Bankard, Inc. vs.

NLRC
G.R. No. 171664
March 6, 2013
Facts:
Respondent Bankard Employees Union-AWATU filed before the NCMB a notice of strike, alleging
commission of unfair labor practices by petitioner Bankard, Inc. Bankard asked the Office of the Secretary of
Labor to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute or to certify the same to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration. The Secretary issued the order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC. The union filed a second
notice of strike, alleging bargaining in bad faith on the part of Bankard. Bankard then again asked the Office of
the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction, which was granted. The Union, despite the two certification
orders issued by the Labor Secretary enjoining them from conducting a strike or lockout and from committing
any act that would exacerbate the situation, went on strike.
Issue: Whether or not an employer committed ULP for contracting-out jobs.
Ruling:
The Court has ruled that the prohibited acts considered as ULP relate to the workers right to selforganization and to the observance of a CBA. It refers to "acts that violate the workers right to organize."
Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not ULP.
In this case, the Union claims that Bankard, in implementing its MRP which eventually reduced the
number of employees, clearly violated Article 248(c) of the Labor Code Because of said reduction, Bankard
subsequently contracted out the jobs held by former employees to other contractual employees. The Union
specifically alleges that there were other departments in Bankard, Inc. which utilized messengers to perform
work load considered for regular employees like the Marketing Department, Voice Authorizational Department,
Computer Services Department, and Records Retention Department.30 As a result, the number of union
members was reduced, and the number of contractual employees, who were never eligible for union
membership for lack of qualification, increased.
The general principle is that the one who makes an allegation has the burden of proving it.1avvphi1
While there are exceptions to this general rule, in ULP cases, the alleging party has the burden of proving the
ULP; and in order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is
required to support the claim.
Aside from the bare allegations of the Union, nothing in the records strongly proves that Bankard
intended its program, the MRP, as a tool to drastically and deliberately reduce union membership. Contrary to
the findings and conclusions of both the NLRC and the CA, there was no proof that the program was meant to
encourage the employees to disassociate themselves from the Union or to restrain them from joining any union
or organization. There was no showing that it was intentionally implemented to stunt the growth of the Union or
that Bankard discriminated, or in any way singled out the union members who had availed of the retirement
package under the MRP.

Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation
G.R. No. 170007
April 7, 2014
Facts:
In anticipation of the expiration the CBA between the petitioner and the respondent Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation, the parties started negotiations for a new CBA. Both union and company made
proposals but couldn't agree on the economic provisions, more so because the union is not satisfied with the
company's justification for its offer despite sufficient data presented. Hence, the company proposed the
declaration of a deadlock and recommended that the help of a third party be sought. The union replied that they
would formally answer the proposal of the company a day after the signing of the official minutes of the
meeting. On that same day, however, the union filed a Notice of Strike, alleging bad faith bargaining on the part
of the company. The NCMB immediately summoned the parties for the mandatory conciliation-mediation
proceedings but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.
Upon being aware of this development, the company filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with
the Secretary of Labor and Employment.8 The petition was filed pursuant to the first paragraph of Article
263(g) of the Labor Code. The union thereafter filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, alleging,
that the Secretary of Labor and Employment acted with grave abuse of discretion in grossly misappreciating the
facts and issue of the case. It contended that the issue is the unfair labor practice of the company in the form of
bad faith bargaining and not the CBA deadlock.
Issue: Whether or not a fact conclusively settled by the Secretary of Labor is final.
Ruling:
The doctrine states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit, and was there judicially
passed on and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein,
as far as concerns the parties to that action and persons in privity with them, and cannot be again litigated in any
future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction
on either the same or a different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed or unvacated by proper
authority. It has been held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter
in another action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issues be identical. If a
particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination
of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties [or their privies] will be final
and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit.
The Decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the labor dispute over which he assumed
jurisdiction has long attained finality. The union never denied this. Pursuant to Article 263(i) of the Labor Code,
therefore, said decision became final and executory after the lapse of the period provided under the said
provision. Moreover, neither party further questioned the decision.

Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. Nos. 143013-14
December 18, 2000
Facts:
The petition of the union was dismissed on a finding that the Secretary of Labor did not abuse his
discretion nor acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he declared illegal the strike staged by the Union, its
officers and members, and that as a result thereof, those who participated therein have lost their employment
status. The strike was illegal because it was waged in open, willful and knowing defiance of the assumption
order and the subsequent return-to-work order. CA only reversed insofar as they direct the company to pay
backwages and grant financial assistance to the striking workers. Petitioners contend that according to the
Constitution and jurisprudence, strikes enjoy the presumption of legality and the burden of proving otherwise
rests upon the respondent Company; that the case should not have been decided on the basis of the position
paper method because in several instances the SC has looked with disfavor on the position paper method in
disposing labor cases; that due to the transcendental issues involved, a hearing should have been conducted to
avoid the impression of denial of due process considering the dearth of evidence submitted by respondent
Company; and that the pieces of evidence submitted by respondent Company are wanting in probative value.
They also argue that for a union officer to lose his employment status it must be proved that he knowingly
participated in an illegal strike; and that in the case of an ordinary member, it must not only be demonstrated
that he actually participated in the illegal strike but also that he has committed illegal acts during the strike and
which respondent Company allegedly failed to prove.
Issue: Whether or not position paper and the pieces of evidence adduced by the Company before the DOLE are
sufficient in probative value to overthrow the constitutional presumption of the legality of the strike.
Ruling:
Although we have ruled against the reliability of position papers in disposing of labor cases, in the cases
of Batongbacal v. Associated Bank and Progress Homes v. NLRC, this was due to certain patent matters that
should have been tried by the administrative agency concerned, such as certain factual circumstances which,
however, are unavailing in the case at bar. In Batongbacal, we withheld judgment on the case due to the absence
of a definitive factual determination of the status of petitioner therein as an assistant vice-president of therein
respondent Bank. It has not been established by the Labor Arbiter whether the petitioner therein was a
managerial or a rank-and-file employee, noting that there are different causes of termination for both the
managerial and rank-and-file employees. Thus, the need to remand the case was necessary. In Progress Homes,
on the other hand, we found that despite the absence of any evidence to establish and support therein private
respondents claim that the petitioners therein were their immediate employers, the Labor Arbiter forthwith
concluded the illegal dismissal of the private respondents. Also, there was the apparent failure of the Labor
Arbiter to justify why the private petitioner therein should be held solidarily liable with Progress Homes. There
was a clear absence of evidence to show that petitioner therein had engaged the services of private respondents
therein and that petitioner therein had acted maliciously and in bad faith in terminating the services of private
respondents.
The herein petitioners dismally failed to show that there really existed certain issues which would
necessitate the remand of this case at bar, or that the appellate court misapprehended certain facts when it
dismissed their petition for certiorari.
The need to determine the individual liabilities of the striking workers, the union officers and members
alike, was correctly dispensed with by the Secretary of Labor after he gave sufficient opportunity to the striking
workers to cease and desist from continuing with their picket.

Benito Chua vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 105775
February 8, 1993
Facts:
The Union of Filipro Employees, of which Petitioner Benito D. Chua was a member, declared a strike
against the private respondent company, Nestle Philippines, Inc. During the strike, several of the striking
employees threw stones at the trucks entering and leaving the company premises. One truck, whose driver was
rendered unconscious by a stone hitting him on the head, rammed a private vehicle and crashed into a beauty
parlor resulting in the death of three (3) persons and extensive damage to private property. Consequently, a
criminal complaint for multiple murder and frustrated murder was filed against petitioner and several other
employees who were believed to be responsible for the stoning incident which resulted in the deaths and
property damage. The criminal complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The strike itself was,
however, declared illegal in two (2) decisions of the NLRC which were affirmed by the Supreme Court. Later
on, he union and its striking members offered to return to work and were readmitted by the company except 69
union officers and 33 union members, including petitioner. Petitioner received a notice of dismissal from private
respondent for having participated in the illegal strike.
Issue: Whether or not dismissal of a criminal complaint will also dismiss the case for illegal strike.
Ruling:
While the criminal complaint where petitioner was included as one of the accused was dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence, the Court considers that the dismissal of the criminal complaint did not preclude a
finding by the competent administrative authorities, that petitioner had indeed committed acts inimical to the
interest of his employer. In Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines v. Guanzon, it was held that private
respondent's guilt or innocence in the criminal case is not determinative of the existence of a just or authorized
cause for his dismissal". This doctrine follows from the principle that the quantum and weight of evidence
necessary to sustain conviction in criminal cases are quite different from the quantum of evidence necessary for
affirmance of a decision of the Labor Arbiter and of the NLRC.
Since petitioner's participation in the unlawful and violent strike was amply shown by substantial
evidence, the NLRC was correct in holding that the dismissal of petitioner was valid being based on lawful or
authorized cause.

Jaile Olisa, et al. vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 160302
September 27, 2010
Facts:
The petitioners were among the regular employees of respondent PINA. They were members of
petitioner union. Officers and members of said union walked out of PINAs premises and proceeded to the
barangay office to show support for Juanito Caete, an officer of the Union charged with oral defamation by
Aurora Manor, PINAs personnel manager, and Yolanda Fabella, Manors secretary. It appears that the
proceedings in the barangay resulted in a settlement, and the officers and members of the Union all returned to
work thereafter. As a result of the walkout, PINA preventively suspended all officers of the Union. PINA
terminated the officers of the Union after a month. PINA filed a complaint for ULP and damages. LA ruled that
the incident was a illegal walkout constituting ULP, and that all the Unions officers, except Caete, had thereby
lost their employment.
Issue: Whether or not employees who joined an illegal strike are entitled to backwages for the period of the
strike even if they are reinstated by virtue of their being merely members of the striking union who did not
commit any illegal act during the strike.
Ruling:
Article 279. Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the
services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and
to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
By its use of the phrase unjustly dismissed, Article 279 refers to a dismissal that is unjustly done, that is,
the employer dismisses the employee without observing due process, either substantive or procedural.
Substantive due process requires the attendance of any of the just or authorized causes for terminating an
employee as provided under Article 278 (termination by employer), or Article 283 (closure of establishment and
reduction of personnel), or Article 284 (disease as ground for termination), all of the Labor Code; while
procedural due process demands compliance with the twin-notice requirement.
In contrast, the third paragraph of Article 264(a) states: Art. 264. Prohibited activities. (a) Any worker
whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled to
reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any
worker or union officer 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 sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired
by the employer during such lawful strike.
Contemplating two causes for the dismissal of an employee, that is: (a) unlawful lockout; and (b)
participation in an illegal strike, the third paragraph of Article 264(a) authorizes the award of full backwages
only when the termination of employment is a consequence of an unlawful lockout. On the consequences of an
illegal strike, the provision distinguishes between a union officer and a union member participating in an illegal
strike. A union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike is deemed to have lost his employment
status, but a union member who is merely instigated or induced to participate in the illegal strike is more
benignly treated. Part of the explanation for the benign consideration for the union member is the policy of
reinstating rank-and-file workers who are misled into supporting illegal strikes, absent any finding that such
workers committed illegal acts during the period of the illegal strikes.

LABOR RELATIONS
Case Digests

1. Bankard, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 171664, March 6, 2013

2. Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No.
170007, April 7, 2014
3. Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 143013-14,
December 18, 2000
4. Benito Chua vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 105775, February 8, 1993
5. Jaile Olisa, et al. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 160302, September 27, 2010

Submitted by: Celina May R. Tang, Block A

Professor: Atty Mila Raquid-Arroyo