labor arb cases.doc

8/12/2019 Labor Arb Cases.doc

1/28

G.R. No. 96283 February 25, 1992

CHUNG FU INDUSTRIES (PHIIPPINES! INC., "#$ D"re%#or$ a&' ))"%er$ &a*e+yHU-NG U/CH-NG, HU-NG -N/CHUNG, 0-ES 0.R. CHEN, TRIST-N -.C-TINDIG, ICENTE . --DR, RC -.C. HU-NG, 0E S.C. HU-NG, -RI-TERES- SIEN a&' IRGII . DE RS-RI, petitioners, vs.CURT F-PPE-S, HN. FR-NCISC 4. EE (Pre$"'"& 0u'e, Re"o&a+ Tra"+ Cour# o)a7a#" ra&% 5:;! a&' RECR PHIIPPINES, INC., respondents.

RER, J.:

This is a special civil action for certiorariseeking to annul the Resolutions of the Court ofAppealsngr. ?illardo Asuncion +as appointed as the sole arbitrator.

On #une "0, 1990, Arbitrator Asuncion ordered petitioners to i!!ediatel$ pa$ respondentcontractor, the su! of 1@,10,01.00. ;e further declared the a+ard as final andunappealable, pursuant to the Arbitration Agree!ent precluding udicial revie+ of thea+ard.

Conse:uentl$, Roblecor !oved for the confir!ation of said a+ard. On the other hand,Chung /u !oved to re!and the case for further hearing and asked for a reconsideration ofthe udg!ent a+ard clai!ing that Arbitrator Asuncion co!!itted t+elve 12 instances ofgrave error b$ disregarding the provisions of the parties3 contract.

Respondent lo+er court denied Chung /u3s %otion to Re!and thus co!pelling it to seekreconsideration therefro! but to no avail. The trial court granted Roblecor3s %otion forConfir!ation of A+ard and accordingl$, entered udg!ent in confor!it$ there+ith.%oreover, it granted the !otion for the issuance of a +rit of e5ecution filed b$ respondent.

Chung /u elevated the case via a petition for certiorarito respondent Court of Appeals. OnOctober 22,1990 the assailed resolution +as issued. The respondent appellate courtconcurred +ith the findings and conclusions of respondent trial court resolving that Chung/u and its officers, as signatories to the Arbitration Agree!ent are bound to observe thestipulations thereof providing for the finalit$ of the a+ard and precluding an$ appealtherefro!.


2/28

A !otion for reconsideration of said resolution +as filed b$ petitioner, but it +as si!ilarl$denied b$ respondent Court of Appeals thru its :uestioned resolution of ece!ber ",1990.

;ence, the instant petition anchored on the follo+ing grounds8

/irst

Respondents Court of Appeals and trial #udge gravel$ abused their discretion

and4or e5ceeded their urisdiction, as +ell as denied due process and substantialustice to petitioners, = a b$ refusing to e5ercise their udicial authorit$ andlegal dut$ to revie+ the arbitration a+ard, and b b$ declaring that petitioners areestopped fro! :uestioning the arbitration a+ard allegedl$ in vie+ of thestipulations in the parties3 arbitration agree!ent that the decision of the arbitratorshall be final and unappealable and that there shall be no further udicialrecourse if either part$ disagrees +ith the +hole or an$ part of the arbitrator3sa+ard.

That there +as a gro+ing need for a la+ regulating arbitration in general +asackno+ledged +hen Republic Act )o. (@ 19'", other+ise kno+n as the Arbitration Ba+,+as passed. 5ecutive Order )o. 100, enacted on /ebruar$ 7,19'.

-n practice no+ada$s, absent an agree!ent of the parties to resolve their disputes via aparticular !ode, it is the regular courts that re!ain the fora to resolve such !atters.;o+ever, the parties !a$ opt for recourse to third parties, e5ercising their basic freedo! toestablish such stipulation, clauses, ter!s and conditions as the$ !a$ dee! convenient,provided the$ are not contrar$ to la+, !orals, good custo!s, public order or public polic$.12-n such a case, resort to the arbitration process !a$ be spelled out b$ the! in a contractin anticipation of disputes that !a$ arise bet+een the!. Or this !a$ be stipulated in asub!ission agree!ent +hen the$ are actuall$ confronted b$ a dispute. ?hatever be thecase, such recourse to an e5traudicial !eans of settle!ent is not intended to co!pletel$


3/28

deprive the courts of urisdiction. -n fact, the earl$ cases on arbitration carefull$ spelled outthe prevailing doctrine at the ti!e, thus8 . . . a clause in a contract providing that all!atters in dispute bet+een the parties shall be referred to arbitrators and to the! alone iscontrar$ to public polic$ and cannot oust the courts of #urisdiction. 13

&ut certainl$, the stipulation to refer all future disputes to an arbitrator or to sub!it anongoing dispute to one is valid. &eing part of a contract bet+een the parties, it is bindingand enforceable in court in case one of the! neglects, fails or refuses to arbitrate. Eoing astep further, in the event that the$ declare their intention to refer their differences toarbitration first before taking court action, this constitutes a condition precedent, such that+here a suit has been instituted pre!aturel$, the court shall suspend the sa!e and theparties shall be directed forth+ith to proceed to arbitration. 1=

A court action !a$ like+ise be proven +here the arbitrator has not been selected b$ theparties. 15

Fnder present la+, !a$ the parties +ho agree to sub!it their disputes to arbitration furtherprovide that the arbitrators3 a+ard shall be final, unappealable and e5ecutor$G

Article 2077 of the Civil Code recogni6es the validit$ of such stipulation, thus8

An$ stipulation that the arbitrators3 a+ard or decision shall be final is

valid, +ithout preudice to Articles 20", 20"9 and 2070.

ven decisions of ad!inistrative agencies +hich are declared final b$ la+ are not e5e!ptfro! udicial revie+ +hen so +arranted. Thus, in the case of Oceanic Bic Division (!"#et al. v. lerida Ruth $. Romero# et al. , 22this Court had occasion to rule that8

. . . -nspite of statutor$ provisions !aking final the decisions of certainad!inistrative agencies, we have ta%en cogni&ance of petitionsuestioning these decisions where want of jurisdiction# grave abuse ofdiscretion# violation of due process# denial of substantial justice orerroneous interpretation of the law+ere brought to our attention . . . 23

>!phasis ours.

-t should be stressed, too, that voluntar$ arbitrators, b$ the nature of their functions, act ina :uasi*udicial capacit$. 2=-t stands to reason, therefore, that their decisions should not bebe$ond the scope of the po+er of udicial revie+ of this Court.

-n the case at bar, petitioners assailed the arbitral a+ard on the follo+ing grounds, !ost of

+hich allege error on the part of the arbitrator in granting co!pensation for various ite!s+hich apparentl$ are disputed b$ said petitioners8

1. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in failing to appl$ the ter!sand conditions of the Construction Agree!ent, or!itor$ Contract and >lectricalContract, and in using instead the practices in the construction industr$

2. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting e5traco!pensation to Roblecor for loss of productivit$ due to adverse +eatherconditions

". The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting e5traco!pensation to Roblecor for loss due to dela$ed pa$!ent of progress billings


4/28

7. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting e5traco!pensation to Roblecor for loss of productivit$ due to the ce!ent crisis

'. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting e5traco!pensation to Roblecor for losses allegedl$ sustained on account of the failedcoup d'tat)

@. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting to Roblecor thea!ount representing the alleged unpaid billings of Chung /u

(. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting to Roblecor thea!ount representing the alleged e5tended overhead e5penses

. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting to Roblecor thea!ount representing e5penses for change order for site develop!ent outside thearea of responsibilit$ of Roblecor

9. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting to Roblecor thecost of +arehouse )o. 2

10. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting to Roblecor e5traco!pensation for airduct change in di!ension

11. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in granting to Roblecor e5traco!pensation for airduct plastering and

12. The ;onorable Arbitrator co!!itted grave error in a+arding to Roblecorattorne$3s fees.

After closel$ stud$ing the list of errors, as +ell as petitioners3 discussion of the sa!e intheir %otion to Re!and Case /or /urther ;earing and Reconsideration and Opposition to%otion for Confir!ation of A+ard, +e find that petitioners have a!pl$ !ade out a case+here the voluntar$ arbitrator failed to appl$ the ter!s and provisions of the ConstructionAgree!ent +hich for!s part of the la+ applicable as bet+een the parties, thus co!!ittinga grave abuse of discretion. /urther!ore, in granting unustified e5tra co!pensation torespondent for several ite!s, he e5ceeded his po+ers = all of +hich +ould haveconstituted ground for vacating the a+ard under R>/OR>, the petition is ERA)T>. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals datedOctober 22, 1990 and ece!ber ", 1990 as +ell as the Orders of respondent Regional

Trial Court dated #ul$ "1, 1990 and August 2", 1990, including the +rit of e5ecution issuedpursuant thereto, are hereb$ T A. Accordingl$, this case is R>%A)> to thecourt of origin for further hearing on this !atter. All incidents arising therefro! are revertedto the status uo anteuntil such ti!e as the trial court shall have passed upon the !erits ofthis case. )o costs.

G.R. No. 55159 De%e*ber 22, 1989

PHIIPPINE -IRINES, INC., petitioner vs.N-TIN- -R RE-TINS

CISSIN a&' -R-ND DIN-, respondents.

CRTES, J.:

etitioner i!pugns in this petition for certiorarithat part of the public respondent )ationalBabor Relations Co!!ission3s )BRC decision in )BRC Case )o. R&*-D*9"19*(( +hichordered petitioner to restore private respondent olina to its pa$roll, and to pa$ his salariesfro! 1 April 19(9 until this case is finall$ resolved IRollo, p. ""J. etitioner contends thatpublic respondent )BRC gravel$ abused its discretion considering that in the sa!edecision public respondent affir!ed the decision of the Babor Arbiter in toto grantingrespondent3s application for clearance to dis!iss the private respondent.

The pertinent facts are as follo+s8

rivate respondent olina +as ad!itted to the hilippine Airlines AB Aviation


5/28

555 555 555

I)BRC ecision, pp. "*7 Rollo, pp. 2'*2@J.

Confor!abl$, the &oard reco!!ended the ter!ination of the co!plainant pursuant to+hich AB filed a clearance application IRollo, p. "7J for olina3s ter!ination. -n the!eanti!e olina +as placed under preventive suspension effective 1 October 19(@.olina countered +ith a co!plaint for illegal dis!issal on @ October 19(@ IRollo, "'J. On2@ #anuar$ 19(( the Officer*in*Charge of the epart!ent of Babor Regional Office )o. -D

lifted the preventive suspension, and ordered petitioner to reinstate olina to his for!erposition +ith full back+ages fro! 1 October 19(@ up to actual reinstate!ent. The issue ofter!ination and da!ages +as referred to the >5ecutive Babor Arbiter for co!pulsor$arbitration IRollo, p. (1J.

etitioner appealed the order lifting olina3s suspension to the >%>)T

The undersigned parties hereb$ agree to the follo+ing8

1 ?hile pending final resolution of the co!plaint of %r. Ar!ando olinaagainst the hilippine Airlines, he shall be considered in the pa$rolleffective 1 October 19(@.

2 The order of Regional irector Dicente Beogardo for thereinstate!ent +ith back+ages of %r. olina is hereb$ rendered !ootand acade!ic.

" The parties shall consider this arrange!ent pending final resolution ofthe case b$ arbitration.

555 555 555

? O/ ABB T;> /OR>EO-)E, it is our considered opinion that there is!erit on the application for clearance, and therefore, the sa!e should be as it ishereb$ ERA)T>. Conse:uentl$, the oppositor3s T>R%-)AT-O) -< -) OR>R.


6/28

Arbiter such that +hen the latter renders a decision, arbitration of the dispute ister!inated .

ublic respondent )BRC on the other hand contends that arbitration is a continuingprocess fro! the ti!e the case is referred b$ the


7/28

Co!!ission, supraJ. ?here, as in this case, the dis!issal +as for a ust cause, there is nofactual or legal basis for ordering the pa$!ent of back+ages. The order of the )BRC forthe continued pa$!ent of olina3s salaries +ould allo+ the latter to unustl$ enrich hi!selfat the e5pense of the petitioner. This Court has reiterated ti!e and again that the la+, inprotecting the rights of the laborer, authori6es neither oppression nor self*destruction of thee!plo$er IColgate al!olive hilippines, -nc. v. Ople, E.R. )o. ("@1, #une "0,19,1@"R%A)>)T.

R>.

ernan# *.+.# ,utierre +r.# eliciano and Bidin# ++.# concur.

G.R. No. 12>=82 0a&uary 2:, 199:

REFRIST UNIN F R.. INER, INC., HEER DETRS, ET -., petitioners, vs.N-TIN- -R RE-TINS CISSIN, R.. INER, INC., ERNIT- DE0ER,FEIPE DE0ER, RDEI DE0ER, -N- TERES- DE0ER, a&' RDEI R?-NDE0ER, respondents.

D-IDE, 0R., J.:

This is a special civil action for certiorariRule @' of the Rules of Court seeking to set asidethe decision1of the )ational Babor Relations Co!!ission )BRC in )BRC )CR CA )o.00711'*92, +hich affir!ed the decision 2of the Babor Arbiter in the consolidated cases)BRC )CR Case )os.00*0"*01"92*90 and 00*07*020 *90, and the resolution of thefor!er den$ing the !otion for the reconsideration of its decision. 3

etitioner Refor!ist Fnion of R.&. Biner, -nc. hereinafter Reformist, +ith ;ever etros asits president, is co!posed of drivers, conductors, and !echanics of private respondentR.&. Biner, -nc. rivate respondents &ernita, /elipe, Rodelio, Ana Teresa, and RodelioR$an, all surna!ed eero, are the incorporators of R.&. Biner, -nc.

/ro! the record and the pleadings filed b$ the parties, +e cull the follo+ing !aterial factsin this case8

etitioner union +as organi6ed in %a$ 199 b$ affiliating itself +ith Bakas %anggaga+asa ilipinas hereinafter -a%as. =Bakas filed a notice of strike on 1" )ove!ber 199because of alleged acts of unfair labor practice co!!itted b$ the private respondents. 5

espite conciliation hearings held on 7 and @ ece!ber 199, the parties failed to reachan agree!ent. Bater, another act of unfair labor practice allegedl$ co!!itted b$ the privaterespondents i!pelled Reformist, +ith the authori6ation of Bakas, to go on strike on 1"ece!ber 199 even as conciliation proceedings continued.6

On 21 ece!ber 199, R.&. Biner, -nc. petitioned then !plo$!ent OB> to assu!e urisdiction over the ongoingdispute or certif$ it to the )BRC. :


8/28

a proposal for a collective bargaining agree!ent to &ernita and Rodelia eero, 12but the$refused to bargain. 13 %ean+hile, as ad!itted b$ private respondents3 +itness ArcileTanuatco, #r., eight R.&. Biner buses +ere converted to


9/28

I%JitigateIdJ the liabilit$ of the striking union as +ell as its !e!bers notonl$ in considering the propriet$ of ad!inistering the avo+ed principleof e:uit$ in labor caseIsJ but like+ise on the strength to thepronounce!ents of the

Thus, the )BRC affir!ed the decision of the Babor Arbiter but allo+ed

reinstate!ent of the dis!issed e!plo$ees8

Accordingl$, as a !easure of social ustice, resu!ption of e!plo$!entrelations bet+een the parties shall be decreed +ithout ho+evergranting an$ !onetar$ relief considering that both parties had, to acertain e5tent, engaged in the co!!ission of acts +hich rendered the!underserving of their pra$er for da!ages and other conco!itant reliefsakin to their causes of action. 21

Refor!ist and its !e!bers !oved to consider the )BRC decision, +hich +as, ho+ever,denied on "1, %arch 199'. 22The petitioners then ca!e to us +ith this special civil actionfor certiorari#citing the follo+ing in support thereof8

1. R>)T )BRC ERAD>BN A&F -T< -T-O) A%OF)T-)E TO BACO/ #FR- ?>-E;T TO T;> OD>R?;>B%-)E>D->)C> O/ T;> >T-T-O)>R< EAB BOCOFT CO%%-TT>&N T;> R>)T)T< )BRC >)-> T-T-O)>R< &N)OT A?AR-)E T;>% T;> %O)>TARN R>B->/< RAN> /OR.

". R>)T< )BRC >RRO)>OFRR>T> T;> BA? >)F)C-AT> &NT;> ;O). %> COFRT E-D-)E ARAT-O) AN BF< &AC?AE>< TO>%BON>>< ?;O R>-)%>)T TO T;>-R /OR%>R O &>>)R>)>R> -%O R>)Tlection could be held not be resolved b$ the )CRConciliation*%ediation ivision after si5 !eetings4conferences bet+eenthe parties.23

The dispute or strike +as settled +hen the co!pan$ and the union entered intoan agree!ent on 19 #anuar$ 1990 +here the private respondents agreed toaccept all e!plo$ees +ho, b$ then, had not $et returned to +ork. &$ acceding tothe peaceful settle!ent brooked b$ the )BRC, the private respondents +aivedthe issue of the illegalit$ of the strike.

The ver$ nature of co!pulsor$ arbitration !akes the settle!ent binding upon the privaterespondents, for co!pulsor$ arbitration has been defined both as the process ofsettle!ent of labor disputes b$ a govern!ent agenc$ +hich has the authorit$ to investigateand to !ake an a+ard +hich is binding on all the parties, 2=and as !ode of arbitration+here the parties are co!pelled to accept the resolution of their dispute througharbitration b$ the a third part$. 25Clearl$ then, the legalit$ of the strike could no longer berevie+ed b$ the Babor Arbiter, !uch less b$ the )BRC, as this had alread$ been resolved.-t +as the sole issue sub!itted for co!pulsor$ arbitration b$ the private respondents, as isobvious fro! the portion of their letter :uoted above. The case certified b$ the Babor


10/28

evidence that the settle!ent +as obtained through fraud, !isrepresentation orcoercion.

The agree!ent in this case co!plies +ith the above re:uisites, forged as it +asunder authorit$ of the Babor


11/28

?;>R>/OR>, the instant petition is ERA)T>. The assailed decision of the )ationalBabor Relations Co!!ission in )BRC )CR CA )o. 00711'*92, as +ell as that of theBabor Arbiter in the consolidated cases of )BRC )CR Case )os. 00*0"*01"92*90 and 00*07*020*90 are T A etitioners*e!plo$ees are hereb$ a+arded full back +agesand separation pa$ to be deter!ined b$ the Babor Arbiter as prescribed above +ithin thirt$"0 da$s fro! notice of this udg!ent.

R>.

3arvasa# *.+# 4elo# rancisco and $anganiban# ++.# concur.

G.R. No. 12>:51 ar% 1:, 1999

PHIC INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs. HNR-E -CTING SECRET-R? F-R 0SE RI-NTES a&' PHIC INDUSTRIES -R -SSCI-TIN,respondents.

PURISI-, J.:

At bar is a etition for *ertiorari under Rule @' of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking toset aside the #ul$ (, 199' Order 1of the then Acting !plo$!ent, in )C%&*)CR*)/OR>, A&OD> R>%-< CO)R>, and pursuant to Article 2@"g of the Babor Code, as a!ended, this office hereb$ assu!es urisdiction overthe dispute at, hi!co industries, -nc.

Accordingl$, all the striking +orkers, e5cept those +ho have been handed do+nter!ination papers on #une 2@, 199', are hereb$ directed to return to +ork +itht+ent$*four 27 hours fro! receipt of this Order and for the Co!pan$ to acceptthe! back under the sa!e ter!s and conditions prevailing prior to the strike.

The parties are further ordered to cease and desist fro! co!!itting an$ act that+ill aggravate the situation.

To e5pedite the resolution of this dispute, the parties are directed to sub!it their

position papers and evidence +ithin ten 10 da$s fro! receipt of this Order.

R>.=

On #ul$ 12, 199', petitioner brought the present petition theori6ing, that8

-

T;> ;O)ORA&B> ACT-)E CR>TARN #O &R-BBA)T>< ACT> ?-T; T;>ERAD> A&F O/ -T-O) A%OF)T-)E TO BAC O/ >C>TARN #O &R-BBA)T>< ACT> ?-T; ERAD>A&F O/ -T-O) A%OF)T-)E TO BAC OR >C> ?>)T &>NO) T;> &A. :

The pivotal issue here is8 +hether or not the public respondent acted +ith grave abuse ofdiscretion a!ounting to lack or e5cess of urisdiction in assu!ing urisdiction over subectlabor dispute.

The petition is i!pressed +ith !erit.

Art. 2@", paragraph g of the Babor Code, provides8


12/28

g ?hen, in his opinion, there e5ist a labor dispute causing or likel$ to cause astrike or lockout in an industr$ indispensable to the national interest, the!plo$!ent !a$ assu!e urisdiction over the disputeand decide it or certif$ the sa!e to the Co!!ission for co!pulsor$ arbitration . . .

The Babor Code vests in the /OR>, the petition is hereb$ ERA)T> and the assailed Order, dated #ul$ (,199', of the Acting .

Romero# 8itug# $anganiban and ,on&aga9Reyes# ++.# concur.

$anganiban# +.#see concurring opinion.

***************************************************************************

Se@ara#e @"&"o&$

P-NG-NI-N, J., concurring opinion

- no+ agree +ith #ustice urisi!a3s revisedponenciathat the labor secretar$ acted +ithgrave abuse of discretion in assu!ing urisdiction over a labor dispute +ithout an$ sho+ingthat the disputants +ere engaged in an industr$ indispensable to national interest. Kuitethe contrar$, the respondent secretar$ hi!self ad!its that the industr$, of +hich petitioneris a part, is not indispensable to national interest. -ndeed, a labor dispute !ust seriousl$and deleteriousl$ affect an industr$ indispensable to national interest before the secretar$

!a$ assu!e urisdiction over it.

0rt. :;< (g" Reuires a -abor Dispute in an

=ndustry =ndispensable to 3ational =nterest.

Art. 2@" of the Babor Code speaks of the right of +orkers to engage in concerted activitiesfor their !utual benefit and protection. 1Concerted activities, like the holding of a strike,are resorted to b$ e!plo$ees in their effort to obtain !ore favorable ter!s and conditionsof +ork for the!selves. ue to its i!portance, the e5ercise of such right is li!ited onl$ b$the de!ands of national interest under paragraph g of said article8

g. ?hen, in his opinion, there e5ists a labor dispute causing or likel$ to cause astrike or lockout in an industr$ indispensable to the national interest, the


13/28

!plo$!ent !a$ assu!e urisdiction over the disputeand decide it or certif$ the sa!e to the Co!!ission for co!pulsor$ arbitration., can scarcel$ be described as an industr$ affecting the nationalinterest. ET> is a publishing fir! chiefl$ dependent on the !arketing and sale ofadvertising space for its not inconsiderable revenues. -ts services, +hile of value,cannot be dee!ed to be in the sa!e categor$ of such essential activities as the

generation or distribution of energ$ or those undertaken b$ banks, hospitals,and e5port*oriented industries. -t cannot be regarded as pla$ing as vital a role inco!!unication as other !ass !edia. The s!all nu!ber of e!plo$ees involvedin the dispute, the e!plo$er3s pa$!ent of 10 !illion in inco!e ta5 alone to thehilippine Eovern!ent, and the fact that the top officers of the union +eredis!issed during the conciliation process, obviousl$ do not suffice to !ake thedispute in the case at bar one adversel$ affecting the national interest.

/he ecretary is 8ested with Broad $owers!hen 6e 0ssumes +urisdiction

?hen the secretar$ assu!es urisdiction under Art. 2@"g, he is granted great breadth ofdiscretion in order to find a solution to a labor dispute. -n /he $hilippine 0merica4anagement *o., =nc. v./he $hilippine 0merican 4anagement 7mployees 0ssociation

($04709!",9

the Court clarified the e5tent of the po+ers vested in the then Court of-ndustrial Relations, as follo+s8

. . . -f the Court of -ndustrial Relations is granted authorit$ to find a solution in anindustrial dispute and such solution consists in the ordering of e!plo$ees toreturn back to +ork, it cannot be contended that the Court of -ndustrial Relationsdoes not have the po+er of urisdiction to carr$ that solution into effect. And of+hat use is its po+er of conciliation and arbitration if it does not have the po+erand urisdiction to carr$ into effect the solution it has adopted. Bastl$ if the Courtof -ndustrial Relations has the po+er to fi5 the ter!s and conditions ofe!plo$!ent, it certainl$ can order the return of the +orkers +ith or +ithoutbackpa$ as a ter! or condition of the e!plo$!ent.

The !ost obvious of these po+ers is the auto!atic enoin!ent of an i!pending strike orlockout or the lifting thereof if one has alread$ taken place. Assu!ption of urisdictional+a$s coe5ist +ith an order for +orkers to return to +ork i!!ediatel$ and for e!plo$ers toread!it all +orkers under the sa!e ter!s and conditions prevailing before the strike orlockout. efiance of return*to*+ork order produces forfeiture of +orkers3 e!plo$!ent. 1>

Thus, not onl$ does it di!inish the right of labor to strike it also li!its the prerogatives of!anage!ent to hire +orkers under its o+n ter!s and conditions. 11

The secretar$ is conferred other po+ers, including urisdiction over incidents arising fro!the labor dispute, in order to avoid the undesirable result of dia!etricall$ opposed rulingsbeing issued b$ the secretar$ and the labor arbiter. These po+ers co!prehend those thatthe secretar$ needs to dispose of the pri!ar$ dispute effectivel$ and efficientl$. 12

The al!ost unli!ited breadth of such po+ers calls for caution on the part of its possessor

add strict scrutin$ of the e5cesses of govern!ent on the part of the udiciar$.


14/28

$recursor of 0rticle :;. /lour/. roducts +hich are classified as essential co!!odities in the list of)ational >cono!ic and evelop!ent Authorit$ e5cept the follo+ing8rice, corn, so!e basic cuts of !eat, cooking oil, laundr$ soap, lu!berand pl$+ood, galvani6ed iron sheets, +riting pads and notebooks.E. -ron, steel, copper, tin plates and other basic !ineral products

;. %ilk-. )e+sprint#. Tires.


15/28

secretar$ +as given discretion in deter!ining +hich industries +ould :ualif$ as such. &utthe discretion cannot be abused. -t is subect to udicial revie+.

Fnder Eeneral Order )o. ', the state prohibited the holding of strikes for a stated publicpurpose8 a national e!ergenc$ and onl$ in enu!erated industries considered vital to theailing econo!$. 7ven the height of martial rule in the country# there was no intention to

provide a blan%et authority to the secretary to assume jurisdiction over labor disputeswithout any showing that national interest# national security or general welfare demandedit.

$olice $ower Reuires $ublic 3ecessity

After !artial la+ +as lifted and de!ocrac$ +as restored, the assu!ption of urisdiction inArt. 2@"g has no+ been vie+ed as an e5ercise of the police po+er of the state +ith theai! of pro!oting the co!!on good. A prolonged strike or lockout can be ini!ical to thenational econo!$. 13Therefore, it is i!bued +ith public necessit$ and the right of the stateand the public to self*protection. &ut such public necessit$ and need for self*protection areabsent in labor disputes industries not indispensable to national interest. -n the spirit of freeenterprise, it is !ore in keeping +ith national interest to allo+ labor to negotiate +ith!anage!ent for decent pa$ and hu!ane +orking conditions +ithout intervention fro! thegovern!ent.

3ot 0lways Beneficial to -abor

>ven for labor, it is not al+a$s beneficial to allo+ the secretar$3s intervention in a labordispute under Art. 2@". Although the intention !a$ be to find a balance bet+een thede!ands of labor and the resources of !anage!ent, intervention fro! the state and thederogation of the right to strike are not al+a$s the solutions to the ust de!ands of labor.%ore often than not, the intervention is !ore to the advantage of !anage!ent, +hich+ould not incur overhead e5penses that +ould other+ise be +asted during a +orkstoppage. /or the sa!e reason, it does not necessaril$ follo+ that intervention +orks forthe protection of labor.

Other 0vailable Remedies

>ven +ithout co!pulsor$ arbitration, other re!edies for resolving their labor disputes arestill available to labor and !anage!ent.


16/28

G.R. No. :6219 ay 2:, 1991

GTE DIRECTRIES CRPR-TIN, petitioner#vs. HN. -UGUST S. S-NCHE a&'GTE DIRECTRIES CRPR-TIN EP?EES UNIN, respondents.

N-R-S-, J.:p

ET> irectories Corporation hereafter, si!pl$ ET> is a foreign corporation engaged inthe hilippines in the business of publishing the BT hilippine Bong istanceTelephone Co!pan$ telephone directories for %etro %anila and several provinces.

The record sho+s that initiall$, the practice +as for its sales representatives to be given+ork assign!ents +ithin specific territories b$ the so*called dra+ !ethod. These salesterritories +ere so plotted or !apped out as to have an e:ual nu!ber of advertisers as+ell as . . . revenue. . . ?ithin these territories, the sales representatives therein assigned+ere given :uotas i.e., the$ had to achieve a certain a!ount of revenue oradvertise!ents sold, decreased, increased or cancelled +ithin a given period of ti!e.

A territor$ +as not full$ released to the salesperson for handling at one ti!e, but assignedin incre!ents or partial releases of account. )o+, incre!ents +ere given b$ the so*calledErid ach grid +as assigned a fi5ed closing dated. At such closing date, asalesperson should have achieved a certain a!ount of the revenue target designated forhis grid other+ise, he loses the forthco!ing grid or forfeits the re!aining grids not $etreceived. The Erid that it +ill get its share of advertising budget fro! clients as earl$ as possibleand " to ensure an even flo+ of +ork throughout the co!pan$.

This practice +as observed fro! 190 until so!eti!e in #une, 197 +hen ET> reali6edthat co!petition a!ong !edia for a share of the advertising revenue had beco!e so keenas to re:uire :uick reaction. ET> therefore launched an aggressive ca!paign to get +hatit considered to be its rightful share of the advertising budget of its clientele before it could

be allocated to other !edia ne+spaper, television, radio, etc. -t adopted a ne+ strateg$b$ +hich8

1 all its sales representatives +ere re:uired, as in the past, to achieve specified revenuetargets advertise!ents sold +ithin pre*deter!ined periods

2 in cases of cancelled revenue accounts or advertise!ents, it re:uired all itssalespersons to re*establish contact and rene+ the sa!e +ithin a fi5ed period

" if the cancelled revenue accounts +ere not rene+ed +ithin the assigned period, saidaccounts +ere declared, for a set period, O>) T>RR-TORN to all sales representativesincluding the one +ho reported the cancellation

7 if not rene+ed during said open territor$ period, said cancelled accounts +ere dee!edno longer open territor$, and the sa!e could be referred for handling to contractualsalespersons and4or outside agencies.

A ne+ valuation and roduction olic$ +as thereafter dra+n up. ET> infor!ed allits sales representatives of the ne+ polic$ in a %e!orandu! dated October 12, 197. Thene+ polic$ +as regarded as an i!prove!ent over the previous


17/28

to the had failed to get affir!ative responses fro! clustered groups of addressed to its irector for%arketing L ter!inated the e!plo$!ent of the recalcitrant sales representatives, nu!bering fourteen,+ith the undertaking to give the! separation pa$, upon proper clearance and sub!issionof co!pan$ docu!ents, !aterial etc., in . . . their possession. A!ong those dis!issed+ere the union3s president and third vice president, and several !e!bers of its board ofdirectors. On R>/OR>, this Office hereb$ assu!es urisdiction over the labor dispute atE.T.>. irectories, pursuant to Article 2@7 g of the Babor Code of thehilippines, as a!ended. Accordingl$, all striking +orkers including those +ho+ere dis!issed during the conciliation proceedings, e5cept those +ho havealread$ resigned, are hereb$ directed to return to +ork and the !anage!ent ofE.T.>. irectories to accept all returning e!plo$ees under the sa!e ter!s andconditions prevailing previous to the strike notice and +ithout preudice to thedeter!ination of the obligation and rights of the parties or to the final outco!e ofthis dispute. The &ureau of Babor Relations is hereb$ directed to hear the disputeand sub!it its reco!!endations +ithin 1' da$s upon sub!ission of the case forresolution.

All concerned including the !ilitar$ and police authorities are hereb$re:uested to assist in the i!ple!entation of this Order.

The Acting , a 100H foreign o+ned co!pan$, had, as publisher of BT3s %etro %anila andprovincial directories . . . earned a total of 12(,0",7@" contributing close to 10 !illion ininco!e ta5 alone to the hilippine govern!ent, and that !aor contribution to the nationalecono!$ . . . +as being threatened because of the strike and

2 top officers of the union +ere dis!issed during the conciliation process thereb$co!pounding the dispute,

Reconsideration of this Order +as sought b$ ET> b$ !otion filed on ece!ber 1@, 19',on the ground that=

1 the basis for assu!ption of urisdiction is belied b$ the facts and records ofthe case and hence, un+arranted

2 national interest is not adversel$ affected to +arrant assu!ption of urisdictionb$ the Office of the %inister of Babor and >!plo$!ent and


18/28

" assu!ption of urisdiction b$ the . . . %inister . . . +ithout prior consultation+ith the parties violates the co!pan$3s right to due process of la+.

ET> ho+ever reiterated its previousl$ declared position that +ith or +ithout the order no+being :uestioned, it +ill accept all striking e!plo$ees back to +ork e5cept the fourteen 17pre!ise sales representatives +ho +ere dis!issed for cause prior to the strike.

&$ Resolution of then Babor %inister &las Ople dated #anuar$ 20, 19@, ET>3s !otion forreconsideration +as denied. The order noted inter aliathat ET> had accepted back to

+ork all the returning +orkers e5cept fourteen 17 +ho! it previousl$ dis!issed insistingthat the$ +ere legall$ dis!issed for violation of co!pan$ rules and, therefore, are notincluded and !a$ not be reinstated on the basis of a return*to*+ork order, and that the$+ere dis!issed for their alleged failure to co!pl$ +ith the reportorial re:uire!ent under the3s so*called botto!*third polic$, as +ell as all sales and ad!inistrative practicesrelated thereto, should have been held illegal and

7 ET> should have been co!!anded8 a to pa$ all striking e!plo$ees their usualsalaries, allo+ances, co!!ission and other e!olu!ents corresponding to the period oftheir strike b to release to its e!plo$ees the *da$s pa$ increase unla+full$ +ithheldfro! the! c to lift the suspension i!posed on &rian ineda and restore to hi! the pa$

+ithheld corresponding to the suspension period d to pa$ the sales representatives alltheir lost inco!e corresponding to the period of their suspensions, and dis!issal, includingco!!issions that the$ !ight have earned corresponding to their one*+eek forced leave.

ET> for its part, argued that the ter!ination of the e!plo$!ent of its fourteen 17 pre!isesales representatives prior to the strike should have been upheld. -t also filed an oppositionto the union3s !otion for reconsideration.

The !otions +ere resolved in a ecision handed do+n b$ %inister 3s sales and ad!inistrative policies, and the !atter ofback +ages. ;o+ever, as regards the other issues raised b$ the union, the %inisteragreed +ith the co!pan$ that these +ere not ade:uatel$ threshed out in the earlierproceedings . . . for +hile it is true that the union had alread$ presented evidence to

support its contention, the co!pan$ should be given the opportunit$ to present its o+n


19/28

evidence. Accordingl$, he directed the &ureau of Babor Relations to hear said otherissues raised b$ the union and to sub!it its findings and reco!!endations thereon +ithin20 da$s fro! sub!ission of the case for decision.

Again ET> !oved for reconsideration again it +as rebuffed. The Babor %inister denied its!otion b$ Order dated October 1, 19@. -n that order, the %inister, a!ong other things=

1 invoked acted evidentl$ in bad faith hence the status uo prior to theirdis!issal !ust be restored . . . and their reinstate!ent +ith back+ages is in order up tothe ti!e the$ +ere on forced leave. . .

2 declared that because he had ordered the parties to negotiate and effect a voluntar$

settle!ent of the :uestioned Erid lectronics L>lectricit$ ?orkers /ederation, '


20/28

2 a strike notice filed +ith the %inistr$ of Babor on August @, 19' and

" an undated letter sent to ET>3s irector for %arketing L


21/28

policies or rules there +as nothing to prevent the! fro! sub!itting the re:uisite reports+ith the reservation to seek such revocation or revision.

To sanction disregard or disobedience b$ e!plo$ees of a rule or order laid do+n b$!anage!ent, on the pleaded theor$ that the rule or order is unreasonable, illegal, orother+ise irregular for one reason or another, +ould be disastrous to the discipline andorder that it is in the interest of both the e!plo$er and his e!plo$ees to preserve and!aintain in the +orking establish!ent and +ithout +hich no !eaningful operation andprogress is possible. eliberate disregard or disobedience of rules, defiance of!anage!ent authorit$ cannot be countenanced. This is not to sa$ that the e!plo$ees

have no re!ed$ against rules or orders the$ regard as unust or illegal. The$ !a$ obectthereto, ask to negotiate thereon, bring proceedings for redress against the e!plo$erbefore the %inistr$ of Babor. &ut until and Fnless the rules or orders are declared to beillegal or i!proper b$ co!petent authorit$, the e!plo$ees ignore or disobe$ the! at theirperil. -t is i!per!issible to reverse the process8 suspend enforce!ent of the orders or rulesuntil their legalit$ or propriet$ shall have been subect of negotiation, conciliation, orarbitration.

These propositions +ere in fact adverted to in relation to the dispute in :uestion b$ then%inister &las Ople in his Order dated #anuar$ 21, 19@, to the effect a!ong others, thatpro!ulgations of co!pan$ policies and regulations are basic !anage!ent prerogativesand that it is a recogni6ed principle of la+ that co!pan$ policies and regulations are,unless sho+n to be grossl$ oppressive or contrar$ to la+, generall$ binding and valid onthe parties and !ust be co!plied +ith until finall$ revised or a!ended unilaterall$ orpreferabl$ through negotiations or b$ co!petent authorities.

%inister to have acted evidentl$ in bad faith in firing its 17salespersons for alleged violations of the reportorial re:uire!ents of its sales policies+hich +as then the subect of conciliation proceedings bet+een the! 6and that +hilethe co!pan$, in !erel$ i!ple!enting its challenged sales policies did not ipso factoco!!it an unfair labor practice, it did so +hen it in mala fidedis!issed the fourteensales!en, all union !e!bers, +hile conciliation proceedings +ere being conducted ondisputes on its ver$ sa!e policies, especiall$ at that ti!e +hen a strike notice +as filed onthe co!plaint of the union alleging that said sales policies are being used to bust theunion thus precipitating a la+ful strike on the part of the latter. )o other facts appear onrecord relevant to the issue of ET>3s dis!issal of the 17 sales representatives. There is noproof on record to de!onstrate an$ underhanded !otive on the part of ET> in for!ulating

and i!posing the sales policies in :uestion, or re:uiring the sub!ission of reports in linethere+ith. ?hat, in fine, appears to be the %inister3s thesis is that an e!plo$er has theprerogative to la$ do+n basic policies and rules applicable to its e!plo$ees, but !a$ note5act co!pliance there+ith, !uch less i!pose sanctions on e!plo$ees sho+n to haveviolated the!, the !o!ent the propriet$ or feasibilit$ of those policies and rules, or their!otivation, is challenged b$ the e!plo$ees and the latter file a strike notice +ith the Baborepart!ent = +hich is the situation in the case at bar.

?hen the strike notice +as filed b$ the union, the chain of events +hich cul!inated in theter!ination of the 17 sales persons3 e!plo$!ent +as alread$ taking place, the series ofdefiant refusals b$ said sales representatives to co!pl$ +ith ET>3s re:uire!ent to sub!itindividual reports +as alread$ in progress. At that ti!e, no less than three " of theulti!ate si5 @ direct orders of the e!plo$er for the sub!ission of the reports had alread$been disobe$ed. The filing of the strike notice, and the co!!ence!ent of conciliation

activities b$ the &ureau of Babor Relations did not operate to !ake ET>3s orders illegal orunenforceable so as to e5cuse continued non*co!pliance there+ith. -t does not follo+ that

ust because the e!plo$ees or their union are unable to reali6e or appreciate thedesirabilit$ of their e!plo$ers3 policies or rules, the latter +ere laid do+n to oppress thefor!er and subvert legiti!ate union activities. -ndeed, the overt, direct, deliberate andcontinued defiance and disregard b$ the e!plo$ees of the authorit$ of their e!plo$er leftthe latter +ith no alternative e5cept to i!pose sanctions. The sanction of suspensionhaving proved futile, ter!ination of e!plo$!ent +as the onl$ option left to the e!plo$er.

To repeat, it +ould be dangerous doctrine indeed to allo+ e!plo$ees to refuse to co!pl$+ith rules and regulations, policies and procedures laid do+n b$ their e!plo$er b$ thesi!ple e5pedient of for!all$ challenging their reasonableness or the !otives +hich

inspired the!, or filing a strike notice +ith the epart!ent of Babor and >!plo$!ent, or,+hat a!ounts to the sa!e thing, to give the e!plo$ees the po+er to suspend co!pliance+ith co!pan$ rules or policies b$ re:uesting that the$ be first subect of collectivebargaining, -t +ould be +ell nigh i!possible under these circu!stances for an$ e!plo$erto !aintain discipline in its establish!ent. This is, of course, intolerable. /or co!!onsense teaches, as %r. #ustice Eregorio erfecto once had occasion to stress :that8


22/28

dis!issed during the conciliation process, obviousl$ do not suffice to !ake the dispute inthe case at bar one adversel$ affecting the national interest.

?;>R>/OR>, the petition is ERA)T>, and as pra$ed for, the Order dated October 1,19@ of the public respondent is )FBB-/-> and T A.

R>.

,ancayco# ,ri>o90uino and 4edialdea# ++.# concur.

*ru +.# too% no part.

G.R. No. 1>18:5 0u+y 1=, 1995

C-SI-N -. N--RR III, petitioner, vs. HN. ISR-E D. D--SC, "& "$ %a@a%"#ya$ UNT-R? -RITR-TR, a&' USC SUG-R IING C., INC., respondents.

AUI-SN, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to reverse the ecision dated August 1@, 1991 of theDoluntar$ Arbitrator, respondent -srael . a!asco, declaring as valid the separation fro!e!plo$!ent of petitioner.

?e dis!iss the petition.

-

etitioner +as e!plo$ed as t$pist of private respondent at its plant in Kue6on, &ukidnon.

At about '800 .%. of )ove!ber 2(, 1990, petitioner +ent to visit %erc$ &a$las, a co*e!plo$ee, at the ladies3 dor!itor$ inside the co!pound of private respondent. Fponseeing petitioner, &a$las hid behind the divider at the reception roo!. Rose!arie &asaand -sabel &eleno, co*boarders of &a$las, told petitioner that &a$las +as not at thedor!itor$ and advised hi! to stop courting her because she had no feelings to+ards hi!.After+ards, the t+o left leaving petitioner alone in the roo!. ?hen he peeped behind thedivider, he sa+ &a$las, +ho stood up +ithout ans+ering his greetings and ran to+ards her

roo!. ;e follo+ed, and after taking hold of her left hand, pulled her to+ards hi!. The forcecaused her to fall on the floor. ;e then placed hi!self on top of her.


23/28

On August 1@, 1991, a decision +as rendered b$ the Doluntar$ Arbitrator dis!issingpetitioner fro! his e!plo$!ent and holding that private respondent did not violate theprovisions of the grievance procedure under the Collective &argaining Agree!ent.

)ot satisfied +ith the decision, petitioner filed the instant petition.

--

According to petitioner3s version, &a$las +as his girlfriend, +ho! he visited at the ladies3

dor!itor$ in the afternoon of )ove!ber 2(, 1990. At the dor!itor$, petitioner sa+Rose!arie &asa +ho told hi! that &a$las +as not around. To prove that &asa +as l$ing,he peeped behind the divider and sa+ &a$las hiding there. ?hen &a$las ran to+ards herroo!, petitioner follo+ed her. ?hile running, &a$las lost her balance and fell do+n.;o+ever, petitioner got hold of her to prevent her fro! hitting the floor and to help her toher feet. ;e denied having kissed and e!braced her. ;e ad!itted that


24/28

G.R. No. /2>3>3 Se@#e*ber 2:, 196:

REPUIC S-INGS -N (&oB REPUIC -N!, petitioner, vs. CURT FINDUSTRI- RE-TINS, RSEND T. RESUE, EN0-IN 0-R-, FRENCI--S-S, DING . 0-, DISD-D S. ENDI-, TEDR DE - CRU,N-RCIS -C-R-EG a&' -UR -. RIS,respondents.

C-STR, J.:

The vital issue in this case is +hether the dis!issal of the eight respondente!plo$ees b$ the petitioner Republic &ank hereinafter referred to as the &ank constitutedan unfair labor practice +ithin the !eaning and intend!ent of the -ndustrial eace ActRepublic Act ('. The Court of -ndustrial Relations C-R found it did and its decision isno+ on appeal before us. The &ank !aintains that the discharge +as for cause.

The &ank had in its e!plo$ the respondents Rosendo T. Resuello, &ena!in #ara,/lorencio Allasas, o!ingo &. #ola, iosdado


25/28

banking. &ecause of this sill$ decision, it took one pensionado si5!onths and cost the &ank a total of 10,000.00 ust to stud$ Christ!assavings. That subect is ver$ si!ple one need not go to


26/28

their right of self*organi6ation that includes concerted activit$ for !utual aid andprotection,'interference +ith +hich constitutes an unfair labor practice under section 7a1. This is the vie+ of so!e !e!bers of this Court. /or, as has been aptl$ stated, theoining in protests or de!ands, even b$ a s!all group of e!plo$ees, if in furtherance oftheir interests as such, is a concerted activit$ protected b$ the -ndustrial eace Act. -t is notnecessar$ that union activit$ be involved or that collective bargaining be conte!plated. @

-ndeed, +hen the respondents co!plained against nepotis!, favoritis! and other!anage!ent practices, the$ +ere acting +ithin an area !arked out b$ the Act as a propersphere of collective bargaining. >ven the reference to i!!oralit$ +as not irrelevant as it

+as !ade to support the respondents3 other charge that the bank president had failed toprovide +holeso!e +orking conditions, let alone a good !oral e5a!ple, for the e!plo$eesb$ practicing discri!ination and favoritis! in the appoint!ent and pro!otion of certaine!plo$ees on the basis of illicit relations or blood relationship +ith the!.

-n !an$ respects, the case at bar is si!ilar to 3ational -abor Relations Board v.$hoenix 4utual -ife =nsurance *o.(The issue in that case +as +hether an insuranceco!pan$ +as guilt$ of an unfair labor practice in interfering +ith this right of concertedactivit$ b$ discharging t+o agents e!plo$ed in a branch office. The cashier of that officehad resigned. The ten agents e!plo$ed there held a !eeting and agreed to oin in a letterto the ho!e office obecting to the transfer to their branch office of a cashier fro! anotherbranch office to fill the position. The$ discussed also the :uestion +hether to reco!!endthe pro!otion of the assistant cashier of their office as the proper alternative. The$ thenchose one of their nu!ber to co!pose a draft of the letter and sub!it it to the! for further

discussion, approval and signature. The agent selected to +rite the letter and another +eredischarged for their activities in this respect as being, so their notices stated, co!pletel$unpleasant and far be$ond the peripher$ of their responsibilit$. -n holding the co!pan$liable for unfair labor practice, the Circuit Court of Appeals said8

A proper construction is that the e!plo$ees shall have the right to engagein concerted activities for their !utual aid or protection even though no unionactivit$ be involved, for collective bargaining be conte!plated. ;ere avis and#ohnson and other sales!en +ere properl$ concerned +ith the identit$ andcapabilit$ of the ne+ cashier. Conceding the$ had no authorit$ to appoint a ne+cashier or even reco!!end an$one for the appoint!ent, the$ had a legiti!ateinterest in acting concertedl$ in !aking kno+n their vie+s to !anage!ent+ithout being discharged for that interest. The !oderate conduct of avis and#ohnson and the others bore a reasonable relation to conditions of theire!plo$!ent. -t +as therefore an unfair labor practice for respondent to interfere+ith the e5ercise of the right of avis and #ohnson and the other sales!en toengage in concerted activities for their !utual aid or protection.

Other !e!bers of this Court agreed +ith the C-R that the &ank3s conduct violatedsection 7a ' +hich !akes it an unfair labor practice for an e!plo$er to dis!iss ane!plo$ee for having filed charges under the Act.


27/28

rule, denounced +astage of co!pan$ funds. -n contrast, the e5press finding of the courtin this case +as that the dis!issal of the respondents +as !ade on account of the letterthe$ had +ritten, in +hich the$ de!anded the resignation of the bank president for anu!ber of reasons touching labor*!anage!ent relations = reasons +hich not even the&ank3s udg!ent that the respondents had co!!itted libel could e5cuse it for !akingsu!!ar$ discharges21in disregard of its dut$ to bargain collectivel$.

-n final su! and substance, this Court is in unani!it$ that the &ank3s conduct,identified as an interference +ith the e!plo$ees3 right of self*organi6ation, or as aretaliator$ action, and4or as a refusal to bargain collectivel$, constituted an unfair labor

practice +ithin the !eaning and intend!ent of section 7a of the -ndustrial eace Act.

ACCOR-)EBN, the decision of #ul$ 7, 19@2 and the resolution of August 9, 19@2 ofthe Court of -ndustrial Relations are affir!ed, at petitioner3s cost.

*oncepcion# *.+.# Reyes# +.B.-.# Di&on# 4a%alintal# @aldivar# anche& and 0ngeles# ++.#concur.Beng&on# +.$.# +.# too% no part.

Se@ara#e @"&"o&$

FERN-ND, J., concurring8

The opinion of the Court in this highl$ significant unfair labor practice case, one offirst i!pression, easil$ co!!ends itself for approval. The relevant facts are set forth in allfullness and +ith due care. The position of the Court united as it is on an unfair laborpractice having been co!!itted, but not :uite full$ agreed as to +hich particularsubsection of the legal provision +as violated, is delineated +ith precision. ?ith the e5plicitackno+ledge!ent there !ade that so!e !e!bers of the Court are of the belief that +hat+as done b$ the Republic &ank here a!ounted to interference and +ith the +riter beingof the persuasion that it could be categori6ed in line +ith the statute as interference,

restraint or coercion, a fe+ +ords as to +h$ this vie+ is entertained !a$ not beinappropriate.

)o one can doubt that +e are in the process of evolving an indigenous laborurisprudence. )ot+ithstanding the clearl$ A!erican background of the -ndustrial eaceAct, based as it is !ainl$ on the ? agner Act,1labor relations in the hilippines +ith theirpeculiar proble!s and the ingenuit$ of /ilipino la+$ers have resulted in a gro+ing bod$ ofdecisions notable for their suitabilit$ to local condition and their distinctl$ local flavor. Thisis as it should be.

The present case affords one such instance. The +ealth of adudication b$ bothudicial and ad!inistrative agencies in the Fnited


28/28

obvious to re:uire e5planation. -n fact, al!ost all of the cases in +hich the &oard has founda violation of

labor arb cases.doc

Documents