Luzon Development Bank vs.

Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees

Facts:
The parties had an arbitration case in order to resolve the issue w/n the company has violated the
CBA and Memorandum of agreement. ALDBE submitted its position paper, while LDB failed to
comply with the required position paper. Despite a letter from the voluntary arbitrator, no position
paper had been filed. Arbitrator decided upon the position paper submitted by ALDBE and decided
in favor of them. Petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the
voluntary arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same.
Issue: w/n the CA has the jurisdiction for the appellate review of the decision of the voluntary
arbitrator.
Held:
Yes, the CA has jurisdiction with regard to the appellate review of the decision of the voluntary
arbitrator.
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, provides that the Court of
Appeals shall exercise:

(B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section
17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Insular Life Assurance Co. EA vs Insular Life Assurance co.
Facts:
Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia; the latter was
formerly the secretary-treasurer of the FFW and acting president of the Insular Life/FGU unions
and the Insular Life Building Employees Association. Garcia, as such acting president, in a circular
issued in his name and signed by him, tried to dissuade the members of the Unions from
disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU), to no
avail. Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board
of the Department of Justice. Thereafter, the Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as
assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant in their Legal Department. Negotiations for the
CBA was conducted but it resulted into a deadlock on October, 1957. From April 25 to May 6,
1958, the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory results due to the
stalemate on the matter of salary increases. This prompted the Unions to declare a strike in protest
against what they considered the Companies unfair labor practices. On May 20, 1958, the Unions
went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Building at Plaza Moraga. Acting
manager and president, sent individual letters to the striking employees urging them to abandon
their strike with a promise of free coffee, movies, overtime pay, and accommodations. He also
warned the strikers if they fail to return to work by a certain date, they might be replaced in their
jobs. Further, the Companies hired men to break into the picket lines resulting in violence, and the
filing of criminal charges against some union officers and members. When eventually, the strikers
called off their strike to return to their jobs, they were subjected to a screening process by a
management committee.

Issue: w/n companies committed unfair labor practice when they sent individual letters to the
strikers with the promise of additional benefits, and notifying them to either return to work, or lose
their jobs

Held:

Yes, the companies committed unfair labor practice when they sent individual letters to the strikers.
It is an act of interference with the right to collective bargaining through dealing with the strikers
individually instead of through their collective bargaining representatives. Although the Unions
are on strike, the employer is still obligated to bargain with the union as the employees bargaining
representative. Further, it is also an act of interference for the employer to send individual letters
to the employees notifying them to return to their jobs, otherwise, they would be replaced.
Individual solicitation of the employees urging them to cease union activity or cease striking
consists of unfair labor practice. Furthermore, when the Companies offered to bribe the strikers
with comfortable cots, free coffee, and movies, overtime work pay so they would abandon their
strike and return to work, it was guilty of strike-breaking and/or union busting which constitute
unfair labor practice.
Judric Canning vs Inciong
FACTS:
The records show that the herein private respondents are employees of the petitioner corporation
and are members of the UnitedLumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP). On
August 19, 1978, the said complainants were allegedly not allowed to report for work due to their
union activities in soliciting membership in a union yet to be organized in the company and their
time cards were removedfrom the rack. As a result, the said complainants and their labor union
filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the petitioner withRegion IV of the Ministry of
Labor, seeking the reinstatement of the complainants with full backwages. The herein petitioner
denied having locked out the complainants and claims that the said complainants failed to report
for work andabandoned their positions. The petitioner also denied having knowledge of the union
activities of the complainants until August 30, 1978, whenit was served notice of a petition for
direct certification filed by the complainant union. After hearing the parties, or on November 15,
1978, the Regional Director of Region IV of the Ministry of Labor, after finding that thepetitioner
had dismissed the complainants without valid cause, ordered the petitioner to immediately reinstate
the complainants to their former positions with fun backwages from the date of their dismissal up
to their actual reinstatement. The petitioner corporation appealed to the Ministry of Labor but its
appeal was dismissed for lack of merit on August 3,1979. Thereafter, a writ of execution was
issued on September 24, 1979.
Issue: w/n petitioner could not have committed the unfair labor practice charge for dismissing
some of its employees due to their alleged union activitiesbecause the alleged dismissal took place
more than four (4) months before the organizational meeting of the union and more than one (1)
year before actual registration of said union with the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau
of Labor Relations
Held:
No, petitioner corporation is guilty of unfair labor practice in interfering with the formation of a
labor union and retaliating against the employees' exercise of their right to self-organization.
Under Article 248(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, "to interfere with, restrain, or
coerceemployees in their exercise of the right to self-organization" is an unfair labor practice on
the part of the employer. Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for
an employer "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. In
this particular case, theprivate respondents were dismissed or their services were terminated,
because they were soliciting signatures in order to form aunion within the plant.
Manila Hotel Company vs Pines Hotel
Facts:
Three appeals by certiorari (L-30755, L-30818 and L-30139) were filed on various dates in
1969 involving the same parties and various incidents between them, commencing from an
unfair labor practice charge originally filed by respondent union against petitioner company
and culminating in supplemental proceedings to enjoin the abrupt dismissal and termination
of employment of all eighty-six employees at the Pines Hotel with its sudden sale to a third
party. In the first case L-30755, an unfair labor practice on 6 counts was filed against Manila
Hotel Company, which was then engaged in the operation of the Pines Hotel in Baguio City.
After due hearing, CIR dismissed 4 counts and found the petitioner guilty of unfair labor
practice on 2 counts:
a. the charge of discrimination in the granting of salary adjustments
granting of the 1965 Christmas bonus, pursuant
and to the then newly enacted Minimum
b. the charge of discrimination in the Wage Law, Republic Act 4180;
and ordered petitioner to cease and desist from further committing such unfair labor practice acts.
During the pendency of the unfair labor practice case, 86 employees of Pines Hotel received written
notices that the National Development Company as owner of the Pines Hotel had sold it to the Resort
Hotels Corporation and that since petitioner Manila Hotel Company's operation of the hotel would
cease effective the next day, their services were terminated as of the close of business hours of March
28, 1968. Manila Hotel expressly manifested that it was willing to grant retirement gratuity to all the
employees, who have served for 20 years or more, expressly referring to 16 out of 86 employees who
were terminated. Notwithstanding petitioner's having deposited with respondent court pursuant to
its own offer the sum of P100,000.00 through its check, it still questioned the issuance of the order
on grounds of alleged lack of jurisdiction and impropriety thereof. With its appeal denied by CIR, it
filed another petition which was docketed as L-30139. In connection with the same sale on March
28, 1968 of the Pines Hotel and the abrupt termination of all its employees, Manila Hotels BoD
subsequently approved the payment of retirement gratuity to the greater remainder of 70 employees
who had not completed 20 years of service and were not qualified under the Retirement Law. Citing
the various manifestations in the record of petitioner's willingness to pay such gratuity, respondent
court issued its order of February 27, 1969 for the payment of such gratuity not exceeding 12 months
to the remaining 70 employees who have rendered one year to nineteen years of service to petitioner
company. Petitioner once again raised the same questions of jurisdiction and propriety of the CIRs
issuance of said payment order and with its MFR denied, it filed another appeal, docketed as L-30818.

Issue: w/n court acted out of its jurisdiction in issuing the appealed payment order of the 70
employees

Held:
No. As the petitioner has in no manner questioned or disputed the factual bases and findings of CIR
as to its undertaking and agreement in the record to pay the retirement gratuity to the employees,
by way of settlement of their dispute arising from the protested abrupt termination of their
employment with the sudden sale of the Pines Hotel to a third party, the court acted within its
jurisdiction when it properly assumed of implementing the very agreement and settlement for
payment of retirement gratuity arrived at by the parties in the case before it.
Wise & Co vs Wise & Co employees union
FACTS: The management issued a memorandum circular introducing a profit sharing scheme for
its managers and supervisors the initial distribution. The respondent union wrote petitioner asking
for participation in this scheme but it was denied by petitioner on the ground that it had to adhere
strictly to the CBA. Petitioner distributed the profit sharing benefit not only to managers and
supervisors but also to all other rank and file employees not covered by the CBA. This caused the
respondent union to file a notice of strike alleging that petitioner was guilty of ULP because the
union members were discriminated against in the grant of the profit sharing benefits. Management
refused to proceed with the CBA negotiations unless the last notice of strike was first resolved.
The union agreed to postpone discussions on the profit sharing demand until a new CBA was
concluded. After a series of conciliation conferences, the parties agreed to settle the dispute
through voluntary arbitration. The voluntary arbitrator issued an award ordering petitioner to
likewise extend the benefits of the 1987 profit sharing scheme to the members of respondent union.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: w/n the grant by management of profit sharing benefits to its non-union member
employees is discriminatory against its workers who are union members.
HELD: NO. Under the CBA between the parties, there is a clause where the employees are
classified into those who are members of the union and those who are not. The grant by petitioner
of profit sharing benefits to the employees outside the bargaining unit falls under the ambit of
its managerial prerogative. It appears to have been done in good faith and without ulterior motive.
In the case of the union members, they derive their benefits from the terms and conditions of the
CBA contract which constitute the law between the contracting parties. Both the employer and the
union members are bound by such agreement. There can be no discrimination committed by
petitioner thereby as the situation of the union employees are different and distinct from the non-
union employees. Indeed, discrimination per se is not unlawful. There can be no discrimination
where the employees concerned are not similarly situated.
Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc. vs NLRC
Facts:
The workers of Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. have a an 8-hour daily schedule which starts at 7:45 am
and ends at 3:45 pm. They have a 30-minute paid lunch break but during said break, they are on
call hence can be pulled out at any time if the need arises. However, in August 1992, Sime Darby
issued a memorandum which changed the working schedule from 7:45 am to 4:45 pm. This time,
all employees will have a one-hour lunch break which is no longer paid but at the same time,
employees will no longer be on call.
The labor union opposed the revised schedule. The union insists that the scrapping of the 30-
minute paid lunch break is a diminution of benefits.
Issue: w/n petitioner committed unfair labor practice on the ground that the new memorandum
constitutes diminution of benefits.
Held:
No. It is a valid exercise of management prerogative. In the old schedule, the workers were paid
for eight hours and included in that is the paid 30-minute lunch break. In the new schedule, the
workers are still paid for 8 hours, so theres really no diminution of benefit. It would be unfair on
the part of Sime Darby for the workers to be paid still for their new 1 hour break even though this
time they are no longer on call. If that would be the case, the workers will be unjustly enriched.
In this case, it is the right of Sime Darby as the employer to change the work schedules of the
workers so long as such prerogative is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the
employees under special laws or under valid agreements. Further, the new work schedule also
benefits the workers as they can now enjoy a longer lunch break of 1 hour instead of the old 30-
minute break and they can enjoy it without being interrupted as theyre no longer on call. For a
full one-hour undisturbed lunch break, the employees can freely and effectively use this hour not
only for eating but also for their rest and comfort which are conducive to more efficiency and
better performance in their work.