3/17/2017 G.R.No.

178647

THIRDDIVISION


GENERALSANTOSCOCA G.R.No.178647
COLAPLANTFREEWORKERS Present:
UNIONTUPAS,
Petitioner, YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
versus CHICONAZARIO,
NACHURA,and
PERALTA,JJ.
COCACOLABOTTLERS
PHILS.,INC.(GENERAL Promulgated:
SANTOSCITY),THECOURT
OFAPPEALSandTHE
NATIONALLABOR February13,2009
RELATIONSCOMMISSION,
Respondents.


xx


RESOLUTION

NACHURA,J.:


In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on Civil
Procedure, petitioner General Santos CocaCola Plant Free Workers UnionTupas (Union) is
[1] [2]
seekingthereversaloftheApril18,2006Decision andMay30,2007Resolution of the
CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.80916.TheCAaffirmedtheJanuary31,2003andAugust
[3]
29, 2003 Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in favor of
respondentCocaColaBottlersPhil.,Inc.(CCBPI).

Sometimeinthelate1990s,CCBPIexperiencedasignificantdeclineinprofitabilitydue
totheAsianeconomiccrisis,decreaseinsales,andtoughercompetition.Tocurbthenegative
[4]
effects on the company, it implemented three (3) waves of an Early Retirement Program.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/178647.htm 1/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.178647

Meanwhile, there was an interoffice memorandum sent to all of CCBPIs Plant Human
Resources Managers/Personnel Officers, including those of the CCBPI General Santos Plant
(CCBPIGenSan)mandatingthemtoputonholdallrequestsforhiringtofillinvacanciesin
both regular and temporary positions in [the] Head Office and in the Plants. Because several
employeesavailedoftheearlyretirementprogram,vacancieswerecreatedinsomedepartments,
including the production department of CCBPI Gen San, where members of petitioner Union
worked. This prompted petitioner to negotiate with the Labor Management Committee for
[5]
fillingupthevacancieswithpermanentemployees.Noresolutionwasreachedonthematter.

Faced with the freeze hiring directive, CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP
Services Corporation (JLBP), a company in the business of providing labor and manpower
services, including janitorial services, messengers, and office workers to various private and
[6]
governmentoffices.

OnJanuary21,2002,petitionerfiledwiththeNationalConciliationandMediationBoard
(NCMB),RegionalBranch12,aNoticeofStrikeonthegroundofallegedunfairlaborpractice
committed by CCBPI Gen San for contractingout services regularly performed by union
members(unionbusting).AfterconciliationandmediationproceedingsbeforetheNCMB,the
parties failed to come to an amicable settlement. On July 3, 2002, CCBPI filed a Petition for
AssumptionofJurisdictionwiththeOfficeoftheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment.OnJuly
26,2002,theSecretaryofLaborissuedanOrderenjoiningthethreatenedstrikeandcertifying
[7]
thedisputetotheNLRCforcompulsoryarbitration.

[8]
InaResolution datedJanuary31,2003,theNLRCruledthatCCBPIwasnotguiltyof
unfair labor practice for contracting out jobs to JLBP. The NLRC anchored its ruling on the
validityoftheGoingtotheMarket(GTM)systemimplementedbythecompany,whichcalled
forrestructuringitssellinganddistributionsystem,leadingtotheclosureofcertainsalesoffices
andtheeliminationofconventionalsalesroutes.TheNLRCheldthatpetitionerfailedtoprove
by substantial evidence that the system was meant to curtail the right to selforganization of
petitionersmembers.Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichtheNLRCdeniedina
[9]
Resolution datedAugust29,2003.Hence,petitionerfiledaPetitionforCertioraribeforethe
CA.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/178647.htm 2/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.178647

[10]
TheCAissuedtheassailedDecision onApril18,2006upholdingtheNLRCsfinding
thatCCBPIwasnotguiltyofunfairlaborpractice.TheCAbaseditsdecisiononthevalidityof
CCBPIscontractingoutofjobsinitsproductiondepartment.Itheldthatthecontractbetween
CCBPI and JLBP did not amount to laboronly contracting. It found that JLBP was an
independent contractor and that the decision to contract out jobs was a valid exercise of
managementprerogativetomeetexigentcircumstances.Ontheotherhand,petitionerfailedto
adduceevidencetoprovethatcontractingoutofjobsbythecompanyresultedinthedismissal
of petitioners members, prevented them from exercising their right to selforganization, led to
theUnionsdemiseorthattheirgroupwassingledoutbythecompany.Consequently,theCA
declaredthatCCBPIwasnotguiltyofunfairlaborpractice.

[11]
Itsmotionforreconsiderationhavingbeendenied, petitionernowcomestothisCourt
seekingthereversaloftheCADecision.

Thepetitionisbereftofmerit.Hence,wedenythePetition.

Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be
[12]
raisedinaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari.

Thereisaquestionoflawiftheissueraisediscapableofbeingresolvedwithoutneedof
reviewingtheprobativevalueoftheevidence. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on
whatthelawprovidesonagivensetofcircumstances.Onceitisclearthattheissueinvitesa
reviewoftheevidencepresented,thequestionposedisoneoffact.Ifthequeryrequiresare
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding
[13]
circumstancesandtheirrelationtooneanother,theissueinthatqueryisfactual.

Anexaminationoftheissuesraisedbypetitionerrevealsthattheyarequestionsoffact.
Theissuesraised,i.e.,whetherJLBPisanindependentcontractor,whetherCCBPIscontracting
out of jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor practice, and whether such action was a valid
exerciseofmanagementprerogative,callforareexaminationofevidence,whichisnotwithin
theambitofthisCourtsjurisdiction.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/178647.htm 3/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.178647

Moreover, factual findings of the NLRC, an administrative agency deemed to have
acquiredexpertiseinmatterswithinitsjurisdiction,aregenerallyaccordednotonlyrespectbut
[14]
finalityespeciallywhensuchfactualfindingsareaffirmedbytheCA.
Furthermore,wefindnoreversibleerrorintheassailedDecision.

ItistruethattheNLRCerroneouslyconcludedthatthecontractingoutofjobsinCCBPI
Gen San was due to the GTM system, which actually affected CCBPIs sales and marketing
departments,andhadnothingtodowithpetitionerscomplaint.However,thisdoesnotdiminish
theNLRCsfindingthatJLBPwasalegitimate,independentcontractorandthatCCBPIGenSan
engagedtheservicesofJLBPtomeetbusinessexigenciescreatedbythefreezehiringdirective
oftheCCBPIHeadOffice.

Ontheotherhand,theCAsquarelyaddressedtheissueofjobcontractinginitsassailed
[15]
DecisionandResolution.TheCAitselfexaminedthefactsandevidenceoftheparties and
found that, based on the evidence, CCBPI did not engage in laboronly contracting and,
therefore,wasnotguiltyofunfairlaborpractice.

The NLRC found and the same was sustained by the CA that the companys action to
contractouttheservicesandfunctionsperformedbyUnionmembersdidnotconstituteunfair
laborpracticeasthiswasnotdirectedatthemembersrighttoselforganization.

Article248oftheLaborCodeprovides:

ART. 248. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF EMPLOYERS. It shall be unlawful for an
employertocommitanyofthefollowingunfairlaborpractices:

xxx

(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will
interferewith,restrainorcoerceemployeesintheexerciseoftheirrighttoselforganization

xxx


Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to organize. The
prohibited acts are related to the workers right to selforganization and to the observance of a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/178647.htm 4/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.178647

[16]
CBA.Withoutthatelement,theacts,evenifunfair,arenotunfairlaborpractices.

BoththeNLRCandtheCAfoundthatpetitionerwasunabletoproveitschargeofunfair
laborpractice.ItwastheUnionthathadtheburdenofadducingsubstantialevidencetosupport
[17]
itsallegationsofunfairlaborpractice, whichburdenitfailedtodischarge.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The
assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 80916 are
AFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.


ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURAAssociateJustice


WECONCUR:




CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson





MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice








DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice




ATTESTATION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/178647.htm 5/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.178647

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveResolutionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision





CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Teresita DyLiacco Flores, with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Ramon R. Garcia,
concurringrollo,pp.5572.
[2]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeTeresitaDyLiaccoFlores,withAssociateJusticesRodrigoF.Lim,Jr.andJaneAuroraC.Lantion,
concurringid.at7376.
[3]
Rollo,pp.7787.
[4]
Id.at56.
[5]
Id.at5859.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id.at62.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/178647.htm 6/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.178647

[8]
Id.at7782.
[9]
Id.at8388.
[10]
Id.at5572.
[11]
Id.at7376.
[12]
RevisedRulesonCivilProcedure,Rule45,Section1.
[13]
Juaban, et al. v. Espina, et al., G.R. No. 170049, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 588, 608, citing Microsoft Corporation v.
Maxicorp,Inc.,438SCRA224,230231(2004)andMoralesv.SkillsInternationalCompany,500SCRA186,194(2006).
[14]
RowellIndustrialCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,etal.,G.R.No.167714,March7,2007,517SCRA691,706,citing Land
andHousingDevelopmentCorporationv.Esquillo,471SCRA488,494(2005).
[15]
Rollo,p.66.
[16]
PhilcomEmployeesUnionv.PhilippineGlobalCommunication,etal.,G.R.No.144315,July17,2006,495SCRA214,235,
citing Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation, 303 SCRA 113 (1999) and Cesario A.
Azucena, Jr., II THE LABOR CODE WITH COMMENTS AND CASES 210 (5th ed. 2004) [THE LABOR CODE WITH
COMMENTSANDCASES].
[17]
SeeTiu,etal.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,etal.,343Phil.478,485(1997).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/178647.htm 7/7