GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS, Petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC.

(GENERAL SANTOS CITY) Respondents. FACTS: Respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc. (CCBPI) experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian economic crisis, thus to curb the negative effects on the company, it implemented three (3) waves of an Early Retirement Program. An inter-office memorandum was also issued mandating to put on hold all requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions in [the] Head Office and in the Plants. Faced with the freeze hiring directive, CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation (JLBP), a manning agency. Petitioner then filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike on the ground of alleged unfair labor practice committed by CCBPI Gen San for contracting-out services regularly performed by union members. In a Resolution, the NLRC ruled that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice for contracting out jobs to JLBP. The NLRC held that petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that the system was meant to curtail the right to self-organization of petitioners members. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA uphold the NLRCs finding that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice. It held that the contract between CCBPI and JLBP did not amount to labor-only contracting. It found that JLBP was an independent contractor and that the decision to contract out jobs was a valid exercise of management prerogative to meet exigent circumstances. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

RULING: The petition is bereft of merit. Hence, the Court deny the Petition. The issues raised by petitioner of whether JLBP is an independent contractor, whether CCBPIs contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor practice, and whether such action was a valid exercise of management prerogative, call for a re-examination of evidence, which is not within the ambit of this Courts jurisdiction. The CA squarely addressed the issue of job contracting in its assailed Decision and Resolution. The CA itself examined the facts and evidence of the parties and found that, based on the evidence, CCBPI did not engage in labor-only contracting and, therefore, was not guilty of unfair labor practice. The NLRC found and the same was sustained by the CA that the companys action to contract-out the services and functions performed by Union members did not constitute unfair labor practice as this was not directed at the members right to self-organization. Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was unable to prove its charge of unfair labor practice. It was the Union that had the burden of adducing substantial evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor practice,17 which burden it failed to discharge. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

UST Faculty Union v. University of Sto. Tomas G.R. No. 180892, April 7, 2009. Facts : The UST Faculty Union (USTFU) informed its members of a General Assembly. One of itsagenda is the election of officers. The Secretary General of UST issued a Memorandum allowing therequest of Faculty Clubs to hold a convocation which the members of the faculty including members of USTFU attended without the participation of UST administration. Also, an election of USTFU wasconducted by a group called Reformist Alliance. Learning that the convocation was intended for election, some members walked out but the election was conducted among those present (GamillaGroup). Thus, two (2) groups claim to be USTFU namely; (1) Marino Group; and (2) Gamilla Group.Marino group filed a compliant for ULP against UST with the Arbitration Branch. It alsofiled a complaint before Med-Arbiter praying for the nullification of the election of the Gamilla Group.A CBA was entered between Gamilla

Group and UST superseding the existing CBA of USTand USTFU. The MedArbiter declared the election of Gamilla Group as null and void. On appeal,the BLR affirmed the decision of Med-Arbiter. On appeal before this Court, the Court upheld theruling of BLR. With the decision of this Court, the case before the Arbitration Branch of NLRC wasdismissed for lack of merit. USTFU appeal to the NLRC, the NLRC affirmed the decision of LA.When the case is elevated to CA, the Court affirmed the decision of NLRC. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether CA committed serious and reversible error when it dismissed the Petition despiteabundance of evidence showing that Unfair Labor Practices were indeed committed. Ruling: The general principle is that one who makes an allegation has the burden of proving it. While,there are exceptions to this general rule, in the case of ULP, the alleging party has the burden of proving such ULP.Thus, we ruled in De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor v. NLRC that a party alleging acritical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence. Any decision based onunsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due processs.In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantialevidence is required to support the claim. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevantevidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.