THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. No. 190235. 19023 5. April 19, 2017.] 201 7.] LEYTE EDIBLE OIL SUPERVISORS AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES UNION-APSOTEUUNION-APSOTEU-TUCP, TUCP, TUCP, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . NEW LEYTE EDIBLE OIL MANUFACTUR MANUF MANUFACTURING ACTURING ING CORPORATION CORPORATION AND KYOSO MIYASAKI MIYASAKI , respondents . NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames : April Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 19, 2017 , which reads reads as follows: follow s: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 190235 (Leyte Edible Oil Supervisors and Condential Employees Union-APSOTEU-TUCP, et al. vs. New Leyte Edible Oil Manufacturing Manufacturing Corporation and K yoso Miyasaki) . — Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated July 7, 2009 and Resolution 3 dated October 21, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 03818. 0381 8. The Facts The rank-and-le workers of New Leyte Edible Oil Manufacturing Corporation (New Leyte) were required to work 44 hours per week, i.e., eight hours each day from Monday to Friday and four hours in the morning of Saturday. On August 12, 2006, a Saturday, Emmanuel Alcober (Alcober), the rank-and-le union vice president, reported for work in the afternoon in lieu of his morning schedule allegedly with the permission of his supervisor s upervisor Alecia C. Avila (Avila). (Avila). His daily time t ime record for that t hat day, however however,, was marked by the accounting personnel of New Leyte as "half-day without leave and without pay." Accordingly, the amount of P263.26 was deducted from his pay slip for the period August August 1 to 15, 2006. 2006 . 4 Alcober protested the said deduction and elevated the matter to the New Leyte's grievance machinery for resolution. Since no settlement was reached thereat, the matter was brought to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) in Tacloban City for preventive p reventive mediation and later, voluntary voluntary arbitration. arbit ration. 5 In the meantime, New Leyte directed Alcober to t o le a leave for his absence in the morning of August 12, 2006. He refused to comply insisting that he was not absent on the said date as he worked in the afternoon with prior permission from his supervisor. In a memorandum dated September 14, 2006, New Leyte reiterated its earlier directive. Alcober still st ill refused to file a leave of absence. 6 On October 19, 2006, New Leyte required Alcober to explain why no disciplinary action should be imposed on him, charging him with insubordination or willful disobedience to his supervisor's directive. On October 21, 2006, Alcober submitted his explanation claiming, inter alia , that on September 14, 2006, he was required by New Leyte to fill out an "auth "authority ority to t o work wor k overtime" form which he he unwillingly unwillingly did. 7 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
On October 25, 2006, New Leyte constituted a committee on discipline to investigate the charges against Alcober. On November 25, 2006, upon the committee's recommendation, Alcober was dismissed on the ground of insubordination. 8 On November 28, 2006, the Leyte Edible Oil Employees Labor Union-ALU-Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) (rank-and-le union) led a Notice of Strike claiming that Alcober's dismissal was an act of union busting. Thereafter, in the presence of the NCMB representative, the rank-and-le union conducted a strike vote wherein the majority of its members voted in favor of the strike. Actual picketing started on January 26, 2007. 9 The petitioners alleged that the conduct of the strike was peaceful and that the ingress to and egress from the New Leyte's premises remained free. They likewise averred that about 10 police ocers were deployed near the picket line ensuring the orderly conduct of the strike. 1100 However, New Leyte claimed that the striking employees, using force and intimidation, blocked the entry of trucks that were bringing copra into the plant and other employees, particularly union members who did not sympathize with them. It further alleged that some of the strikers visited the homes of non-striking rank-and-le union members and coerced their wives to make them leave the plant. 11 On January 30, 2007, New Leyte led a case for illegal strike against the rankand-le union members who participated during the strike. On January 31, 2007, it issued a memorandum addressed to all the rank-and-le union members who joined the strike, ordering them to return to work not later than February 1, 2007 and declaring that those who joined the illegal strike would be dismissed unless they returned to work. The strikers complied and the rank-and-le union subsequently withdrew their Notice of Strike. However, the rank-and-le union later led a complaint against New Leyte for union busting and illegally dismissing Alcober. 1 2 New Leyte claimed that the striking rank-and-le union members, after reporting back to work, harassed the other employees who did not join the strike. On February 6, 2007, it issued another memorandum to all the rank-and-le union members who participated in the strike, directing them to explain why they should not be dismissed for committing illegal acts during the strike. The said rank-and-le union members 13 denied the accusations against them. 13 aScITE
New Leyte then created a committee on discipline which, after hearing, found that the following rank-and-le union members committed illegal acts during the strike: Nicanor Basas, Cesar Labitigan, Ceferino Catinoy, Alcober, and herein petitioners Rodrigo Cinco, Alberto Amano, Federico Taborada, Luisito Peliño, Domingo Estolono, Jr., Jonathan Cerena, Glorioso Lagonoy, Edwin Roa, Riconedo Canete, Chito Cinco, Eduardo Operio, Julius Mirambel, Carlito Gorrez, Crispolo Posion and Redentor Asdilla. Accordingly, on February 22, 2007, New Leyte dismissed them except Alcober who had been dismissed earlier. 14 Thereafter, New Leyte withdrew its complaint for illegal strike asserting that the strikers reported back to work as of February 2, 2007. 15 On March 12, 2007, the Executive Labor Arbiter handling the illegal strike case issued an Order granting the Motion to Withdraw filed by the New Leyte. 1 6 The rank-and-le union led another Notice of Strike, alleging that New Leyte is guilty of union busting for dismissing its members. A strike vote was conducted wherein the majority of its members approved the conduct of a strike. The strike CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
scheduled on March 13, 2007, however, did not materialize as the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the Notice of Strike and referred the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. 1 7 Meanwhile, on February 7, 2006, the Med-Arbiter certied the Leyte Edible Oil Supervisors and Condential Employees Union-Associated Professional, Supervisory, Oce and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU)-TUCP (supervisory union), then an independent union, as the exclusive bargaining agent of all supervisory employees of New Leyte. On February 13, 2006, the supervisory union sought collective bargaining negotiations with New Leyte, sending the latter a copy of its proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). New Leyte did not respond to the supervisory union's request, prompting the latter to reiterate its request on February 24, 2006 and on May 6, 2006. 1 8 On May 19, 2006, New Leyte decided against the request of the supervisory union for collective bargaining negotiations, asserting that the case for the cancellation of the latter's registration was then still pending before the CA. The supervisory union then referred the matter to the NCMB for preventive mediation. 1 9 Subsequently, the then independent supervisory union registered anew with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as the chartered local of APSOTEUTUCP, a labor federation. On September 29, 2006, the DOLE issued the registration certicate of the supervisory union as a chartered local. The supervisory union then reiterated its request to New Leyte for collective bargaining negotiations, contending that the case for cancellation of its registration had been rendered moot by the subsequent issuance of its registration as a chartered local. New Leyte still refused to heed the supervisory union's request for collective bargaining negotiations. 2200 On November 28, 2006, the supervisory union led a Notice to Strike. A strike vote was then conducted on December 18, 2006 wherein a majority of the members of the supervisory union voted in favor of the conduct of a strike. 21 Subsequently, supervisory union president Nestor R. Borja (Borja) and supervisory union members Runo Gerilla (Gerilla) and Bernabe C. Creer (Creer) simultaneously led their applications for leaves of absence from January 29 to February 4, 2007. New Leyte claimed that the said applications for leaves of absence were intended to support the strike that was then being undertaken by the rank-and-le union, asserting that the said employees were performing functions that were critical to the continuous operation of its plant. The said members of the supervisory union, however, subsequently revoked their applications for leaves of absence. 2 2 On February 27, 2007, New Leyte accused Borja of cutting the wires of a machine, which allegedly stalled the plant operations. Borja denied the charge and insisted that he could not be held responsible for the same as he was on leave when the wires of the said machine were cut. 2 3 New Leyte thereafter required Borja to explain why he should not be dismissed for sympathizing with the rank-and-le union when the latter held a strike. It claimed that Borja, as a show of support, did not attend to his duties when the rank-and-le union conducted a strike. He was likewise charged of rebuking a contractual employee from reporting for work while the other employees were out on the picket line. Borja denied the allegations against him. 2244 On March 7, 2007, New Leyte dismissed Borja. 25 New Leyte then required Gerilla, Creer and Rafael Sarabillo (Sarabillo) to explain their side on the same set of charges. The said employees likewise denied the charges CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
against them. On June 1, 2007, New Leyte, after nding their respective explanations unacceptable, terminated their employment. Consequently, Borja, Gerilla, Creer, Sarabillo and the supervisory union led their respective complaints with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Tacloban City against New Leyte for illegal dismissal and union busting. 2 6 As intimated earlier, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, acting on the petitions filed by New Leyte, assumed jurisdiction over the aforesaid labor disputes and certified the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. Ruling o f the NLRC On April 30, 2008, the NLRC rendered a Decision,
27 the
decretal portion of which
reads: WHE WHEREFORE RE FO RE , in view of all the foregoing, We rule as follows: 1. To declare that [Alcober] was LEGALLY DISMISSED with [New Leyte] being ABSOLVED from the charge of busting the rank[-]and[-]file Union; 2. To declare the validity of the dismissal of the striking ocers and members of the rank-and-le Union for having committed illegal acts during the strike; 3. To declare that [New Leyte] are guilty of unfair labor practice (ULP) for refusal to bargain collectively with complainant-supervisory Union; but HEITAD
4. To declare as valid and legal the dismissal of Engrs. [Borja, Gerilla, Sarabillo and Creer] and consequently absolving [New Leyte] of the charge of union busting. The matter of legality or illegality of the strike staged by the rank-and-le Union is rendered moot and academic considering the withdrawal by [New Leyte] of their complaint to declare the strike illegal. SO ORDERED. 2288
The NLRC held that Alcober was legally dismissed, asserting that the permission given to him by Avila was merely to be absent during the morning of August 12, 2006 and not to render work in the afternoon of that day in lieu of his regular working schedule. It further pointed out that substitution of work schedules is against company policy and, hence, Avila could not have validly given her consent to the said substitution of work schedules. 2 9 Further, the NLRC averred that Alcober's receipt of the amount of P2,082.00, an amount equivalent to the overtime pay rendered on a rest day, which was reflected in his payroll for the first half of September 2006 is inconsistent with his claim that he should be considered to have rendered regular work for August 12, 2006. 3 0 As to the rank-and-le union's charge that New Leyte is guilty of union busting, the NLRC ruled that the former failed to adduce evidence to show that Alcober's dismissal was effected specically for the purpose of busting the rank-and-le union. 31
In ruling that New Leyte legally dismissed the rank-and-le union members, the NLRC explained that the latter, other than their bare denials, failed to adduce substantial evidence to refute the charge against them of having committed illegal acts during the 32 strike. 32 With respect to the dismissal of the members of the supervisory union, the NLRC ruled that there is ample evidence showing that they sympathized with the striking rankand-le employees. It stressed that their simultaneous ling of applications for leaves CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
of absence on dates, which coincided with the rank-and-le union's strike, is an evidence of bad faith. It likewise held that the supervisory union failed to adduce evidence to support its charge of union busting against New Leyte. 3 3 Nevertheless, the NLRC found that New Leyte committed unfair labor practice when it refused to bargain collectively with the supervisory union. Notwithstanding the pendency of the case for the cancellation of the supervisory union's registration with the CA, the NLRC asserted that it remains the duty of New Leyte to bargain collectively with the supervisory union since the CA did not issue any restraining order against the latter. 3 4 The petitioners then led a petition for certiorari with the CA, asserting, inter alia , that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the petitioners-members of the rank-and-le union and supervisory union were not illegally dismissed and that New Leyte is not guilty of union busting. Further, the petitioners asserted that the NLRC should have imposed on New Leyte the CBA proposed by the supervisory union considering the nding that New Leyte is guilty of unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain collectively. 3 5 Ruling o off the CA On July 7, 2009, the CA rendered a Decision, 3 6 the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE the instant petition isDISMISSED DISMISSEDfor lack of merit. The Decision dated April 30, 2008 of the [NLRC] in NLRC Cert. Case No. V-0000032007 is however modied in that [New Leyte] isABSOLVED ABSOLVED of the charge of unfair labor practice. The rest of the Decision is AFFIRMED. AFFIRM ED SO ORDERED. 3377
The CA, in upholding the legality of Alcober's dismissal, opined that the latter failed to adequately establish that his supervisor verbally authorized him to work in the afternoon of August 12, 2006 instead of his regular working schedule. Accordingly, the CA pointed out that Alcober had no valid reason to refuse New Leyte's order for him to le a leave of absence on the said date. 38 With regard to the dismissed rank-and-le union members, the CA upheld the legality of their dismissal as the illegal acts which they committed during the strike were established by substantial evidence. The CA intimated that, other than mere denials, they failed to adduce any evidence which would overturn the positive declarations of the New Leyte's witnesses. 3399 As to the dismissed supervisory union members, the CA opined that it was established by substantial evidence that they sabotaged the operations of the company by rendering some machines inoperable and by ling applications for leaves of absence during the conduct of the rank-and-le union's strike. The CA asserted that the said supervisory union members were part of management and to allow them to act sympathetically with the cause of the rank-and-le union would be unfair to New Leyte. 40 In absolving New Leyte from the charge of unfair labor practice, the CA asserted that there was no bad faith on the part of New Leyte; that its failure to collectively bargain with the supervisory union was due to the lack of resolution of the issues raised by it against the latter's registration. 4 1 The petitioners sought reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution 42 dated October 21, 2009. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
Issues The petitioners pose the following issues for this Court's resolution: first, assuming, arguendo , that Alcober is guilty of insubordination, whether the penalty of dismissal is too harsh and not commensurate to the infraction committed; second, whether the dismissal of the petitioners-members of the rank-and-le union for allegedly committing illegal acts during the strike was valid; third, whether the dismissal of the petitioners-members of the supervisory union for supposedly sympathizing with the rank-and-le union's strike was legal; and fourth, whether New Leyte may be held liable for unfair labor practice for its refusal to bargain collectively with the supervisory union. Ruling of tthe he Court The petition is denied. First, the Court agrees with the CA that there was valid ground to dismiss Alcober. That the work rendered by Alcober in the afternoon of August 12, 2006 is considered as overtime work and not work rendered in lieu of his regular work schedule in the morning of said date is a factual nding of the NLRC and the CA which cannot be disturbed by this Court. Nevertheless, the question as to the propriety of Alcober's dismissal on the ground of insubordination for his refusal to le a leave of absence is a question of law which may be determined by this Court. ATICcS
Under the Labor Code, the employer may dismiss an employee, inter alia , for serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of the employer or representative in connection with his work. 4 3 Willful disobedience or insubordination necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. 44 New Leyte's order directing Alcober to le a leave of absence is patently reasonable and lawful, and the latter's refusal to comply with the same is inexcusable. The pendency of the voluntary arbitration case, wherein Alcober's August 12, 2006 absence was raised as an issue, is beside the point. Employees may object to, negotiate and seek redress against employers for rules or orders that they regard as unjust or illegal. However, until and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal or improper by competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their peril. 45
Thus, in GTE Directories Corporation v. Hon. Sanchez, et al. , explained that:
46
the Court
To sanction disregard or disobedience by employees of a rule or order laid down by management, on the pleaded theory that the rule or order is unreasonable, illegal, or otherwise irregular for one reason or another, would be disastrous to the discipline and order that it is in the interest of both the employer and his employees to preserve and maintain in the working establishment and without which no meaningful operation and progress is possible. Deliberate disregard or disobedience of rules, deance [of] management authority cannot be countenanced. This is not to say that the employees have no remedy against rules or orders they regard as unjust or illegal. They may object thereto, ask to negotiate thereon, bring proceedings for redress against the employer before the Ministry of Labor. But until and unless CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
the rules or orders are declared to be illegal or improper by competent authority, the employees ignore or disobey them at their peril. It is impermissible to reverse the process: suspend enforcement of the orders or rules until their legality or 47 propriety shall have been subject of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration. 47
Moreover, Alcober is not only guilty of insubordination for refusing to le a leave of absence despite the lack of any justication therefor, but also of committing illegal acts during the strike conducted by the members of the rank-and-le union which, as would be discussed below, would effectively result to the loss of his employment. Nicolas D. Garcia, a member of the rank-and-le union, positively identied Alcober as among those who blocked his way towards the main gate of New Leyte's premises when he was on his way to report for work on January 26, 2007. Further, Henedina Aguipo, Nerisa Espina and Teresa Roca, the wives of the members of the rank-and-le union, averred that Alcober, together with several others, came to their respective homes and coerced their husbands to join the strike, threatening that they would lose their jobs should the rank-and-le union win its case against New Leyte. 48 The foregoing circumstances indubitably show that Alcober has a propensity for willful disobedience and insubordination towards New Leyte. New Leyte thus could not be faulted for terminating Alcober's employment. Second, the Court nds that the striking members of the rank-and-le union who committed illegal acts during the strike were validly dismissed by New Leyte. The proscribed acts during a strike are provided under Article 264 of the Labor Code, thus: ART. 264.
Prohibited Activities.
xxx xxx xxx Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any union ocer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union ocer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sucient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. xxx xxx xxx (5) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any any act act of of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from from the the employer's employer's premises premises for for lawful lawfulpurposes, purposes or obstruct public thoroughfares. (Emphases ours)
Here, the dismissed rank-and-le union members committed acts of (1) interference by obstructing the free ingress to or egress from New Leyte's premises, and (2) coercion and intimidation. The Court agrees with the following discerning findings of the NLRC: After having painstakingly gone through the records, We gather and nd that there is substantial evidence to support the [New Leyte's] stance that illegal acts were committed during the strike. Nicolas D. Garcia, a member of the rankand-le Union positively identied Nicanor Basas, president of the Union, Rodrigo T. Cinco, a Union member and [Alcober], vice-president of the Union to have blocked his way towards the main gate of the [New Leyte] when he was on his way to report for work on 26 January 2007. Henedina Aguipo, Nerisa Espina CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
and Teresa Roca, wives of Union members identied Nicanor Basas, Alberto Amano, Sr., Cesar Labitigan and [Alcober] to have come to their residences telling them to call their respective husbands who reported [for] work and did not join the strike on the pretext of an emergency with a threat relayed to them that those Union members who reported to work and did not join the strike, like their husbands, would be in danger should they win their case against management. Rhyan B. Amolo, detachment in-charge of Genesis Security Agency and General Services, Inc. submitted a report to the [New Leyte's] HRD ocer gathered from a report of SG Renante Yanos who was on duty on 30 January 2007 mentioning the following: Federico Taborada, Luisito Peliño, Domingo Estolonio, Jr., Jonathan Cerena, Glorioso Lagonoy, Jr., Edwin Roa, Riconido Canete, Ceferino Catinoy, Jr., Nicanor Basas, Cesar Labitigan, Rodrigo Cinco, Felixberto Cinco, Jr., Alberto Amano, Sr., Eduardo Operio, Julius Mirambel and four unidentied others who were seen staging a rally outside the premises of the [New Leyte] near the main entrance gate, holding placards while blocking the entrance of the gate thereby blocking the entry of delivery trucks loaded with copra. x x x We are not unaware of the pictures offered in evidence by the complainants, three (3) of which were taken on 26 January 2007 while the rest on 01 and 02 February 2007. We can only surmise that the taking of pictures by the Union could have been done obviously on occasions when there was no illegal acts being seen or done. x x x. 4 9 (Citations omitted) TIADCc
The Court nds no compelling reason to depart from the foregoing factual ndings of the lower tribunals. The principle is well-established that the Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts whose ndings on these matters are received with respect and are, as a rule, binding on this Court. 50 Notwithstanding the nding that the said rank-and-le union members committed illegal acts during the strike, the petitioners insist that New Leyte is already barred from dismissing them, asserting that its "return-to-work" order amounted to a condonation of the illegal acts committed by the latter during the strike. The Court does not agree. New Leyte's "return-to-work" order cannot be considered as an act of condonation. The doctrine of condonation prohibits an employer from taking disciplinary action against the striking employees for illegal acts they allegedly committed during the strike after requiring them to return to work as a condition for complete exoneration from liability. 5 1 Such principle also bars the employer from using the supposedly illegal acts committed during a strike as a ground to dismiss the strikers after the commission of acts indicating pardon or absolution of such acts. The Court applied the doctrine of condonation in Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. 5 2 In the said case, two of the members of therein private respondent union, who went on strike pending the resolution of the notice to strike, voluntarily reported back to work and, upon their request, were readmitted by the company. When the company raised the legality of the said strike as an issue in the case earlier brought by the union against the company, the Court held that: In the fourth assignment of error it is claimed that the strike was illegal. Admitting for the sake of argument that the strike was illegal for being premature,this thisdefense defensewas waswaived waivedby by the the Bisaya Bisaya Land Land Transportation Transportation CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
Company when it voluntarily agreed to reinstate the radio operators. 5 3 (Emphasis ours)
I n Philippines Inter-Fashion, Inc. v. NLRC, et al. , 54 the Court claried, however, that notwithstanding the employer's acceptance of the striking workers back to work, there must still be a "clear and unequivocal waiver" on the part of the employer before it may be held to have condoned the illegality of the strike. 5 5 The doctrine of condonation was likewise applied by this Court in Reformist Union of R.B. Liner, Inc. v. NLRC , 56 where it was stated that: The dispute or strike was settled when the company and the union entered into an agreement on 19 January 1990 where the private respondents agreed to accept all employees who by then, had not yet returned to work. By By acceding to the peaceful settlement brokered by the NLRC, the private respondents waived the issue of illegality of the strike. 57 (Emphasis ours)
What derives from the foregoing is that, in applying the doctrine of condonation, the overriding consideration is the intent of the employer to completely exonerate the employee for the infractions he committed and eschew any sanctions which may be imposed against the latter. There must at least be some positive act from which it could be clearly deduced that the employer indeed had intended to forgive and completely absolve the erring employee. Condonation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that the employer has completely forgiven the guilty employee for his misconduct and has agreed to a resumption of the employer-employee relationship as though no misconduct has occurred. Applying these principles here, the Court nds that the petitioners failed to adduce evidence which would clearly and convincingly show the intent of New Leyte to completely absolve the said rank-and-le union members from the infractions which they committed during the strike. Indeed, there is no positive act on the part of New Leyte from which it could be denitely inferred that it had overlooked the illegal acts committed during the strike. The New Leyte's return-to-work order is not an indication that it had forgiven and absolved the said rank-and-le union members, the same being silent as to whether New Leyte would still impose sanctions on those who committed illegal acts during the strike. To stress, condonation should be established clearly and unequivocally and may not be lightly presumed nor inferred from the silence of the employer. Third, the Court likewise agrees with the CA that New Leyte validly dismissed the members of the supervisory union who sympathized with the strike of the rank-and-le union. Supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-le employees. 5 8 The peculiar role of supervisors is such that while they are not managers, when they recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the discipline or dismissal of subordinates, they identify with the interests of the employer and may act contrary to the interests of the rank-and-le. 59 Likewise, considering that they recommend managerial actions in the interest of the employer, 60 supervisory employees are proscribed from sympathizing with the cause of the rankand-file employees as it would be unfair to the employer.
The simultaneous ling of applications for leaves of absence by the said supervisory union members, coupled with the fact that, as found by both the NLRC and the CA, they sabotaged the operations of the New Leyte, support the conclusion that they supported the strike staged by the rank-and-file union. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
Lastly, the Court agrees with the CA that the New Leyte cannot be held liable for committing unfair labor practice in refusing to collectively bargain with the supervisory union. The duty to bargain collectively is provided for under Article 252 of the Labor Code, thus: Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. — The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.
The question of whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. To some degree, the question of good faith may be a question of credibility. The effect of an employer's or a union's individual actions is not the test of good-faith bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions, considered as a whole, and the inferences fairly drawn therefrom collectively may offer a basis for the finding of the NLRC. 61 AIDSTE
For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the employer was motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor. The employer must have acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy causing social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety. 6 2 The CA aptly opined that the supervisory union failed to present substantial evidence to show that the New Leyte was motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud in its refusal to bargain with the supervisory union or that it had acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Other than merely claiming that the New Leyte refused to heed the supervisory union's plea for collective bargaining, there were no other evidence presented by the petitioners to show the bad faith on the part of the New Leyte as to render it liable for unfair labor practice. Moreover, New Leyte cannot be expected to yield to the supervisory union's request for collective bargaining when the supervisory union's existence as such is in serious question. WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. DENIED The Decision dated July 7, 2009 and Resolution dated October 21, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03818 are hereby AFFIRMED." SO O ORDERED." RDERED." Very truly yours, (SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 3-62. 2. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring; id. at 69-89. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
3. Id. at 91-92. 4. Id. at 15-17. 5. Id. at 17. 6. Id. at 70-71. 7. Id. at 97. 8. Id. 9. Id. at 18. 10. Id. at 18-19. 11. Id. at 72-73. 12. Id. at 97-98. 13. Id. at 98. 14. Id. at 19, 72-73. 15. Id. at 41. 16. Id. at 41-42. 17. Id. at 19-20. 18. Id. at 20-21. 19. Id. at 21. 20. Id. at 21-22. 21. Id. at 22. 22. Id. at 148-149. 23. Id. at 22-23. 24. Id. at 149-150. 25. Id. at 23. 26. Id. 27. Id. at 95-113. 28. Id. at 112-113. 29. Id. at 100-101. 30. Id. at 103. 31. Id. at 105. 32. Id. at 107-111. 33. Id. at 111-112. 34. Id. at 111. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com
35. Id. at 76. 36. Id. at 69-89. 37. Id. at 88. 38. Id. at 77. 39. Id. at 78-79. 40. Id. at 79-80. 41. Id. at 86-88. 42. Id. at 91-92. 43. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 282 (a). 44. e Pacific Global Contact Center, Inc. and/or Sison v. Cabansay , 563 Phil. 804, 820 (2007). 45. Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals , 461 Phil. 517, 538 (2003). 46. 274 Phil. 738 (1991). 47. Id. at 754-755. 48. Rollo , p. 166. 49. Id. at 108-110. 50. See China Banking Corporation v. QBRO Fishing Enterprises, Inc. , 682 Phil. 564, 570 (2012). 51. See 48A Am Jur 2d, Labor and Labor Relations § 3598. 52. 102 Phil. 438 (1957). 53. Id. at 442. 54. 203 Phil. 23 (1982). 55. Id. at 27. 56. 334 Phil. 636 (1997). 57. Id. at 645. 58. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 245. 59. Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Undersecretary Laguesma , 282 Phil. 15, 22 (1992). 60. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 212 (m). 61. See Union of Filipro Employees — Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions — Kilusang Mayo Uno (UFE-DFA-KMU) v. Nestlé Philippines Incorporated , 571 Phil. 29, 41-42 (2008). 62. Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers Chapter v. Manila Mining Corp. and/or Disini, et al. , 646 Phil. 169, 180 (2010).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017
cdasiaonline.com