Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

FIRST DIVISION

JOURNAL SUPERVISORS COUNCIL,

Represented by Domingo Manallo
Petitioner,

- versus - GR No. 208260

For: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS INC,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT

Respondents, by counsel, to this Honorable Supreme Court respectfully

submit this Comment to the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the
Petitioners herein and state thus:

This Comment is filed in compliance of the Notice from the Supreme Court
First Division received by undersigned counsel last 06 January 2014.

One of the issues worth tackling in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is
on the question of whether or not the petitioners in this case are correct in
seemingly misleading this Honorable Supreme Court into thinking that no other
than an unaudited financial statement has been the source of the Honorable
Voluntary Arbitrator in making the conclusion that a two year moratorium on wage
increase is appropriate.

It is the contention of the Petitioners that Respondents herein did not ask the
setting aside of the July 24, 2008 Writ of Execution issued in implementation of
the Supreme Court final Extended September 5, 2006 Decision , which affirmed
the Court of Appeals decision dated August 17, 2004 Decision.

1
 Petitioners’ contention is unacceptable. This argument had already been
raised before the Court of Appeals and we have continually stated that the
unaudited financial statement was not the only source of the Voluntary Arbitrator
in arriving into such a conclusion. Such other substantial evidences were presented
before the Voluntary Arbitrator (VL) to prove such a point.

As to the second and third legal issues raised by herein petitioner, with
regard to the existence of Unfair Labor Practice and in imposing a two year
moratorium of the CBA, time and again, we have asserted that the best judge as to
whether or not there is utmost good faith on the part of both parties in negotiating
for CBA and giving the appropriate awards and/or penalty is the Voluntary
Arbitrator himself. As a matter of fact in the case of NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES,
INCORPORATED, vs. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, FOOD
AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES UNIONS - KILUSANG MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA-
KMU), G.R. Nos. 158944-45, March 3, 2008, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines had the opportunity to pronounce, to wit:

“ x x x The crucial question, therefore, of whether or not a

party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically
turns on the facts of the individual case. As we have said, there is
no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is
an inference to be drawn from the facts. To some degree, the question
of good faith may be a question of credibility. The effect of an
employer’s or a union’s individual actions is not the test of good-faith
bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions,
considered as a whole, and the inferences fairly drawn therefrom
collectively may offer a basis for the finding of the NLRC.

X X X

While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the
employees to bargain collectively with each other, such compulsion
does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to
the proposals of the other. All it contemplates is that both parties

2
 should approach the negotiation with an open mind and make
reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement. X x x”

To bargain in utmost good faith is not mere blind acceptance to the whims of
the other party, but to reach into a fair negotiation were no party is left asunder by
compulsion to accept or reject CBA proposals. Hence, the assertion of Unfair
Labor Practice should not be given consideration, since by the factual milieu of the
case, the Voluntary Arbitrator was not able to find out any evidence to prove that
bad faith was attendant in the way the company handled the process of
collective bargaining with the JOURNAL SUPERVISORS COUNCIL.

In the case of Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956), it was
stated therein, to wit:

“X x x Bargaining lacks good faith when an employer

mechanically repeats a claim of inability to pay without making the
slightest effort to substantiate the claim x x x”

There is no showing that the respondent had done acts, both at and away
from the bargaining table, which tend to demonstrate that it did not want to reach
an agreement with the Union or to settle the differences between it and the Union.
Admittedly, the parties were not able to agree and reached a deadlock. However, it
is herein emphasized that the duty to bargain "does not compel either party to agree
to a proposal or require the making of a concession." Hence, the parties’ failure to
agree did not amount to ULP under Article 248(g) for violation of the duty to
bargain.
All given, we find the petitioners’ contentions unconvincing. Petitioner's
allegations now are nothing but a rehash of arguments that were unsuccessfully
raised before the Court of Appeals. It must be stressed that all the grounds raised
by the petitioner now involve factual issues already passed upon by the Honorable
Court of Appeals, and are inappropriate in a Petition for Review under Rule 45,
which allows only questions of law to be raised.

The petition raises questions of fact which are beyond the coverage of a
petition for review on Certiorari. The settled rule is that only questions of law may

3
be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is not this Court’s
function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the
proceedings below, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction being limited to reviewing
only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. The
resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts, whose findings on
these matters are received with respect. A question of law which we may pass
upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants. [Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig, G.R. No. 175512,
May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 281, 294, citing Land Bank of the Philippines, v. Monet’s
Export and Manufacturing Corporation, 493 Phil. 327, 338 (2005)] This is in
accordance with Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which
reads:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. – A party desiring

to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of
the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals,
the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law,
may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on
certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of
preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise
only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The
petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion
filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its
pendency. (Emphasis supplied)

As a basic rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an

ordinary appeal. It is a continuation of the case from the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC,
or other courts. The petition must only raise questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth and discussed.

As a whole, the contentions as embodied in this Petition are mere rehash or

were reiterations of same arguments earlier raised by Petitioners herein and does
not present any substantial reason not previously invoked on any matter not
already passed upon by the Honorable Court of Appeals.
4
 Respondents submit that this Petition for Review on Certiorari is but a mere
reverberation or rehash of the arguments that have already been previously
pleaded, discussed, and resolved by the Honorable Court of Appeals. And,
considering that the Petition’s arguments are unsubstantial to warrant
reconsideration or at least a modification, the respondents are vehement that there
is no reason to modify or let alone reverse the challenged Decision of the
Honorable Court of Appeals.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondents pray of this Honorable

Supreme Court that the “Petition for Review on Certiorari” be DENIED.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Makati City for Manila City, 13 February 2014.

REMEGIO C. DAYANDAYAN, JR
Counsel for Respondents
6th flr. Universal Re: bldg.
Paseo De Roxas Makati.
Tel. Nos. 813-5238/892-3052 to 58
PTR No.4232984/07.01.2014 Makati
IBP No.947146/12.18.2013 Quezon City
Roll of Attorney’s No. 55149
3rd MCLE Compliance No. 0015516; May 04, 2010;
MCLE 4th Compliance: completed but under process

Copy Furnished:

PRO-LABOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE

CENTER
Counsel for Complainant
33-B E. Rodriguez, Sr. Ave.
1100 Quezon City

COURT OF APPEALS
City of Manila
(CA-G.R. SP No. 117369)

5
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
) SS.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Mr. Ernesto B. San Agustin, as Liaison Officer of Philippine Jornalists,

Inc.with office address at 6/F Universal Re Bldg., #106 Paseo De Roxas, Legaspi Village
Makati City, after being duly sworn, depose and say:

That on February 13, 2014, I served a copy of the following Pleading by registered
mail in accordance with Sections 3 and 5 in relation to Section 10 of Rule 13, Rules of
Court:

Nature of Pleading/Paper:

COMMENT
(SUPREME COURT, First Division)

In case No. G.R. No. 208260, entitled “Journal Supervisors Council,

represented by Domingo Manallo vs. Philippine Journalists, Incorporated”
by depositing a copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid,
as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. ________________ hereto attached, and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days, if
undelivered.

That the addressee(s) is/are as follows:

PRO-LABOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE

CENTER
Counsel for Complainant
33-B E. Rodriguez, Sr. Ave.
1100 Quezon City

COURT OF APPEALS
City of Manila
(CA-G.R. SP No. 117369)

__________________ City, Philippines. February 14, 2014.

Mr. Ernesto San Agustin

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ day of Philippines, affiant

exhibiting to me his SSS No. ______________.

Doc. No. ____;

Page No. ____:
Book No. ____:
Series of 2014.

6
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
) s. s.
x----------------------------------------------x

VERIFIED DECLARATION

I, REMEGIO C. DAYANDAYAN, JR., hereby declare that the documents hereto

submitted electronically in accordance with the Efficient Use of Paper Rule are
complete and true copies of the documents filed with the Supreme Court.

REMEGIO C. DAYANDAYAN, JR.

Lawyer for the Respondents
FEBRUARY14, 2014

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this 14th day of February 2014,

affiant exhibiting his competent evidence of identity, to wit:

DRIVER’S LICENSE NUMBER N26-13-014840; expiry date: 2015-12-05

Doc. No.: _________;

Page No.: _________;
Book No.: _________;
Series of 2014.