TOPIC: Technical Rules for Evidence

Purefoods Corporation vs Nagkakaisang Samahang Manggagawa ng Purefoods Rank-and-File, et al

GR No. 150896; 28 August 2008

 Three labor organizations and a federation are respondents in this case:

1. Nagkakaisang Samahang Manggagawa ng Purefoods Rank-and-File (NAGSAMA-Purefoods) – the exclusive bargaining agent of rank-
and-file workers of purefoods’ meat division in Luzon
2. St. Thomas Free Workers Union (STFWU) – in the farm in Sto. Tomas Batangas and
3. Purefoods Grandparent Farm Workers Union (PGFWU) – poultry farm in Sta. Rosa Laguna
4. Purefoods Unified Labor Organization (PULO) – federation
Facts:
 NAGSAMA manifested to petitioner its desire to re-negotiate the CBA then due to expire on the 28th of the month.
 Together with its demands, NAGSAMA submitted its General Membership Resolution
1. approving and supporting union’s affiliation with PULO
2. adopting draft CBA proposals of PULO and
3. authorizing a negotiating panel which included among others a PULO representative
 Purefoods formally acknowledged receipt of union’s proposals, it refused to recognize PULO and its participation.
 Negotiation of terms of CBA resulted in a deadlock, notwithstanding non-involvement of PULO representative. A
notice of strike was filed by NAGSAMA. In the subsequent conciliation conference, the deadlock issued were
settled except the matter of company’s recognition of PULO.
 STFWU and PGFWU submitted proposals for CBA renewal and their general membership resolutions which
affirmed affiliation with PULO.
 Purefoods refused to negotiate with unions should PULO be a representative in the panel.
 Purefoods concluded a new CBA with another union in its farm in Malvar Batangas. 5 days after, four company
employees transferred 23,000 chickens from poultry farm in Sto. Tomas to Malvar.
 The next day, regular rank-and-file workers were refused entry in the premises and 22 STFWU members were
terminated from employment
 The four respondent labor organizations jointly instituted a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal
lockout/dismissal and damages with LA
 LA: dismissed the complaint.
 NLRC: reversed LA ruling and ordered payment of P500k as moral and exemplary damages and reinstatement
with full backwages of STFWU members
o Purefood’s refusal to recognize PULO was unjustified considering latter had been granted status of a federation by Bureau of Labor
Relations. It’s refusal constituted undue interference in and restraint on the exercise of employees’ right to self-organization
and free collective bargaining
 CA: dismissed petition and denied MR
Issues:
W/N there is unfair labor practice
Held:
Yes. Petition denied.
Ruling:
 The closure of Sto. Tomas farm was made in bad faith. Badges of bad faith are evident from the following acts of
petitioner:
1. Unjustifiably refused to recognize the STFWU’s and other unions’ affiliation with PULO
2. It concluded a new CBA with another union in another farm during agreed indefinite suspension of CB
negotiations
3. It surreptitiously transferred and continued its business in a less hostile environment and
4. It suddenly terminated the STFWU members but retained and brought non-members to Malvar farm.
 Petitioner presented no evidence to support the contention that it was incurring losses or that subject farm’s lease
agreement was pre-terminated. The closure of the Sto. Tomas farm circumvented the labor organization’s right to
collective bargaining and violated the members’ right to security of tenure.
 It was incumbent, then, for petitioner to prove before the appellate court that the labor commission capriciously
and whimsically exercised its judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. the NLRC ruling is affirmed.
 If reinstatement is no longer feasible considering length of time employees have been out, the company is
ordered to pay the illegally dismissed STFWU members separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay, or one-
half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
 The releases and quitclaims, as well as the affidavits of desistance, signed by the concerned employees, who
were then necessitous men at the time of execution of the documents, are declared invalid and ineffective. They
will not bar the workers from claiming the full measure of benefits flowing from their legal rights.