Katherine Janice De Guzman Pine Labor Laws 2 Digests

2A

Case #2 G.R. No. 191714; February 26, 2014

T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN CORPORATION vs.T & H SHOPFITTERS

CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN WORKERS UNION

Facts:

September 7, 2004: The T&H Shopfitters Corporation/ Gin Queen Corporation workers union (THS-GQ
Union) and some of its officers and members filed a complaint for unfair labor practice by way of union
busting and illegal lockout. They were hoping for payment of moral and exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees against T&H Shopfitters Corporation/ Gin Queen Corporation.

Before this: On November 23, 2003 – The workers with Gin Queen Corporation decided to form a union
and was also described as their first formal meeting. A day later, 17 employees were barred from the
company’s premises in Castillejos, Zambales because allegedly, there was an expansion and they were
told to instead work at T&H Shopfitters’ warehouse at Subic Bay Freeport Zone. Later, the same 17
employees were ordered to go on a forced leave because there was no work available.

December 18, 2003 – The DOLE Regional Office No. III issued a certificate of registration in favor of THS-
GQ Union.

The THS-GQ Union claimed that the 17 employees were no longer given regular work assignments but
subcontractors were hired to perform the supposed work of the affected employees. The respondents
sought help from the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and the company reached an
agreement with the THS-GQ Union, which was giving priority to the regular workers. Allegedly, the
company never complied with the agreement.

March 24, 2004 – THS-GQ Union filed a petition for certification election.

July 12, 2004 – An order was issued for the holding of the certification election.

August 17, 2004 – There was an announcement by Gin Queen’s Director, Ben Huang, that the lease
contract for the factory’s place of business in Castillejos, Zambales has expired. Therefore, they had to
move to Cabangan. Accordingly, it was a grassland and the workers were made to work as grass cutters.
Most of them did not report for work so they were suspended.

October 10, 2004 – The company sponsored a field trip to Iba, Zambales. The officers and members of
THS-GQ Union, however, were excluded. Allegedly during the field trip, a sales officer for the company
named Angel Madriaga, campaigned against the union and the certification election. A day later, votes
were casted and the votes for “no union” prevailed. Three days after the election, the THS-GQ Union
filed its protest with respect to the certification election proceedings. After the certification election,
THS-GQ Union members and officers claimed that their workload was reduced to only three days in a
month. The company contended that there was a reduction in the order so naturally the workload will
decrease.
Labor Arbiter decision: Dismissed the claim for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter (LA) said that although
the labor union may represent its members in filing a case before the LA’s office, the members must
show their intention to file a case by filing a complaint to prove they have grievances against their
employer.

THS-GQ Union members and officers then appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC reversed the LA’s decision
saying that the company should pay each of the complainants P50, 000 for moral damages and P35, 000
for exemplary damages. Attorney’s fees should also be paid. The NLRC said that the decision was made
on the ground that there was indeed unfair labor practice since the company interfered with the
exercise of the employees’ right to self-organization.

The company filed a motion for reconsideration but NLRC denied it. They then filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. The CA sustained NLRC’s ruling. They then
raised the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER GIN QUEEN CORPORATION IS LIABLE TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

Ruling: SC decided in favor of the THS-GQ Union members and officers citing Article 257 of the Labor
Code specifically paragraph a, c, and e. (a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization; (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; (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.

Also citing ULP in general: Article 256. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution
thereof.––Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right 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, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management
relations.

The questioned acts of petitioners, namely: 1) sponsoring a field trip to Zambales for its employees, to
the exclusion of union members, before the scheduled certification election; 2) the active campaign by
the sales officer of petitioners against the union prevailing as a bargaining agent during the field trip; 3)
escorting its employees after the field trip to the polling center; 4) the continuous hiring of
subcontractors performing respondents’ functions; 5) assigning union members to the Cabangan site to
work as grass cutters; and 6) the enforcement of work on a rotational basis for union members, all reek
of interference on the part of petitioners.

Indubitably, the various acts of petitioners, taken together, reasonably support an inference that,
indeed, such were all orchestrated to restrict respondents’ free exercise of their right to self-
organization. The Court is of the considered view that petitioners’ undisputed actions prior and
immediately before the scheduled certification election, while seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled in
the affairs of its employees in selecting their exclusive bargaining representative.
Case #17 G.R. No. 165407; June 5, 2009

HERMINIGILDO INGUILLO AND ZENAIDA BERGANTE vs. FIRST PHILIPPINE SCALES, INC. and/or AMPARO
POLICARPIO, MANAGER

Facts:

August 15, 1977 and September 10, 1986 – First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI), a domestic corporation
engaged in the manufacturing of weighing scales, employed Zenaida Bergante and Herminigildo Inguillo
respectively.

Sometime in 1991 – FPSI and FBSI’s Labor Union (FBSILU) entered into a collective bargaining agreement
running from September 12, 1991 through September 12, 1996. On September 19, 1991, the members
of the union ratified the CBA and both Bergante and Inguillo were among those who signed the
document for the ratification.

Bergante, Inguillo, and other employees joined another union called Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggawa
(NLM), which was affiliated with the federation Katipunan. Katipunan filed with the DOLE an intra-union
dispute against FPSILU and FPSI. The dispute was decided and it favored FPSILU and NLM was ordered to
pay P90, 000 to FPSILU for union dues that were erroneously collected from the employees. Because no
amount was given back to FPSILU, they went after Domingo Grutas, Jr. (Grutas) and Inguillo. Inguillo was
formerly the president and secretary for finance for FPSILU. A total of P1,695.72 was collected from
Grutas while P3,444.83 came from that of Inguillo.

March 29, 1996 – The executive board and members of FPSILU filed a petition to have the following
employees terminated: Grutas, Yolanda Tapang, Shirley Tapang, Gerry Trinidad, Gilbert Lucero, Inguillo,
Bergante, and Vicente Go. The grounds are: (1) disloyalty to the Union by separating from it and
affiliating with a rival Union, the NLM-KATIPUNAN; (2) dereliction of duty by failing to call periodic
membership meetings and to give financial reports; (3) depositing Union funds in the names of Grutas
and former Vice-President Yolanda Tapang, instead of in the name of FPSILU, care of the President; (4)
causing damage to FPSI by deliberately slowing down production, preventing the Union to even attempt
to ask for an increase in benefits from the former; and (5) poisoning the minds of the rest of the
members of the Union so that they would be enticed to join the rival union.

May 13, 1996 – Inguillo filed with the NLRC against FPSI due to illegal withholding of salary and
damages. Three days later, all those employees named in the petition were removed. On May 18, 1996,
two separate complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and damages were filed against the
company by NLM and the above-mentioned employees. Both complaints were consolidated with
Inguillo's prior complaint for illegal withholding of salary.

The first mandatory conference was held and some of the complainants settled with the company. The
only remaining complainants were Bergante and Inguillo. They were ordered to submit their position
papers, which were complete on February 20, 1997. They claimed that they were not aware of the
petition for their termination and were not informed of the grounds as to why they were being
dismissed.

Labor Arbiter’s ruling: Dismissed the complaints of Bergante and Inguillo on November 27, 1997. The
Labor Arbiter said that the two violated the Union Security Clause of the CBA when they joined NLM.
Bergante and Inguillo appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. NLRC ordered
the reinstatement of the two complainants with full backwages from the dismissal to actual
reinstatement. The company filed a Motion for Reconsideration and NLRC referred it to Executive Labor
Arbiter Vito C. Bose. Bose decided in favor of the company so NLRC decided that Bergante and Inguillo
were not illegally dismissed.

The complainants then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court
of Appeals, which dismissed the case for lack of merit. They then raised the matter to the Supreme
Court.

Issue: Is breach of the Union Security Clause in the CBA a ground for an employee’s dismissal?

Ruling: the Labor Code of the Philippines has several provisions under which an employee may be validly
terminated, namely: (1) just causes under Article 282;[34] (2) authorized causes under Article 283;[35]
(3) termination due to disease under Article 284;[36] and (4) termination by the employee or resignation
under Article 285.[37] While the said provisions did not mention as ground the enforcement of the
Union Security Clause in the CBA, the dismissal from employment based on the same is recognized and
accepted in the SC’s jurisdiction.

In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the Union Security Clause, the employer
needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is
requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient
evidence to support the union's decision to expel the employee from the union or company. The SC said
that these requirements were met.

Although valid, the two-notice rule in terminating employees was not accorded to Bergante and Inguillo.
The petition filed by FPISLU is not tantamount to the twin-notice rule. Also, the company failed to
comply with the requirement of a hearing or conference.

The court further said: FPSI was justified in enforcing the Union Security Clause in the CBA. However, We
cannot countenance respondents' failure to accord herein petitioners the due process they deserve
after the former dismissed them outright in order to avoid a serious labor dispute among the officers
and members of the bargaining agent. In enforcing the Union Security Clause in the CBA, We are
upholding the sanctity and inviolability of contracts. But in doing so, We cannot override an employees
right to due process.

FPSI has to pay Bergante and Inguillo P30,000 each.