Labor Case Digest San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (PTGWO) ! O"le G!#! $o!

L%&'&(& February )* (+)+ Facts, 1. A CBA was entered into by PTWGO and private respondent San Miguel Corp. (SMC providing t!at t!ey s!all be entitled to a basi" #ont!ly "o#pensation plus "o##ission based on t!eir respe"tive sales. SMC t!en introdu"ed a #ar%eting s"!e#e %nown as t!e &Co#ple#entary 'istribution Syste# (C'S w!ereby its beer produ"ts were o((ered (or sale dire"tly to w!olesalers t!roug! SMC)s sales o((i"es PTWGO (iled a "o#plaint (or +,P in t!e Ministry o( ,abor on t!e ground t!at t!e C'S was "ontrary to t!e e-isting #ar%eting s"!e#e w!ereby t!e .oute Sales#en were assigned spe"i(i" territories wit!in w!i"! to sell t!eir sto"%s o( beer/ and w!olesalers !ad to buy beer produ"ts (ro# t!e#/ not t!e "o#pany w!i"! violates t!e CBA t!at t!ey entered into. T!e Minister o( ,abor dis#issed t!e "o#plaint (iled by t!e PTWGO. 1en"e/ t!is petition.

*.

0.

$.

7.

3ven as t!e law is soli"itous o( t!e wel(are o( t!e e#ployees/ it #ust also prote"t t!e rig!t o( an e#ployer to e-er"ise w!at are "learly #anage#ent prerogatives. T!e (ree will o( #anage#ent to "ondu"t its own business a((airs to a"!ieve its purpose "annot be denied. So long as a "o#pany6s #anage#ent prerogatives are e-er"ised in good (ait! (or t!e advan"e#ent o( t!e e#ployer6s interest and not (or t!e purpose o( de(eating or "ir"u#venting t!e rig!ts o( t!e e#ployees under spe"ial laws or under valid agree#ents/ t!is Court will up!old t!e# W!ere(ore/ t!e petition (or "ertiorari is dis#issed (or la"% o( #erit Farrol ! C0 G!#! $o! (''1&+ February (2* 1222

-ssue, WO2 8arrol was illegally dis#issed .el/, 1. T!e e#ployer !as t!e burden o( proving t!at t!e dis#issal is (or a "ause provided by law and t!at i( a((orded t!e e#ployee an opportunity to be !eard and to de(end !i#sel(. T!e e#ployer #ust "o#ply wit! t!e twin re;uire#ents o( twonoti"e and !earing@ a. 2oti"e i. 8irst/ w!i"! apprises t!e e#ployee o( t!e parti"ular a"ts o( o#ission (or w!i"! !is dis#issal is sougt ii. Se"ond/ in(or#ing t!e latter o( t!e e#ployer)s de"ision to dis#iss !i# (ro# wor% (t!is is a(ter !earing b. 1earing Cas! s!ortages in a "as!ier)s wor% #ay !appen/ and w!en t!ere is no proo( t!at t!e sa#e was deliberately done (or a (raudulent or wrong(ul purpose/ it "annot "onstitute brea"! o( trust so as to render t!e dis#issal (ro# wor% invalid. Assu#ing (urt!er t!at t!ere was brea"! o( trust and "on(iden"e/ it appears t!at t!is is t!e (irst in(ra"tion "o##itted by petitioner. Alt!oug! t!e e#ployer !as t!e prerogative to dis"ipline or dis#iss its e#ployee/ su"! prerogative "annot be e-er"ised wantonly/ but #ust be "ontrolled by substantive due pro"ess and te#pered by t!e (unda#ental poli"y o( prote"tion to labor ens!rined in t!e Constitution. W!ere(ore/ in view o( t!e (oregoing/ t!e assailed de"ision is .3>3.S3' and S3T AS9'3

$.

*.

Facts, 1. $. 8arrol was e#ployed as station "as!ier at respondent .CP9. T!e distri"t #anager in(or#ed t!e #ain o((i"e t!at &peragra# (unds: were used (or t!e pay#ent o( retire#ent bene(its o( (ive e#ployees. Petitioner veri(ied as "orre"t .CP9)s report t!at t!ere was a s!ortage in t!eir bran"!)s Peragra# (unds and as a "onse;uen"e/ !e was re;uired to e-plain t!e "as! s!ortage wit!in $0 !ours (ro# noti"e. A(ter #a%ing pay#ents/ !e was in(or#ed by t!e distri"t #anager t!at !e is being pla"ed under preventive suspension. +naware o( t!e ter#ination letter/ petitioner re;uested t!at !e be reinstated "onsidering t!at t!e period o( !is preventive suspension e-pired. 'espite t!e lapse o( #ore t!an two years/ t!e "ase re#ained unresolved be(ore t!e grievan"e "o##ittee/ !en"e/ it was sub#itted (or voluntary arbitration. T!e >oluntary Arbitrator (ound t!at 8arrol was illegally dis#issed and ordered .CP9 t!e pay#ent o( !is bene(its. On appeal/ t!e CA reversed t!e de"ision o( t!e >oluntary Arbitrator. Motion (or re"onsideration was denied w!i"! pro#pted 8arrol to (ile t!is petition.

*.

0.

*.

0.

-ssue, WO2 t!e #ar%eting s"!e#e i#ple#ented by SMC violated t!e CBA .el/, 1. $. T!e petition !as no #erit 3-"ept as li#ited by spe"ial laws/ an e#ployer is (ree to regulate/ a""ording to !is own dis"retion and 4udg#ent/ all aspe"ts o( e#ploy#ent/ in"luding !iring/ wor% assign#ents/ wor%ing #et!ods/ ti#e/ pla"e and #anner o( wor%/ tools to be used/ pro"esses to be (ollowed/ supervision o( wor%ers/ wor%ing regulations/ trans(er o( e#ployees/ wor% supervision/ lay5o(( o( wor%ers and t!e dis"ipline/ dis#issal and re"all o( wor% 0. 7.

<.

7.

=. ?.

P3ili""ine Telegra"3 an/ Tele"3one Cor"! ! La"lana G!#! $o! 4556& 7uly 1'* (++( Facts,

1. $.

*.

0.

7.

<. =. -ssue,

,aplana was t!e "as!ier o( Baguio City Bran"! O((i"e o( PTAT. PTAT Treasurer Mrs. Arogo dire"ted ,aplana to trans(er to ,aoag bran"! but t!e latter re(used and proposed instead t!at ;uali(ied "ler%s in Baguio bran"! be trained (or t!e purpose. Mrs. Arogo reiterated !er dire"tive to ,aplana in t!e (or# o( a written Me#orandu# stating t!at s!e will be reassigned &e((e"tive April 1</ 1B?0:. ,aplana was not allowed to resu#e !er wor% as "as!ier o( Baguio City. S!e wrote Mrs. Arogo reiterating !is reasons (or not leaving !is position in Baguio City. S!e was eventually ter#inated (ro# e#ploy#ent. ,aplana (iled wit! ,A a "o#plaint against PTAT alleging t!at t!ere was no ground at all (or t!e retren"!#ent. PTAT/ on t!e ot!er !and "ontend t!at t!e "o#pany was 4ust e-er"ising #anage#ent prerogatives T!e ,A !eld in (avor o( ,aplana. On appeal/ t!e 2,.C a((ir#ed t!e de"ision o( t!e ,A.

0.

7.

W!en !is trans(er is not unreasonable/ nor in"onvenient/ nor pre4udi"ial to !i#/ and it does not involve a de#otion in ran% or di#inution o( !is salaries/ bene(its/ and ot!er privileges/ t!e e#ployee #ay not "o#plain t!at it a#ounts to a "onstru"tive dis#issal. T!e situation !ere presented is o( an e#ployer trans(erring an e#ployee to anot!er o((i"e in t!e e-er"ise o( w!at it too% to be sound business 4udg#ent and in a""ordan"e wit! pre5deter#ined and establis!ed o((i"e poli"y and pra"ti"e/ and o( t!e latter !aving w!at was believed to be legiti#ate reasons (or de"lining t!at trans(er/ rooted in "onsiderations o( personal "onvenien"e and di((i"ulties (or t!e (a#ily. W!ere(ore/ t!e writ o( "ertiorari prayed (or is G.A2T3'. 9a:ra ! C0 G!#! $o! ('+2(' Se"te;ber (4* 1221

=.

?.

B. -ssues,

"onstru"tive dis#issal. 9t was re(erred to t!e 2ational Con"iliation and Mediation Board. Be"ause o( P,'T)s (ailure to present eviden"e/ t!e >oluntary Arbitrator !eld in (avor o( petitioners. P,'T)s #otion (or re"onsideration was denied. On appeal/ t!e CA reversed t!e de"ision o( t!e >oluntary Arbitrator. Motion (or re"onsideration (iled by petitioners was denied. 1en"e/ t!is petition

WO2 t!e CA erred in its appre"iation o( (a"ts and t!e de"ision it rendered .el/, 1. Sin"e t!ere is a (inding o( (a"ts between t!e >oluntary Arbitrator and CA/ labor s!ould prevail be"ause o( t!e well5establis!ed do"trine in labor5#anage#ent relations T!e SOP in P,'T is to in(or# personnel regarding t!e nature and lo"ation o( t!eir (uture assign#ents a(ter training abroad. +nder t!ese "ir"u#stan"es/ t!e need (or t!e disse#ination o( noti"e o( trans(er to e#ployees be(ore sending t!e# abroad (or training s!ould be dee#ed ne"essary and later to !ave ripened into a "o#pany pra"ti"e or poli"y t!at "ould no longer be pere#ptorily wit!drawn/ dis"ontinued/ or eli#inated by t!e e#ployer. 8airness at t!e wor%pla"e and settled e-pe"tations a#ong e#ployees re;uire t!at we !onor t!is pra"ti"e and "o##end t!is poli"y. 9t is well to re#e#ber t!at "onstru"tive dis#issal does not always involve (ort!rig!t dis#issal or di#inution in ran%/ "o#pensation/ bene(its/ and privileges. 8or an a"t o( "lear dis"ri#ination/ insensibility/ or disdain by an e#ployer #ay be"o#e so unbearable on t!e part o( t!e e#ployee t!at it "ould (ore"lose any "!oi"e by !i# e-"ept to (orego !is "ontinued e#ploy#ent. T!e insensibility o( private respondents is at on"e dedu"ible (ro# t!e (oregoing "ir"u#stan"es. We are not unaware t!at t!e trans(er o( an e#ployee ordinarily lies wit!in t!e a#bit o( #anage#ent prerogatives. 1owever/ a trans(er a#ounts to "onstru"tive dis#issal

Facts, 1. Petitioner Da(ra was !ired by P,'T as Operations Analyst 99 and 3"ar#a was !ired as Eunior Operations Analyst. Bot! were assigned at .OMCC and tas%ed to #aintain operations and #aintenan"e o( telep!one e-"!anges in >isayas and Mindanao areas. Petitioners were t!en "!osen (or a training progra# and Ger#any wit! A,CAT3, s!ouldering t!eir training and travel e-penses. Mr. .elu"io re;uested advi"e i( any parti"ipants to t!e training "ould be trans(erred to Sa#palo" .OMCC. +pon return o( t!e petitioners/ Senior Manager A"antillado in(or#ed t!e# about t!e #e#orandu#. T!e petitioners !esistated but P,'T t!roug! an inter5o((i"e #e#orandu# e-e"uted t!e trans(er o( t!e petitioners. At (irst/ t!e petitioners reported (or wor%. T!ey appealed t!eir trans(er but it (ell on dea( ears. Be"ause o( t!is/ t!ey resigned (ro# wor% and t!e e-penses (or t!eir training in Ger#any were dedu"ted. Petitioners (iled a "o#plaint wit! t!e 2,.C .egional Arbitration Bran"! (or alleged

$. *.

WO2 t!e trans(er #ade by PTAT (or ,aplana valid .el/, 1. G#, T!e in!erent rig!t o( an e#ployer to trans(er or assign an e#ployee in t!e pursuit o( its legiti#ate business interest 8P$, (1 9t not be #otivated by dis"ri#inationC ($ or in bad (ait! or (* e((e"ted as a (or# o( punis!#ent or de#otion wit!out su((i"ient "ause. $. 9t is t!e e#ployer6s prerogative/ based on its assess#ent and per"eption o( its e#ployees6 ;uali(i"ations/ aptitudes/ and "o#peten"e/ to #ove t!e# around in t!e various areas o( its business operations in order to as"ertain w!ere t!ey will (un"tion wit! #a-i#u# bene(it to t!e "o#pany. An e#ployee6s rig!t to se"urity o( tenure does not give !i# su"! a vested rig!t in !is position as would deprive t!e "o#pany o( its prerogative to "!ange !is assign#ent or trans(er !i# w!ere !e will be #ost use(ul. $.

*. 0.

0.

7.

*.

7.

<.

<.

w!en t!e trans(er is unreasonable/ in"onvenient/ or pre4udi"ial to t!e e#ployee/ and involves a de#otion in ran% or di#inution o( salaries/ bene(its/ and ot!er privileges. W!ere(ore/ t!is petition (or review is Granted.

Maya Far;s <;"loyees Organi=ation* et! al! ! $L#C G!#! $o! (251&5 Dece;ber 1)* (++6 Facts, 1. Private .espondent Maya 8ar#s in"lude t!e operation o( #eat pro"essing plant w!ile petitioner is t!e e-"lusive bargaining agents o( t!e e#ployees o( Maya 8ar#s .espondent announ"ed t!e adoption o( an early retire#ent progra# as a "ost5"utting #easure (or t!e setba"%s it su((ered and "an be availed o( e#ployees wit! at least ? years o( servi"e (w!i"! was redu"ed to 7 years . +n(ortunately/ only (ew too% t!e retire#ent progra# w!i"! resulted in t!e respondent strea#lining its organiFational set5up. T!e retire#ent progra# was later on "onverted to a spe"ial redundan"y progra# to rea"! t!e opti#u# nu#ber o( e#ployees <B e#ployees availed o( t!e spe"ial redundan"y progra#/ << e#ployees in(or#ing t!e# t!at t!eir respe"tive positions !ad been de"lared redundant. A noti"e o( stri%e was (iled by petitioners w!i"! a""used respondents o( +,P/ violation o( CBA and dis"ri#ination. Con"iliation pro"eeding was instituted by t!e 2CMB but t!e parties (ailed to arrive at a settle#ent. T!e 2,.C rendered a de"ision in (avor o( Maya 8ar#s w!i"! led to t!is petition.

installation o( labor5saving devises/ redundan"y/ retren"!#ent to prevent losses or t!e "losing or "essation o( operation o( t!e establis!#ent or underta%ing unless t!e "losing is (or t!e purpose o( "ir"u#venting in t!e provisions o( t!is title/ by serving a written noti"e on t!e wor%ers and t!e 'epart#ent o( ,abor and 3#ploy#ent at least one (1 #ont! be(ore t!e intended date t!ereo(. 9n "ase o( retren"!#ent to prevent losses o( operations o( establis!#ent or underta%ing not due to serious business losses or (inan"ial reverses/ t!e one (1 #ont! pay or at least one5!al( (1G$ pay (or every year o( servi"e/ w!i"!ever is !ig!er. A (ra"tion o( at least si- (< #ont!s s!all be "onsidered one (1 w!ole year. 1. T!e rule is well5settled t!at labor laws dis"ourage inter(eren"e wit! an e#ployer6s 4udg#ent in t!e "ondu"t o( !is business. 3ven as t!e law is soli"itous o( t!e wel(are o( e#ployees/ it #ust also prote"t t!e rig!t o( an e#ployer to e-er"ise w!at are "learly #anage#ent prerogatives. As long as t!e "o#pany6s e-er"ise o( t!e sa#e is in good (ait! to advan"e its interest and not (or t!e purpose o( de(eating or "ir"u#venting t!e rig!ts o( e#ployees under t!e laws or valid agree#ents/ su"! e-er"ise will be up!eld. T!e ,98O rule under t!e CBA is e-pli"it. 9t is ordained t!at in "ases o( retren"!#ent resulting in ter#ination o( e#ploy#ent in line o( wor%/ t!e e#ployee w!o was e#ployed on t!e latest date #ust be t!e (irst one to go. T!e provision spea%s o( ter#ination in t!e line o( wor%. T!is "onte#plates a situation w!ere e#ployees o""upying t!e sa#e position in t!e "o#pany are to be a((e"ted by t!e retren"!#ent progra#. Sin"e t!ere oug!t to be a redu"tion in t!e nu#ber o( personnel in su"! positions/ t!e lengt! o( servi"e o( ea"! e#ployees is t!e deter#ining (a"tor/ su"! t!at t!e e#ployee w!o !as a longer period o( e#ploy#ent will be retained. W!ere(ore/ t!e instant petition is !ereby '9SM9SS3' Blue Dairy Cor"oration ! $L#C G!#! $o! (1+)6' Se"te;ber (6* (+++ Facts,

1. $.

*.

0.

Blue 'airy Corporation (B'C !ired private respondent .e"alde as (ood te"!nologist in its laboratory wit! spe"i(i" (un"tions. .e"alde was trans(erred (ro# t!e laboratory to t!e vegetable pro"essing se"tion. S!e eventually stopped reporting be"ause s!e was un!appy wit! !er 4ob. .e"alde (iled a "o#plaint (or "onstru"tive dis#issal wit! t!e ,A. T!e ,A was "onvin"ed t!at petitioners were guilty o( "onstru"tive dis#issal and ordered !is reinstate#ent On appeal/ t!e 2,.C a((ir#ed t!e ruling and denied t!e #otion (or re"onsideration. Blue 'airy Corporation t!en (iled t!is petition

-ssue, W!et!er or not .e"alde was "onstru"tively dis#issed .el/, 1. 2o grave abuse o( dis"retion was "o##itted by t!e 2,.C. 9ndeed/ it is t!e prerogative o( #anage#ent to trans(er an e#ployee (ro# one o((i"e to anot!er wit!in t!e business establis!#ent based on its assess#ent and per"eption o( t!e e#ployee6s ;uali(i"ations/ aptitudes and "o#peten"e/ and in order to as"ertain w!ere !e "an (un"tion wit! #a-i#u# bene(it to t!e "o#pany. T!is is a privilege in!erent in t!e e#ployer6s rig!t to "ontrol and #anage !is enterprise e((e"tively. T!e (reedo# o( #anage#ent to "ondu"t its business operations to a"!ieve its purpose "annot be denied. But/ li%e ot!er rig!ts/ t!ere are li#its t!ereto. T!e #anagerial prerogative to trans(er personnel #ust be e-er"ised wit!out grave abuse o( dis"retion/ bearing in #ind t!e basi" ele#ents o( 4usti"e and (air play. 1aving t!e rig!t s!ould not be "on(used wit! t!e #anner in w!i"! t!at rig!t is e-er"ised. T!us it "annot be used as subter(uge by t!e e#ployer to rid !i#sel( o( an undesirable wor%er. 9n parti"ular/ t!e e#ployer #ust be able to s!ow t!at t!e trans(er is not unreasonable/ in"onvenient or pre4udi"ial to t!e e#ployeeC nor does it involve a de#otion in ran% or a di#inution o( !is salaries/ privileges and ot!er bene(its. S!ould t!e e#ployer (ail to over"o#e t!is burden o( proo( t!e e#ployee6s trans(er s!all be

$.

*.

$.

0.

7.

$.

<. -ssue,

*.

WO2 t!e ter#ination o( t!e si-ty5si- e#ployees was done in a""ordan"e wit! Art. $?* o( t!e ,abor Code .el/, 0rt! 1)'!Closure o: establis3;ent an/ re/uction o: "ersonnel > T!e e#ployer #ay also ter#inate t!e e#ploy#ent o( any e#ployee due to t!e

*.

0.

tanta#ount to "onstru"tive dis#issal/ w!i"! !as been de(ined as a ;uitting be"ause "ontinued e#ploy#ent is rendered i#possible/ unreasonable or unli%elyC as an o((er involving a de#otion in ran% and di#inution in pay. ,i%ewise/ "onstru"tive dis#issal e-ists w!en an a"t o( "lear dis"ri#ination/ insensibility or disdain by an e#ployer !as be"o#e so unbearable to t!e e#ployee leaving !i# wit! no option but to (orego wit! !is "ontinued e#ploy#ent. 9n t!e present "ase/ petitioners (ailed to 4usti(y .e"alde)s trans(er (ro# t!e position o( (ood te"!nologist in t!e laboratory to a wor%er in t!e vegetable pro"essing se"tion. W!ere(ore/ t!e petition is '9SM9SS3' P3ili""ine 0irlines -nc! (P0L) ! $L#C G!#! $o! )&+)& 0ugust ('* (++'

-ssue, WO2 t!e (or#ulation o( a Code o( 'is"ipline a#ong e#ployees is a s!ared responsibility o( t!e e#ployer and t!e e#ployees .el/, 1. 9ndeed/ it was only on Mar"! $/ 1B?B/ wit! t!e approval o( .epubli" A"t 2o. <=17/ a#ending Arti"le $11 o( t!e ,abor Code/ t!at t!e law e-pli"itly "onsidered it a State poli"y H(t o ensure t!e parti"ipation o( wor%ers in de"ision and poli"y5#a%ing pro"esses a((e"ting t!e rig!ts/ duties and wel(are.H 1owever/ even in t!e absen"e o( said "lear provision o( law/ t!e e-er"ise o( #anage#ent prerogatives was never "onsidered boundless. T!us/ in CruF vs. Medina it was !eld t!at #anage#ent6s prerogatives #ust be wit!out abuse o( dis"retion. All t!is points to t!e "on"lusion t!at t!e e-er"ise o( #anagerial prerogatives is not unli#ited. 9t is "ir"u#s"ribed by li#itations (ound in law/ a "olle"tive bargaining agree#ent/ or t!e general prin"iples o( (air play and 4usti"e. Moreover/ as enun"iated in Abbott ,aboratories (P!il. / vs. 2,.C/ it #ust be duly establis!ed t!at t!e prerogative being invo%ed is "learly a #anagerial one. A "lose s"rutiny o( t!e ob4e"tionable provisions o( t!e Code reveals t!at t!ey are not purely business5oriented nor do t!ey "on"ern t!e #anage#ent aspe"t o( t!e business o( t!e "o#pany as in t!e San Miguel "ase. T!e provisions o( t!e Code "learly !ave reper"usions on t!e e#ployee6s rig!t to se"urity o( tenure. T!e i#ple#entation o( t!e provisions #ay result in t!e deprivation o( an e#ployee6s #eans o( liveli!ood w!i"!/ as "orre"tly pointed out by t!e 2,.C/ is a property rig!t 9ndeed/ industrial pea"e "annot be a"!ieved i( t!e e#ployees are denied t!eir 4ust parti"ipation in t!e dis"ussion o( #atters a((e"ting t!eir rig!ts. T!us/ even be(ore Arti"le $11 o( t!e labor Code (P.'. 00$ was a#ended by .epubli" A"t 2o. <=17/ it was already de"lared a poli"y o( t!e State/ H(d To pro#ote t!e enlig!ten#ent o( wor%ers "on"erning t!eir rig!ts and obligations . . . as

7.

e#ployees.H T!is was/ o( "ourse/ a#pli(ied by .epubli" A"t 2o <=17 w!en it de"reed t!e Hparti"ipation o( wor%ers in de"ision and poli"y #a%ing pro"esses a((e"ting t!eir rig!ts/ duties and wel(are.H PA,6s position t!at it "annot be saddled wit! t!e HobligationH o( s!aring #anage#ent prerogatives as during t!e (or#ulation o( t!e Code/ .epubli" A"t 2o. <=17 !ad not yet been ena"ted/ "annot t!us be sustained. W!ile su"! HobligationH was not yet (ounded in law w!en t!e Code was (or#ulated/ t!e attain#ent o( a !ar#onious labor5#anage#ent relations!ip and t!e t!en already e-isting state poli"y o( enlig!tening wor%ers "on"erning t!eir rig!ts as e#ployees de#and no less t!an t!e observan"e o( transparen"y in #anagerial #oves a((e"ting e#ployees6 rig!ts. W!ere(ore/ t!e petition is '9SM9SS3' and t!e ;uestioned de"ision A889.M3'. Star Pa"er Cor"! ! Si;bol* et! al! G!#! $o! (56446 0"ril (1* 1225

Facts, $. 1. On 1B?7/ PA, revised its Code o( 'is"ipline and it was "ir"ulated a#ong t!e e#ployees and was i##ediately i#ple#ented / and so#e e#ployees were sub4e"ted to t!e dis"iplinary #easures e#bodied t!erein PA,3A (iled a "o#plaint be(ore t!e 2,.C (or +,P (or PA,)s arbitrary i#ple#entation o( t!e Code o( 'is"ipline. PA, (iled #otion to dis#iss "ontending t!at t!ey !ave t!e prerogative to pres"ribe rules and regulations 9n its reply/ PA,3A #aintained t!at Art. $0B(e was violated w!en PA, i#ple#ented t!e Code. T!e ,A (ound t!at no +,P was "o##itted by PA, but it also ruled t!at t!e rule violated t!e rule on double 4eopardy. 9t also stated t!at it (ailed to prove t!at t!e new Code was a#ply "ir"ulated. On appeal/ t!e 2,.C (ound no eviden"e o( +,P "o##itted by PA, and a((ir#ed t!e dis#issal o( PA,3A)s "!arge and de"lared t!at PA, to s!are its #anage#ent prerogative o( (or#ulating a Code o( 'is"ipline. PA, t!en (iled a petition (or "ertiorari "!arging publi" respondents wit! grave abuse o( dis"retion

Facts, 1. Petitioner Star Paper Corp. s!owed eviden"e t!at respondents were all regular e#ployees o( t!e "o#pany w!o "ontra"ted #arriage wit! t!eir "o5e#ployee and re5 signed to "o#ply wit! "o#pany poli"y. .espondents/ on t!e ot!er !and/ allege t!at t!ey did not resign voluntarilyC t!ey were "o#pelled to resign in view o( an illegal "o#pany poli"y. .espondents later (iled a "o#plaint (or un(air labor pra"ti"e/ "onstru"tive dis#issal/ et". ,A dis#issed t!e "o#plaint (or la"% o( #erit. On appeal to t!e 2,.C/ t!e Co##ission a((ir#ed t!e de"ision o( t!e ,A. Motion was re"onsideration was li%ewise denied. .espondents appealed to t!e CA w!i"! reversed t!e de"ision o( t!e 2,.C. Petitioner appealed to t!e SC

$. *. 0. 7.

*.

$.

*. 0. 7. <. -ssue,

<.

0.

=.

WO2 t!e poli"y o( t!e e#ployer banning spouses (ro# wor%ing in t!e sa#e "o#pany violates t!e rig!ts o( t!e e#ployee under t!e Constitution and t!e ,C or is a valid e-er"ise o( #anage#ent prerogative .el/,

1. $.

*.

0.

7.

We a((ir#. 9t is true t!at t!e poli"y o( petitioners pro!ibiting "lose relatives (ro# wor%ing in t!e sa#e "o#pany ta%es t!e nature o( an anti5 nepotis# e#ploy#ent poli"y. Co#panies adopt t!ese poli"ies to prevent t!e !iring o( un;uali(ied persons based on t!eir status as a relative/ rat!er t!an upon t!eir ability.1= T!ese poli"ies (o"us upon t!e potential e#ploy#ent proble#s arising (ro# t!e per"eption o( (avoritis# e-!ibited towards relatives. Wit! #ore wo#en entering t!e wor%(or"e/ e#ployers are also ena"ting e#ploy#ent poli"ies spe"i(i"ally pro!ibiting spouses (ro# wor%ing (or t!e sa#e "o#pany. We note t!at two types o( e#ploy#ent poli"ies involve spouses@ poli"ies banning only spouses (ro# wor%ing in t!e sa#e "o#pany (no5spouse e#ploy#ent poli"ies / and t!ose banning all i##ediate (a#ily #e#bers/ in"luding spouses/ (ro# wor%ing in t!e sa#e "o#pany (anti5nepotis# e#ploy#ent poli"ies . IAJ re;uire#ent t!at a wo#an e#ployee #ust re#ain un#arried "ould be 4usti(ied as a Hbona (ide o""upational ;uali(i"ation/H or B8OK/ w!ere t!e parti"ular re;uire#ents o( t!e 4ob would 4usti(y t!e sa#e/ but not on t!e ground o( a general prin"iple/ su"! as t!e desirability o( spreading wor% in t!e wor%pla"e. A re;uire#ent o( t!at nature would be valid provided it re(le"ts an in!erent ;uality reasonably ne"essary (or satis(a"tory 4ob per(or#an"e. 9n view w!ereo(/ t!e de"ision o( t!e CA is a((ir#ed.

en4oining t!e "ondu"t o( ele"tions. 1owever/ a general (a"ulty asse#bly was !eld as s"!eduled. T!e general asse#bly was attended by #e#bers o( t!e +ST8+ and/ as ad#itted by t!e appellants/ also by &non5+ST8+ #e#bers Iw!oJ are #e#bers in good standing o( t!e +ST A"ade#i" Co##unity Colle"tive Bargaining +nit:. On t!is o""asion/ appellants were ele"ted as +ST8+)s new set o( o((i"ers by a""la#ation and "lapping o( !ands. On L* 'e"e#ber 1BB</ appellants and +ST allegedly entered into anot!er CBA "overing t!e period (ro# L1 Eune 1BB< to *1 May $LL1. Said CBA was rati(ied by a #a4ority o( t!e +ST (a"ulty "o##unity. -ssue, WO2 t!e ele"tion o( t!e o((i"ers in t!is "ase was valid .el/, 2O. T!e i#portan"e o( a union)s "onstitution and bylaws "annot be overe#p!asiFed. T!ey e#body a "ovenant between a union and its #e#bers and "onstitute t!e (unda#ental law governing t!e #e#bers) rig!ts and obligations. As su"!/ t!e union)s "onstitution and bylaws s!ould be up!eld/ as long as t!ey are not "ontrary to law/ good #orals or publi" poli"y. A union ele"tion is !eld pursuant to t!e union)s "onstitution and bylaws/ and t!e rig!t to vote in it is en4oyed only by union #e#bers. A union ele"tion s!ould be distinguis!ed (ro# a "erti(i"ation ele"tion/ w!i"! is t!e pro"ess o( deter#ining/ t!roug! se"ret ballot/ t!e sole and e-"lusive bargaining agent o( t!e e#ployees in t!e appropriate bargaining unit/ (or purposes o( "olle"tive bargaining. Spe"i(i"ally/ t!e purpose o( a "erti(i"ation ele"tion is to as"ertain w!et!er or not a #a4ority o( t!e e#ployees wis! to be represented by a labor organiFation and/ in t!e a((ir#ative "ase/ by w!i"! parti"ular labor organiFation. 9n a "erti(i"ation ele"tion/ all e#ployees belonging to t!e appropriate bargaining unit "an vote. T!ere(ore/ a union #e#ber w!o li%ewise belongs to t!e appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said ele"tion. 1owever/ t!e reverse is not always trueC an e#ployee belonging to t!e appropriate bargaining unit but w!o is not a #e#ber o( t!e union "annot vote in t!e union ele"tion/ unless ot!erwise aut!oriFed by t!e

"onstitution and bylaws o( t!e union. >erily/ union a((airs and ele"tions "annot be de"ided in a non5union a"tivity. San Miguel Cor"oration Su"er isors ! Lagues;a G!#! $o! ((2'++ 0ugust (&* (++4 Facts, Petitioner union (iled be(ore 'O,3 a Petition (or 'ire"t Certi(i"ation or Certi(i"ation 3le"tion a#ong t!e supervisors and e-e#pt e#ployees o( t!e SMC Magnolia Poultry Produ"ts Plants o( Cabuyao/ San 8ernando and Otis. Med5Arbiter 'anilo ,. .eynante issued an Order ordering t!e "ondu"t o( "erti(i"ation ele"tion a#ong t!e above#entioned e#ployees o( t!e di((erent plants as one bargaining unit. San Miguel Corporation (iled a 2oti"e o( Appeal wit! Me#orandu# on Appeal/ pointing out/ a#ong ot!ers/ t!e Med5Arbiter)s error in grouping toget!er all t!ree (* separate plants/ into one bargaining unit/ and in in"luding supervisory levels * and above w!ose positions are "on(idential in nature. T!e publi" respondent/ +nderse"retary ,agues#a/ granted respondent "o#pany)s Appeal and ordered t!e re#and o( t!e "ase to t!e Med5Arbiter o( origin (or deter#ination o( t!e true "lassi(i"ation o( ea"! o( t!e e#ployees soug!t to be in"luded in t!e appropriate bargaining unit. +pon petitioner5union)s #otion/ +nderse"retary ,agues#a granted t!e re"onsideration prayed (or and dire"ted t!e "ondu"t o( separate "erti(i"ation ele"tions a#ong t!e supervisors ran%ed as supervisory levels 1 to 0 (S1 to S0 and t!e e-e#pt e#ployees in ea"! o( t!e t!ree plants at Cabuyao/ San 8ernando and Otis. -ssue, (1 W!et!er Supervisory e#ployees * and 0 and t!e e-e#pt e#ployees o( t!e "o#pany are "onsidered "on(idential e#ployees/ !en"e ineligible (ro# 4oining a union. 9( t!ey are not "on(idential e#ployees/ do t!e e#ployees o( t!e t!ree plants "onstitute an appropriate single bargaining unit.

UST Faculty Union (USTFU) et! al! ! Bitonio* 7r! G!#! $o! ('(1'& $o e;ber (5* (+++ Facts, Private .esponednts are duly ele"ted o((i"ers o( t!e +ST 8a"ulty +nion (+ST8+ . T!e union !as a subsisting (ive5year CBA wit! +ST. T!e petitioners on t!e ot!er !and/ ;uestioned be(ore t!e Med5Arbiter/ t!at t!e COM3,3C was not "onstituted in a""ordan"e wit! +ST8+)s "onstitution and by5laws (CB, and t!at no rules !ad been issued to govern t!e "ondu"t o( t!e L7 O"tober 1BB< ele"tion. Med5Arbiter issued a T.O

($

.+,92G@ (1 On t!e (irst issue/ t!is Court rules t!at said e#ployees do not (all wit!in t!e ter# &"on(idential e#ployees: w!o #ay be pro!ibited (ro# 4oining a union. T!ey are not ;uali(ied to be "lassi(ied as #anagerial e#ployees w!o/ under Arti"le $07 o( t!e ,abor Code/ are not eligible to 4oin/ assist or (or# any labor organiFation. 9n t!e very sa#e provision/ t!ey are not allowed #e#bers!ip in a labor organiFation o( t!e ran%5and5(ile e#ployees but #ay 4oin/ assist or (or# separate labor organiFations o( t!eir own. Con(idential e#ployees are t!ose w!o (1 assist or a"t in a "on(idential "apa"ity/ ($ to persons w!o (or#ulate/ deter#ine/ and e((e"tuate #anage#ent poli"ies in t!e (ield o( labor relations. T!e two "riteria are "u#ulative/ and bot! #ust be #et i( an e#ployee is to be "onsidered a "on(idential e#ployee M t!at is/ t!e "on(idential relations!ip #ust e-ist between t!e e#ployee and !is supervisor/ and t!e supervisor #ust !andle t!e pres"ribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. T!e e-"lusion (ro# bargaining units o( e#ployees w!o/ in t!e nor#al "ourse o( t!eir duties/ be"o#e aware o( #anage#ent poli"ies relating to labor relations is a prin"ipal ob4e"tive soug!t to be a""o#plis!ed by t!e :"on(idential e#ployee rule.: T!e broad rationale be!ind t!is rule is t!at e#ployees s!ould not be pla"ed in a position involving a potential "on(li"t o( interests. &Manage#ent s!ould not be re;uired to !andle labor relations #atters t!roug! e#ployees w!o are represented by t!e union wit! w!i"! t!e "o#pany is re;uired to deal and w!o in t!e nor#al per(or#an"e o( t!eir duties #ay obtain advan"e in(or#ation o( t!e "o#pany)s position wit! regard to "ontra"t negotiations/ t!e disposition o( grievan"es/ or ot!er labor relations #atters.: T!e Court !eld t!at &i( t!ese #anagerial e#ployees would belong to or be a((iliated wit! a +nion/ t!e latter #ig!t not be assured o( t!eir loyalty to t!e +nion in view o( evident "on(li"t o( interest. T!e +nion "an also be"o#e "o#pany5do#inated wit! t!e presen"e o( #anagerial e#ployees in +nion #e#bers!ip.: An i#portant ele#ent o( t!e &"on(idential e#ployee rule: is t!e e#ployee)s need to use labor relations

in(or#ation. T!us/ in deter#ining t!e "on(identiality o( "ertain e#ployees/ a %ey ;uestion (re;uently "onsidered is t!e e#ployee)s ne"essary a""ess to "on(idential labor relations in(or#ation. ($ T!e (a"t t!at t!e t!ree plants are lo"ated in t!ree di((erent pla"es/ na#ely/ in Cabuyao/ ,aguna/ in Otis/ Panda"an/ Metro Manila/ and in San 8ernando/ Pa#panga is i##aterial. Geograp!i"al lo"ation "an be "o#pletely disregarded i( t!e "o##unal or #utual interests o( t!e e#ployees are not sa"ri(i"ed. An appropriate bargaining unit #ay be de(ined as &a group o( e#ployees o( a given e#ployer/ "o#prised o( all or less t!an all o( t!e entire body o( e#ployees/ w!i"! t!e "olle"tive interest o( all t!e e#ployees/ "onsistent wit! e;uity to t!e e#ployer/ indi"ate to be best suited to serve t!e re"ipro"al rig!ts and duties o( t!e parties under t!e "olle"tive bargaining provisions o( t!e law.: A unit to be appropriate #ust e((e"t a grouping o( e#ployees w!o !ave substantial/ #utual interests in wages/ !ours/ wor%ing "onditions and ot!er sub4e"ts o( "olle"tive bargaining. 0sian Design an/ Manu:acturing Cor"! ! Ferrer% Calle?a G!#! $o! L%446(& 7une 1+* (+)+ Di ine Wor/ Uni ersity o: Tacloban ! Sec! o: Labor G!#! no! +(+(& Se"te;ber ((* (++1 Facts, On Sept </ 1B?0 t!e #ed5arbiter "erti(ied t!e 'ivine Word +niversity 3#ployees +nion as t!e sole and e-"lusive bargaining agent o( t!e 'ivine Word +niversity. T!e union sub#itted its proposals on Mar"! =/ 1B?7. T!e +niversity)s reply re;uested t!at a preli#inary "on(eren"e be !eld on May $?/ 1B?7. Be(ore t!e "on(eren"e t!e >P o( t!e union resigned and wit!drew t!e proposals !en"e t!e PC was "an"elled. A(ter t!ree years/ t!e a((iliate o( t!e union/ Asso"iated ,abor +nion/ re;uested a "on(eren"e wit! t!e +niversity (or t!e purposes o( "ontinuing t!e bargaining negotiations. 2ot !aving !eard (ro# t!e

university/ a (ollow up re;uest was sent and warned t!e university (ro# intere(eren"e. T!e university #aintained it silen"e. T!e union t!erea(ter (iled a noti"e o( stri%e on t!e grounds o( bargaining deadlo"% and +,P/ re(usal to bargain/ dis"ri#ination and "oer"ion. Con(eren"es were !eld a(ter t!e (iling o( t!e noti"e o( stri%e and t!e parties "a#e to an agree#ent. 9t was (ound !owever/ t!at t!e university (iled (or a petition (or "erti(i"ation ele"tion one !our be(ore t!e agree#ent was "on"luded. T!e union t!en sub#itted proposals w!i"! were again ignored by t!e university. Marat!on "on"iliations were !eld to no avail. T!e Se" o( ,abor assu#ed 4urisdi"tion and dire"ted t!at all stri%ing wor%ers to report ba"% to wor% wit!in $0 !ours. T!e #ed5arbiter issued an order dire"ting t!e "ondu"t o( t!e "erti(i"ation ele"tion. To W!i"! t!e Se" o( ,abor dire"ted to !old in abeyan"e. T!e Se" o( ,abor dis#issed t!e "ases o( +,P (iled by t!e union and t!e university. -ssue, W!et!er or not "erti(i"ation ele"tion "an be !eld a(ter CBA was agreed upon a(ter 7 years. .el/, An e#ployer w!o is re;uested to bargain "olle"tively #ay (ile a petition (or "erti(i"ation ele"tion any ti#e e-"ept upon "lear s!owing t!e e-isten"e o( eit!er@ 1 petition is (iled wit!in one year (ro# t!e issuan"e o( a (inal "erti(i"ation ele"tion result O. $ w!en a bargaining deadlo"% !ad been sub#itted to "on"iliation or arbitration or !ad be"o#e t!e sub4e"t o( a valid noti"e o( stri%e or lo"%out. 'eadlo"% is t!e "ountera"tion o( t!ings produ"ing entire stoppage@ a state o( ina"tion or o( neutraliFation "aused by t!e opposition o( persons or (a"tions. T!ere is a deadlo"% w!en t!ere is a "o#plete blo"%ing or stoppage resulting (ro# t!e a"tion o( e;ual and opposed (or"es.

T!e re"ords o( t!e "ase s!ows t!at t!ere was no reasonable e((ort at good (ait! bargaining on t!e part o( t!e university. Pro"edure@ 1 proposal $ "on(eren"e in "ase o( di((eren"es * "on"iliation 0 t!e parties are pro!ibited (ro# e-er"ising a"ts w!i"! would i#pede or disrupt t!e early settle#ent o( t!e "ase 7 e-ert e((orts (or a#i"able settle#ent T!e union a(ter sub#itting proposals w!i"! were ignored by t!e university/ re#ained passive. Te"!ni"ally/ t!e university !as t!e rig!t to (ile t!e petition (or "erti(i"ation ele"tion as t!ere was no bargaining deadlo"%. 1owever su"! rig!t was (or(eited by its ina"tion. On Sept </ 1B?0 t!e #ed5arbiter "erti(ied t!e 'ivine Word +niversity 3#ployees +nion as t!e sole and e-"lusive bargaining agent o( t!e 'ivine Word +niversity. T!e union sub#itted its proposals on Mar"! =/ 1B?7. T!e +niversity)s reply re;uested t!at a preli#inary "on(eren"e be !eld on May $?/ 1B?7. Be(ore t!e "on(eren"e t!e >P o( t!e union resigned and wit!drew t!e proposals !en"e t!e PC was "an"elled. $estle ! $L#C