SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 220383, October 05, 2016
SONEDCO WORKERS FREE LABOR UNION (SWOFLU) / RENATO YUDE, MARIANITO REGINO, MANUEL YUMAGUE, FRANCISCO DACUDAG, RUDY ABABAO, DOMINIC SORNITO, SERGIO CAJUYONG, ROMULO LABONETE, GENEROSO GRANADA, EMILIO AGUS, ARNOLD CAYAO, BEN GENEVE, VICTOR MAQUE, RICARDO GOMEZ, RODOLFO GAWAN, JIMMY SULLIVAN, FEDERICO SUMUGAT, JR., ROMULO AVENTURA, JR., JURRY MAGALLANES, HERNAN EPISTOLA, JR., ROBERTO BELARTE, EDMON MONTALVO, TEODORO MAGUAD, DOMINGO TABABA, MAXIMO SALE, CYRUS DIONILLO, LEONARDO JUNSAY, JR., DANILO SAMILLION, MARIANITO BOCATEJA, JUANITO GEBUSION, RICARDO MAYO, RAUL ALIMON, ARNEL ARNAIZ, REBENCY BASOY, JIMMY VICTORIO BERNALDE, RICARDO BOCOL, JR., JOB CALAMBA, WOLFRANDO CALAMBA, RODOLFO CASISID, JR., EDGARDO DELA PENA, ALLAN DIONILLO, EDMUNDO EBIDO, JOSE ELEPTICO, JR., MARCELINO FLORES, HERNANDO FUENTEBILLA, SAUL HITALIA, JOSELITO JAGODILLA, NONITO JAYME, ADJIE JUANILLO, JEROLD JUDILLA, EDILBERTO NACIONAL, SANDY NAVALES, FELIPE NICOLASORA, JOSE PAMALO-AN, ISMAEL PEREZ, JR., ERNESTO RANDO, JR., PHILIP REPULLO, VICENTE RUIZ, JR., JOHN SUMUGAT, CARLO SUSANA, ROMEO TALAPIERO, JR., FERNANDO TRIENTA, FINDY VILLACRUZ, JOEL VILLANUEVA, AND JERRY MONTELIBANO, Petitioners, v. UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, SUGAR DIVISION-SOUTHERN NEGROS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SONEDCO), Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
An employer who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict its bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether an employer has not bargained in good faith, the totality of all the acts of the employer at the time of negotiations must be taken into account.
This resolves a Petition1 for review assailing the Decision2 dated January 30, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated July 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by members of SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union for lack of merit.4
On May 6, 2002, Universal Robina Corporation Sugar Division - Southern Negros Development Corporation (URC-SONEDCO) and Philippine Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU-TUCP), then the exclusive bargaining representative of URC-SONEDCO's rank-and-file employees, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement) effective January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006.5 Under the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, rank-and-file employees were entitled to a wage increase of P14.00/day for 2002 and P12.00/day for the succeeding years until 2006.6
On May 17, 2002, days after the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed, a certification election was conducted. SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union won and replaced PACIWU-TUCP as the exclusive bargaining representative.7
PACIWU-TUCP questioned the results of the certification election before the Department of Labor and Employment. On July 8, 2002, Med-Arbiter Romulo Sumalinog certified SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of URC-SONEDCO.8 This was affirmed by the Labor Secretary in a Resolution dated December 27, 2002, which became final on April 15, 2003.9 PACIWU-TUCP elevated the same issue to the Court of Appeals and thereafter this Court, which on July 11, 2007, resolved that the certification election was valid. SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union was declared the exclusive bargaining agent of URC-SONEDCO's rank-and-file employees.10
URC-SONEDCO consistently refused to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union, despite several demands from SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union, allegedly due to the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which it signed with PACIWU-TUCP.12
Despite being the incumbent exclusive bargaining agent, SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union filed before the Department of Labor and Employment a Petition13 for certification election on December 6, 2006 in view of the approaching expiration of the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement. On December 31, 2006, the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement expired with no new collective bargaining agreement being signed.14
On August 28, 2007, with no collective bargaining agreement in effect, URC-SONEDCO informed the rank-and-file employees that they would be granted the following economic benefits:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
chanrobleslaw
(1) Wage increase of P16.00/day effective January 1, 2007; (2) Group life insurance of P50,000.00 coverage/year; (3) Emergency leave in lieu of bereavement leave, up to five (5) days per year; and (4) Cash loan in lieu of emergency loan of P5,000.00, payable in 11 months.15
Such an act does not constitute interference, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self organization or to bargain collectively, neither is it tantamount to discrimination against union members who refused to waive wage increase in a CBA. As aptly termed by respondents, it is an "offer" during the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and during the time when there was an unresolved union representation, which this Commission considers as reasonable.29chanrobleslaw
chanrobleslawARTICLE XXI
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT
The parties agree that this Agreement is full and complete settlement of all demands, requests, claims and disputes of any nature, written or verbal, that either party have or may have against the other prior to the effectivity hereof, except those subject of pending cases before the NLRC or its arbitration branch, or before the DOLE or regular courts.39
ARTICLE 259. [248] Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. — It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:cralawlawlibrarychanrobleslaw
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
(b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided, That the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code 204 shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
(h) To pay negotiation or attorney's fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or
(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. (Emphasis supplied)
While it is true that factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts, this general rule admits of exceptions. When there is a showing that a palpable and demonstrable mistake that needs rectification has been committed or when the factual findings were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, these findings may be examined by the courts.47chanrobleslaw
ARTICLE 263. [252] Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. — The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.chanrobleslaw
The Court will not rule on the merits and/or defects of the new CBA and shall only consider the fact that it was entered into at a time when the petition for certification election had already been filed by TUP AS and was then pending resolution. The said CBA cannot be deemed permanent, precluding the commencement of negotiations by another union with the management. In the meantime however, so as not to deprive the workers of the benefits of the said agreement, it shall be recognized and given effect on a temporary basis, subject to the results of the certification election. The agreement may be continued in force if ATU is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers or may be rejected and replaced in the event that TUP AS emerges as the winner.51 (Emphasis supplied)chanrobleslaw
Let it be noted that based on the results of the certification election conducted in the establishment on 17 May 2002, Mediator-Arbiter Sumalinog, declared and certified SWOFLU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of SONEDCO. The office of the Secretary affirmed SWOFLU's certification in OS-A-6-63-01, and the decision became final and executory on 15 April 2003. As such, the suspension of the running of the one (1) year period referred in Section 3(a) Rule VIII was automatically lifted on 15 April 2003. Hence, the one (1) year bar cannot be used to deny the subject petition. Furthermore, despite PACIWU-TUCP's act of questioning the Office of the Secretary's affirmation before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari, no restraining order was issued to stay the implementation of the decision.chanrobleslaw
In other words, as far as this Office is concerned, SWOFLU is the incumbent sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of SONEDCO. As such, there was actually no necessity for SWOFLU to file the subject petition, as its representation status remains to be effective unless challenged by other legitimate labor organizations during the freedom period of the CBA that was entered into by PACIWU-TUCP and employer SONEDCO.
Incidentally, the Office of the Secretary declared in OS-A-6-63-01 that SWOFLU had the option to adopt the interim CBA or negotiate with SONEDCO a new CBA. Whether SWOFLU was able to actually administer the said CBA, or whether it attempted to negotiate with the employer for a new CBA but was rejected, the issues are already moot and academic by reason of the expiration of the effectivity of the agreement.56 (Emphasis supplied)
ARTICLE 268 [256]. Representation issue in organized establishments. — In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.chanrobleslaw
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. (Emphasis supplied)
ARTICLE 261. [250] Procedure in Collective Bargaining. — The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:cralawlawlibrarychanrobleslaw
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice[.]
The new CBA negotiated by petitioners whether or not submitted to the MOLE in accordance with Article 231 of the Labor Code cannot be deemed permanent, precluding commencement of negotiations by another union with management, considering that it was entered into at a time when the petition for certification election had already been filed by respondent union. . . . Meantime, this interim agreement must be recognized and given effect on a temporary basis so as not to deprive the workers of the favorable terms of the agreement. . . .chanrobleslaw
If, as a result of the certification election, respondent union or a union other than petitioner union which executed the interim agreement is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of respondent company, then, such union may adopt the interim collective bargaining agreement or negotiate with management for a new collective bargaining agreement[.]63 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
In the event that a subsequent CBA is negotiated between Management and Union, the new CBA shall only be effective January 1, 2008.66chanrobleslaw
Sa panahon na kung saan may CBA na maisasara sa pagitan ng Management at Unyon, ito ay magiging epektibo lamang Simula January l, 2009.67chanrobleslaw
II
The CBA is the law between the contracting parties — the collective bargaining representative and the employer-company. Compliance with a CBA is mandated by the expressed policy to give protection to labor, hi the same vein, CBA provisions should be "construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve." This is founded on the dictum that a CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public interest. It goes without saying, however, that only provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted and complied with. Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its implementation.72 (Citations omitted)chanrobleslaw
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations. As the conscience of the government, it is the Courts sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor rights.chanrobleslaw
For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral and exemplary damages on private respondent.74
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 15-59. The Petition was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Id. at 61-70. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 05950, was penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Eighteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3 Id. at 73-75. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Eighteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
4 Id. at 70.
5 Id. at 63.
6 Id. at 157.
7 Id. at 62-63.
8 Id. at 144.
9 Id. at 148.
10 Id. at 176.
12 Id. at 153, Letter of SONEDCO dated August 15, 2003.
13 Id. at 177-179.
14 Id. at 64.
15 Id. at 24.
16 Id. at 25.
17 Id. at 207.
18 Id. at 64.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 25.
20 Id. at 64.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 69.
23 Id.at 64-65.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 107-124. The Decision was penned by Labor Arbiter Romulo P. Sumalinog.
26 Id. at 120.
27 Id. at 93-104. The Decision dated October 29, 2010, penned by Commissioner Aurelio D. Menzon and concurred in by Commissioners Julie C. Rendoque and Violeta Ortiz-Bantug.
29 Id. at 99.
30 Id. at 103.
31 Id. at 61-70.
32 Id. at 15-59.
33 Id. at 273.
34 Id. at 284-293.
35 Id. at 28.
36 Id. at 28-29.
37 Id. at 30.
38 Id. at 34.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 284-292, Comment.
41 Id. at 288.
42 Id. at 289.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 67-68.
45Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., 657 Phil. 342, 361 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
46 657 Phil. 342 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
47 Id. at 361.
48 Rollo, pp. 198-236.
49 Id. at 202.
50 Id. at 203.
50 245 Phil. 293 (1988) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
51 Id. at 299.
52Rollo, p. 205.
53 Id.
54 Id. at 256-262.
56 Id. at 260-261.
57 Id. at 150.
58 Id. at 150-152.
59 Id. at 153.
60 Rollo, p. 187.
61 Id. at 187-188.
62 254 Phil. 46 (1989) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].
63 Id. at 55.
64Rollo, pp. 144-147.
65 Id. at 148.
66Rollo p. 186.
67 Id. at 197.
68 Id. at 176.
69 Id. at 187-188.
70 Id. at 69.
71 Id.
72 356 Phil. 480 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
72 Id. at 490-491.
73 380 Phil 44-60 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
74 Id. at 57-58.