Colegio de San Juan de Letran Case

September 18, 2000

FACTS

Abtria, then President of Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran, initiated the
renegotiation of its Collective Bargaining Agreement with petitioner Colegio de San Juan de Letran for
the last two (2) years of the CBA's five (5) year lifetime from 1989-1994. During the renegotiation of the
respondent unions Collective Bargaining Agreement with the petitioner, Eleonor Ambas emerged as the
newly elected President of the union. Ambas wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but
petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was already prepared for signing by the parties.
However, the union members rejected the said CBA. Thereafter, petitioner accused the union officers of
bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the petitioner. This
decision was reversed on appeal with the NLRC.

During the pendency of approval of proposals, Ambas was informed that her work schedule was
being changed. Ambas protested and requested management to submit the issue to a grievance
machinery under the old CBA. After the petitioners inaction on the CBA, the union filed a notice to
strike. After meeting with the NCMB to discuss the ground rules for renegotiation, Ambas received a
letter dismissing her for alleged insubordination. The petitioner then ceased negotiations when it
received news that another labor organization had filed a petition for certification.

The union finally struck, but the Secretary of Labor and Employment ordered them to return to
work and for petitioner to accept them back. Secretary of Labor and Employment issued an order
declaring petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice on two counts and directing the reinstatement of
private respondent Ambas with back wages. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was
denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES

1) whether petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union when it
unilaterally suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

2) whether the termination of the union president amounts to an interference of the employees’ right
to self-organization?

RULING

1) YES. Petitioner’s utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a
timely reply to the proposals presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals were
submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any counter-proposals. This inaction on the part of
petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13, 1996. Petitioner could only
offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as its
excuse for failing to file its reply. The petitioners failure to act upon the submitted CBA proposal within
the ten-day period exemplified in Article 250 of the Labor Code is a clear violation of the governing
procedure of collective bargaining, to wit:

Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. — The following procedures shall be observed in
collective bargaining:

(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.

2) YES. The factual backdrop of the termination of Ambas led the Court to no other conclusion that she
was dismissed in order to strip the union of a leader who would fight for the right of her co-workers in
the bargaining table. While the Court recognizes the right of the employer to terminate the services of
an employee for a just or authorized cause, nevertheless, the dismissal of employees must be made
within the parameters of aw and pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play. Even assuming
arguendo that Ambas was guilty of insubordination, such disobedience was not a valid ground to
terminate her employment. When the exercise of the management to discipline its employees tends to
interfere with the employees’ right to self-organization, it amounts to union-busting and is therefore a
prohibited act.
 PAL v. PALEA

March 12, 2008

FACTS

This case arose from a labor Complaint, filed by herein PALEA against herein PAL and one Mary
Anne del Rosario, Director of Personnel, PAL, on 1 March 1989, charging them with unfair labor practice
for the non-payment of 13th month pay of employees who had not been regularized as of the 30th of
April 1988, as allegedly stipulated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into by herein
parties.

PAL and PALEA entered into Collective Bargaining Agreement. Part of the CBA provides for the
th
13 month pay and mid-year bonus of the rank and file employees. Prior to the payment of the 13th
month pay (mid – year bonus), PAL released an implementing guideline stating that:

1) Eligibility

a) Ground employees in the general payroll who are regular as of April 30, 1988;

b) Other ground employees in the general payroll, not falling within category a) above
shall receive their 13th Month Pay on or before December 24, 1988;

PALEA assailed the implementation of the foregoing guideline. It is of the view that all
employees of PAL, whether regular or non-regular, should be paid their 13th month pay. In response to
the above, PAL informed PALEA that rank and file employees who were regularized after 30 April 1988
were not entitled to the 13th month pay as they were already given the Christmas bonus in December
of 1988, per the Implementing Rules of Presidential Decree No. 851. PALEA, disagreeing with PAL, filed a
Complaint for unfair labor practice. The union argued that "the cut-off period for regularization should
not be used as the parameter for granting 13th month pay considering that the law does not distinguish
the status of employment but the law covers all employees." The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the
petitioner. Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and ruled in favor of respondent. PAL
directly appealed the decision to the SC, however, it was revered to the CA. The CA affirmed the
decision of the NLRC. Hence this present action.

ISSUE

Whether or not CA erred in affirming the decision of the NLRC , granting the payment of 13th
month pay
RULING

NO. It is a well settled doctrine that the CBA extends to the laborers and employees in the
collective bargaining agreement, including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor
organization. Otherwise, there would be discrimination.

Hence, the benefits of the CBA should be given to all employees who are members of the
bargaining unit, not necessarily of the labor organization designated as the bargaining agent. A
bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less that all
of the entire body of employees which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indicates to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties o% the
parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law