested to the 0nionOs President 6ddie 5. Divina!racia that ;ose P. 0&ali, ;r., President of the
N0-6, be e.cluded fro& the 0nionOs ne!otiatin! panel. In support of its clai&, Divina!racia e.ecuted
an affidavit, statin! that prior to the co&&ence&ent of the ne!otiation, Diono approached hi& and
su!!ested the e.clusion of 0&ali fro& the 0nionOs ne!otiatin! panel, and that durin! the first
&eetin!, Diono stated that the ne!otiation be ept a Hfa&il# affair.H
%itin! the cases of %.<. *ostal <er#ice
89
and :arle7 a#idson Motor Co., Inc., &M",
87
the 0nion
clai&s that interference in the choice of the 0nionOs bar!ainin! panel is tanta&ount to 05P.
In the aforecited cases, the alle!ed 05P "as based on the e&plo#erOs violation of Section '+a,+(,
and +F, of the National 5abor Relations $ct +N5R$,,
8'
"hich pertain to the interference, restraint or
coercion of the e&plo#er in the e&plo#eesO e.ercise of their ri!hts to self1or!ani4ation and to bar!ain
collectivel# throu!h representatives of their o"n choosin!G and the refusal of the e&plo#er to bar!ain
collectivel# "ith the e&plo#eesO representatives. In both cases, the National 5abor Relations -oard
held that upon the e&plo#erOs refusal to en!a!e in ne!otiations "ith the 0nion for collective1
bar!ainin! contract "hen the 0nion includes a person "ho is not an e&plo#ee, or one "ho is a
&e&ber or an official of other laboror!ani4ations, such e&plo#er is en!a!ed in unfair labor practice
under Section '+a,+(, and +F, of the N5R$.
The 0nion further cited the case of Insular Life &ssurance Co., Ltd. /mplo7ees &ssociation E +&T%
#s. Insular Life &ssurance Co. Ltd.,
8)
"herein this %ourt said that the test of "hether an e&plo#er
has interfered "ith and coerced e&plo#ees in the e.ercise of their ri!ht to self1or!ani4ation "ithin
the &eanin! of subsection +a,+(, is "hether the e&plo#er has en!a!ed in conduct "hich it &a#
reasonabl# be said, tends to interfere "ith the free e.ercise of e&plo#eesO ri!hts under Section 8 of
the $ct.
=*
Further, it is not necessar# that there be direct evidence that an# e&plo#ee "as in fact
inti&idated or coerced b# state&ents of threats of the e&plo#er if there is a reasonable inference
that anti1union conduct of the e&plo#er does have an adverse effect on self1or!ani4ation and
collective bar!ainin!.
=(
0nder the International 5abor Or!ani4ation %onvention +I5O, No. '7 FR66DOM OF $SSO%I$TION
$ND PROT6%TION OF T@6 RI2@T TO OR2$NIR6 to "hich the Philippines is a si!nator#,
H"orers and e&plo#ers, "ithout distinction "hatsoever, shall have the ri!ht to establish and, sub>ect
onl# to the rules of the or!ani4ation concerned, to >ob or!ani4ations of their o"n choosin! "ithout
previous authori4ation.H
=?
/orersO and e&plo#ersO or!ani4ations shall have the ri!ht to dra" up their constitutions and rules,
to elect their representatives in full freedo& to or!ani4e their ad&inistration and activities and to
for&ulate their pro!ra&s.
=8
$rticle ? of I5O %onvention No. )' pertainin! to the Ri!ht to Or!ani4e
and %ollective -ar!ainin!, provides3
$rticle ?
(. /orersO and e&plo#ersO or!ani4ations shall en>o# ade:uate protection a!ainst
an# acts or interference b# each other or each otherOs a!ents or &e&bers in their
establish&ent, functionin! or ad&inistration.
?. In particular, acts "hich are desi!ned to pro&ote the establish&ent of "orersO
or!ani4ations under the do&ination of e&plo#ers or e&plo#ersO or!ani4ations or to
support "orersO or!ani4ations b# financial or other &eans, "ith the ob>ect of placin!
such or!ani4ations under the control of e&plo#ers or e&plo#ersO or!ani4ations "ithin
the &eanin! of this $rticle.
The aforcited I5O %onventions are incorporated in our 5abor %ode, particularl# in $rticle ?=8 thereof,
"hich provides3
$RT. ?=8. C$A/R&G/ &+ /M*L$>//<C RIG:T T$ </L"-$RG&+IF&TI$+. P $ll
persons e&plo#ed in co&&ercial, industrial and a!ricultural enterprises and in
reli!ious, charitable, &edical or educational institutions "hether operatin! for profit or
not, shall have the ri!ht to self1or!ani4ation and to for&, >oin, or assist labor
or!ani4ations of their o"n choosin! for purposes of collective bar!ainin!. $&bulant,
inter&ittent and itinerant "orers, self1e&plo#ed people, rural "orers and those
"ithout an# definite e&plo#ers &a# for& labor or!ani4ations for their &utual aid and
protection.
and $rticles ?=' and ?=) respectin! 05P of e&plo#ers and labor or!ani4ations.
The said I5O %onventions "ere ratified on Dece&ber ?), ()F8. @o"ever, even as earl# as the ()8F
%onstitution,
==
the State had alread# e.pressl# besto"ed protection to labor as part of the !eneral
provisions. The ()78 %onstitution,
=F
on the other hand, declared it as a polic# of the state to afford
protection to labor, specif#in! that the "orersO ri!hts to self1or!ani4ation, collective bar!ainin!,
securit# of tenure, and >ust and hu&ane conditions of "or "ould be assured. For its part, the ()'7
%onstitution, aside fro& &ain! it a polic# to Hprotect the ri!hts of "orers and pro&ote their
"elfare,H
=9
devotes an entire section, e&phasi4in! its &andate to afford protection to labor, and
hi!hli!hts Hthe principle of shared responsibilit#H bet"een "orers and e&plo#ers to pro&ote
industrial peace.
=7
$rticle ?='+a, of the 5abor %ode, considers it an unfair labor practice "hen an e&plo#er interferes,
restrains or coerces e&plo#ees in the e.ercise of their ri!ht to self1or!ani4ation or the ri!ht to for&
association. The ri!ht to self1or!ani4ation necessaril# includes the ri!ht to collective bar!ainin!.
Parentheticall#, if an e&plo#er interferes in the selection of its ne!otiators or coerces the 0nion to
e.clude fro& its panel of ne!otiators a representative of the 0nion, and if it can be inferred that the
e&plo#er adopted the said act to #ield adverse effects on the free e.ercise to ri!ht to self1
or!ani4ation or on the ri!ht to collective bar!ainin! of the e&plo#ees, 05P under $rticle ?='+a, in
connection "ith $rticle ?=8 of the 5abor %ode is co&&itted.
In order to sho" that the e&plo#er co&&itted 05P under the 5abor %ode, substantial evidence is
re:uired to support the clai&. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a
reasonable &ind &i!ht accept as ade:uate to support a conclusion.
='
In the case at bar, the 0nion
bases its clai& of interference on the alle!ed su!!estions of Diono to e.clude 0&ali fro& the
0nionOs ne!otiatin! panel.
The circu&stances that occurred durin! the ne!otiation do not sho" that the su!!estion &ade b#
Diono to Divina!racia is an anti1union conduct fro& "hich it can be inferred that the -an
consciousl# adopted such act to #ield adverse effects on the free e.ercise of the ri!ht to self1
or!ani4ation and collective bar!ainin! of the e&plo#ees, especiall# considerin! that such "as
undertaen previous to the co&&ence&ent of the ne!otiation and si&ultaneousl# "ith
Divina!raciaOs su!!estion that the ban la"#ers be e.cluded fro& its ne!otiatin! panel.
The records sho" that after the initiation of the collective bar!ainin! process, "ith the inclusion of
0&ali in the 0nionOs ne!otiatin! panel, the ne!otiations pushed throu!h. The co&plaint "as &ade
onl# on $u!ust (9, ())8 after a deadloc "as declared b# the 0nion on ;une (F, ())8.
It is clear that such 05P char!e "as &erel# an afterthou!ht. The accusation occurred after the
ar!u&ents and differences over the econo&ic provisions beca&e heated and the parties had
beco&e frustrated. It happened after the parties started to involve personalities. $s the public
respondent noted, passions &a# rise, and as a result, su!!estions !iven under less adversarial
situations &a# be colored "ith unintended &eanin!s.
=)
Such is "hat appears to have happened in
this case.
The ut7 to Bargain
Collecti#el7
If at all, the su!!estion &ade b# Diono to Divina!racia should be construed as part of the nor&al
relations and innocent co&&unications, "hich are all part of the friendl# relations bet"een the 0nion
and -an.
The 0nion alle!es that the -an violated its dut# to bar!ainG hence, co&&itted 05P under $rticle
?='+!, "hen it en!a!ed in surface bar!ainin!. It alle!ed that the -an >ust "ent throu!h the &otions
of bar!ainin! "ithout an# intent of reachin! an a!ree&ent, as evident in the -anOs counter1
proposals. It e.plained that of the 8= econo&ic provisions it &ade, the -an onl# &ade 9 econo&ic
counterproposals. Further, as borne b# the &inutes of the &eetin!s, the -an, after indicatin! the
econo&ic provisions it had re>ected, accepted, retained or "ere open for discussion, refused to
&ae a list of ite&s it a!reed to include in the econo&ic paca!e.
Surface bar!ainin! is defined as H!oin! throu!h the &otions of ne!otiatin!H "ithout an# le!al intent
to reach an a!ree&ent.
F*
The resolution of surface bar!ainin! alle!ations never presents an eas#
issue. The deter&ination of "hether a part# has en!a!ed in unla"ful surface bar!ainin! is usuall# a
difficult one because it involves, at botto&, a :uestion of the intent of the part# in :uestion, and
usuall# such intent can onl# be inferred fro& the totalit# of the challen!ed part#Os conduct both at
and a"a# fro& the bar!ainin! table.
F(
It involves the :uestion of "hether an e&plo#erOs conduct
de&onstrates an un"illin!ness to bar!ain in !ood faith or is &erel# hard bar!ainin!.
F?
The &inutes of &eetin!s fro& March (?, ())8 to ;une (F, ())8 do not sho" that the -an had an#
intention of violatin! its dut# to bar!ain "ith the 0nion. Records sho" that after the 0nion sent its
proposal to the -an on Februar# (7, ())8, the latter replied "ith a list of its counter1proposals on
Februar# ?=, ())8. Thereafter, &eetin!s "ere set for the settle&ent of their differences. The &inutes
of the &eetin!s sho" that both the -an and the 0nion e.chan!ed econo&ic and non1econo&ic
proposals and counter1proposals.
The 0nion has not been able to sho" that the -an had done acts, both at and a"a# fro& the
bar!ainin! table, "hich tend to sho" that it did not "ant to reach an a!ree&ent "ith the 0nion or to
settle the differences bet"een it and the 0nion. $d&ittedl#, the parties "ere not able to a!ree and
reached a deadloc. @o"ever, it is herein e&phasi4ed that the dut# to bar!ain Hdoes not co&pel
either part# to a!ree to a proposal or re:uire the &ain! of a concession.H
F8
@ence, the partiesO
failure to a!ree did not a&ount to 05P under $rticle ?='+!, for violation of the dut# to bar!ain.
/e can hardl# dispute this findin!, for it finds support in the evidence. The inference that
respondents did not refuse to bar!ain collectivel# "ith the co&plainin! union because the# accepted
so&e of the de&ands "hile the# refused the others even leavin! open other de&ands for future
discussion is correct, especiall# so "hen those de&ands "ere discussed at a &eetin! called b#
respondents the&selves precisel# in vie" of the letter sent b# the union on $pril ?), ()9*S
F=
In vie" of the findin! of lac of 05P based on $rticle ?='+!,, the accusation that the -an &ade bad1
faith provisions has no le! to stand on. The records sho" that the -anOs counterproposals on the
non1econo&ic provisions or political provisions did not put Hup for !rabsH the entire "or of the 0nion
and its predecessors. $s can be !leaned fro& the -anOs counterproposal, there "ere &an#
provisions "hich it proposed to be retained. The revisions on the other provisions "ere &ade after
the parties had co&e to an a!ree&ent. Far fro& buttressin! the 0nionOs clai& that the -an &ade
bad1faith proposals on the non1econo&ic provisions, all these, on the contrar#, disprove such
alle!ations.
/e, lie"ise, find that the 0nion failed to substantiate its clai& that the -an refused to furnish the
infor&ation it needed.
/hile the refusal to furnish re:uested infor&ation is in itself an unfair labor practice, and also
supports the inference of surface bar!ainin!,
FF
in the case at bar, 0&ali, in a &eetin! dated Ma# (',
())8, re:uested the -an to validate its guestimates on the data of the ran and file. @o"ever,
0&ali failed to put his re:uest in "ritin! as provided for in $rticle ?=?+c, of the 5abor %ode3
$rticle ?=?. Ri!hts of 5e!iti&ate 5abor Or!ani4ationS
+c, To be furnished b# the e&plo#er, upon "ritten re:uest, "ith the annual audited
financial state&ents, includin! the balance sheet and the profit and loss state&ent,
"ithin thirt# +8*, calendar da#s fro& the date of receipt of the re:uest, after the union
has been dul# reco!ni4ed b# the e&plo#er or certified as the sole and e.clusive
bar!ainin! representatives of the e&plo#ees in the bar!ainin! unit, or "ithin si.t#
+9*, calendar da#s before the e.piration of the e.istin! collective bar!ainin!
a!ree&ent, or durin! the collective ne!otiationG
The 0nion, did not, as the 5abor %ode re:uires, send a "ritten re:uest for the issuance of a cop# of
the data about the -anOs ran and file e&plo#ees. Moreover, as alle!ed b# the 0nion, the fact that
the -an &ade use of the aforesaid !uesti&ates, a&ounts to a validation of the data it had used in
its presentation.
+o Gra#e &!use of iscretion
$n the *art of the *u!lic Respondent
The special civil action for certiorari &a# be availed of "hen the tribunal, board, or officer e.ercisin!
>udicial or :uasi1>udicial functions has acted "ithout or in e.cess of >urisdiction and there is no appeal
or an# plain, speed#, and ade:uate re&ed# in the ordinar# course of la" for the purpose of annullin!
the proceedin!.
F9
2rave abuse of discretion i&plies such capricious and "hi&sical e.ercise of
>ud!&ent as is e:uivalent to lac of >urisdiction, or "here the po"er is e.ercised in an arbitrar# or
despotic &anner b# reason of passion or personal hostilit# "hich &ust be so patent and !ross as to
a&ount to an invasion of positive dut# or to a virtual refusal to perfor& the dut# en>oined or to act at
all in conte&plation of la". Mere abuse of discretion is not enou!h.
F7
/hile it is true that a sho"in! of pre>udice to public interest is not a re:uisite for 05P char!es to
prosper, it cannot be said that the public respondent acted in capricious and "hi&sical e.ercise of
>ud!&ent, e:uivalent to lac of >urisdiction or e.cess thereof. Neither "as it sho"n that the public
respondent e.ercised its po"er in an arbitrar# and despotic &anner b# reason of passion or
personal hostilit#.
/stoppel not &pplica!le
In the Case at Bar
The respondent -an ar!ues that the petitioner is estopped fro& raisin! the issue of 05P "hen it
si!ned the ne" %-$.
$rticle (=8( of the %ivil %ode provides3
Throu!h estoppel an ad&ission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the
person &ain! it, and cannot be denied or disproved as a!ainst the person rel#in!
thereon.
$ person, "ho b# his deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular
&anner, is barred fro& adoptin! an inconsistent position, attitude or course of
conduct that thereb# causes loss or in>ur# to another.
F'

In the case, ho"ever, the approval of the %-$ and the release of si!nin! bonus do not necessaril#
&ean that the 0nion "aived its 05P clai& a!ainst the -an durin! the past ne!otiations. $fter all,
the conclusion of the %-$ "as included in the order of the SO56, "hile the si!nin! bonus "as
included in the %-$ itself. Moreover, the 0nion t"ice filed a &otion for reconsideration respectin! its
05P char!es a!ainst the -an before the SO56.
The %nion id +ot /ngage
In Blue-<?7 Bargaining
/e, lie"ise, do not a!ree that the 0nion is !uilt# of 05P for en!a!in! in blue1s# bar!ainin! or
&ain! e.a!!erated or unreasonable proposals.
F)
The -an failed to sho" that the econo&ic
de&ands &ade b# the 0nion "ere e.a!!erated or unreasonable. The &inutes of the &eetin! sho"
that the 0nion based its econo&ic proposals on data of ran and file e&plo#ees and the prevailin!
econo&ic benefits received b# ban e&plo#ees fro& other forei!n bans doin! business in the
Philippines and other branches of the -an in the $sian re!ion.
In su&, "e find that the public respondent did not act "ith !rave abuse of discretion a&ountin! to
lac or e.cess of >urisdiction "hen it issued the :uestioned order and resolutions. /hile the approval
of the %-$ and the release of the si!nin! bonus did not estop the 0nion fro& pursuin! its clai&s of
05P a!ainst the -an, "e find the latter did not en!a!e in 05P. /e, lie"ise, hold that the 0nion is
not !uilt# of 05P.
IN !IGT OF TE FOREGOING, the October ?), ())8 Order and Dece&ber (9, ())8 and
Februar# (*, ())= Resolutions of then Secretar# of 5abor Nieves R. %onfesor are 'FFIRMED. The
Petition is hereb# DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
*uno, Guisum!ing, &ustria-Martinez, and Tinga, ,,., concur.