UFEDFAKMUwasthesoleandexclusivebargainingagentoftherankandfile

employeesofNestl belongingtothelattersAlabangandCabuyaoplants.On4April
2001,astheexistingcollectivebargainingagreement(CBA)betweenNestl andUFE
DFAKMU4wastoendon5June2001,5thePresidentsoftheAlabangandCabuyao
DivisionsofUFEDFAKMUinformedNestl oftheirintentto"open[our]new
CollectiveBargainingNegotiationfortheyear20012004xxxasearlyasJune2001."6In
responsethereto,Nestl informedthemthatitwasalsopreparingitsowncounter
proposalandproposedgroundrulestogoverntheimpendingconductoftheCBA
negotiations.
On29May2001,inanotherlettertotheUFEDFAKMU(CabuyaoDivisiononly)7,
Nestl reiterateditsstancethat"unilateralgrants,onetimecompanygrants,company
initiatedpoliciesandprograms,whichinclude,butarenotlimitedtotheRetirementPlan,
IncidentalStraightDutyPayandCallingPayPremium,arebytheirverynaturenot
propersubjectsofCBAnegotiationsandthereforeshallbeexcludedtherefrom."8
Dialoguebetweenthecompanyandtheunionthereafterensued.
On14August2001,however,Nestl requested9theNationalConciliationandMediation
Board(NCMB),RegionalOfficeNo.IV,Imus,Cavite,toconductpreventivemediation
proceedingsbetweenitandUFEDFAKMUowingtoanallegedimpasseinsaid
dialogue;i.e.,thatdespitefifteen(15)meetingsbetweenthem,thepartiesfailedtoreach
anyagreementontheproposedCBA.
Conciliationproceedingsprovedineffective,though,andtheUFEDFAKMUfileda
NoticeofStrike10on31October2001withtheNCMB,complaining,inessence,ofa
bargainingdeadlockpertainingtoeconomicissues,i.e.,"retirement(plan),panel
composition,costsandattendance,andCBA".11On07November2001,anotherNoticeof
Strike12wasfiledbytheunion,thistimepredicatedonNestlsallegedunfairlabor
practices,thatis,bargaininginbadfaithbysettingpreconditionsinthegroundrules
and/orrefusingtoincludetheissueoftheRetirementPlanintheCBAnegotiations.The
resultofastrikevoteconductedbythemembersofUFEDFAKMUyieldedan
overwhelmingapprovalofthedecisiontoholdastrike.13
On26November2001,priortoholdingthestrike,Nestl filedwiththeDOLEaPetition
forAssumptionofJurisdiction,14prayingfortheSecretaryoftheDOLE,Hon.PatriciaA.
Sto.Tomas,toassumejurisdictionoverthecurrentlabordisputeinordertoeffectively
enjoinanyimpendingstrikebythemembersoftheUFEDFAKMUattheNestls
CabuyaoPlantinLaguna.
On29November2001,Sec.Sto.TomasissuedanOrder15assumingjurisdictionoverthe
subjectlabordispute.ThefalloofsaidOrderstatesthat:

RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SPECIALTHIRDDIVISION
G.R.Nos.15893031
March3,2008
UNIONOFFILIPROEMPLOYEESDRUG,FOODANDALLIEDINDUSTRIES
UNIONSKILUSANGMAYOUNO(UFEDFAKMU),petitioner,
vs.
NESTL PHILIPPINES,INCORPORATED,respondent.
xx
G.R.Nos.15894445
March3,2008
NESTL PHILIPPINES,INCORPORATED,petitioner,
vs.
UNIONOFFILIPROEMPLOYEESDRUG,FOODANDALLIEDINDUSTRIES
UNIONSKILUSANGMAYOUNO(UFEDFAKMU),respondent.
RESOLUTION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
On22August2006,thisCourtpromulgateditsDecision1intheaboveentitledcases,the
dispositivepartofwhichreads
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thePetitioninG.R.No.15893031seekingthat
Nestl bedeclaredtohavecommittedunfairlaborpracticeinallegedlysettinga
preconditiontobargainingisDENIED.ThePetitioninG.R.No.15894445,however,is
PARTLYGRANTEDinthatweREVERSEtherulingoftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.SPNo.69805insofarasitruledthattheSecretaryoftheDOLEgravelyabusedher
discretioninfailingtoconfineherassumptionofjurisdictionpoweroverthegroundrules
oftheCBAnegotiations;buttherulingoftheCourtofAppealsontheinclusionofthe
RetirementPlanasavalidissueinthecollectivebargainingnegotiationsbetweenUFE
DFAKMUandNestl isAFFIRMED.Thepartiesaredirectedtoresumenegotiations
respectingtheRetirementPlanandtotakeactionconsistentwiththediscussions
hereinabovesetforth.Nocosts.
Subsequentthereto,Nestl Philippines,Incorporated(Nestl)filedaMotionfor
Clarification2on20September2006;whileUnionofFiliproEmployees Drug,Foodand
AlliedIndustriesUnion KilusangMayoUno(UFEDFAKMU),on21September
2006,filedaMotionforPartialReconsideration3oftheforegoingDecision.
Thematerialfactsofthecase,asdeterminedbythisCourtinitsDecision,maybe
summarizedasfollows:

On11February2002,Sec.Sto.TomasallowedUFEDFAKMUthechancetotenderits
standontheotherissuesraisedbyNestl butnotcoveredbyitsinitialpositionpaperby
wayofaSupplementalPositionPaper.
UFEDFAKMU,insteadoffilingtheabovementionedsupplement,filedseveral
pleadings,oneofwhichwasaManifestationwithMotionforReconsiderationofthe
OrderdatedFebruary11,2002assailingtheOrderofFebruary11,2002forsupposedly
beingcontrarytolaw,jurisprudenceandtheevidenceonrecord.Theunionpositedthat
Sec.Sto.Tomas"couldonlyassumejurisdictionovertheissuesmentionedinthenotice
ofstrikesubjectofthecurrentdispute,"17andthattheAmendedNoticeofStrikeitfiled
didnotcite,asoneofthegrounds,theCBAdeadlock.
On8March2002,Sec.Sto.TomasdeniedthemotionforreconsiderationofUFEDFA
KMU.
Thereafter,UFEDFAKMUfiledaPetitionforCertiorari18beforetheCourtofAppeals,
allegingthatSec.Sto.Tomascommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackor
excessofjurisdictionwhensheissuedtheOrdersof11February2002and8March2002.
Intheinterim,inanattempttofinallyresolvethecripplinglabordisputebetweenthe
parties,thenActingSecretaryoftheDOLE,Hon.ArturoD.Brion,cameoutwithan
Order19dated02April2002,rulingthat:
a.weherebyrecognizethatthepresentRetirementPlanattheNestl CabuyaoPlantisa
unilateralgrantthatthepartieshaveexpresslysorecognizedsubsequenttotheSupreme
CourtsrulinginNestl,Phils.Inc.vs.NLRC,G.R.No.90231,February4,1991,andis
thereforenotamandatorysubjectforbargaining;
b.theUnionschargeofunfairlaborpracticeagainsttheCompanyisherebydismissedfor
lackofmerit;
c.thepartiesaredirectedtosecurethebestapplicabletermsoftherecentlyconcluded
CBSsbetweenNestl Phils.Inc.anditeight(8)otherbargainingunits,andtoadoptthese
asthetermsandconditionsoftheNestl CabuyaoPlantCBA;
d.alluniondemandsthatarenotcoveredbytheprovisionsoftheCBAsoftheothereight
(8)bargainingunitsintheCompanyareherebydenied;
e.allexistingprovisionsoftheexpiredNestl CabuyaoPlantCBAwithoutany
counterpartintheCBAsoftheothereightbargainingunitsintheCompanyarehereby
orderedmaintainedaspartofthenewNestl CabuyaoPlantCBA;
f.thepartiesshallexecutetheirCBAwithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptofthisOrder,
furnishingthisOfficeacopyofthesignedAgreement;
g.thisCBAshall,insofarasrepresentationisconcerned,beforatermoffive(5)years;
allotherprovisionsshallberenegotiatednotlaterthanthree(3)yearsafteritseffective
datewhichshallbeDecember5,2001(oronthefirstdaysixmonthsaftertheexpiration
onJune4,2001ofthesupercededCBA).

CONSIDERINGTHEFOREGOING,thisOfficeherebyassumesjurisdictionoverthe
labordisputeattheNestl Philippines,Inc.(CabuyaoPlant)pursuanttoArticle263(g)of
theLaborCode,asamended.
Accordingly,anystrikeorlockoutisherebyenjoined.Thepartiesaredirectedtocease
anddesistfromcommittinganyactthatmightleadtothefurtherdeteriorationofthe
currentlaborrelationssituation.
Thepartiesarefurtherdirectedtomeetandconveneforthediscussionoftheunion
proposalsandcompanycounterproposalsbeforetheNationalConciliationandMediation
Board(NCMB)whoisherebydesignatedasthedelegate/facilitatorofthisOfficeforthis
purpose.TheNCMBshallreporttothisOfficetheresultsofthisattemptatconciliation
anddelimitationoftheissueswithinthirty(30)daysfromtheparties receiptofthis
Order,innocaselaterthanDecember31,2001.Ifnosettlementofalltheissuesis
reached,thisOfficeshallthereafterdefinetheoutstandingissuesandorderthefilingof
positionpapersforarulingonthemerits.
UFEDFAKMUsoughtreconsideration16oftheabovebutnonethelessmovedfor
additionaltimetofileitspositionpaperasdirectedbytheAssumptionofJurisdiction
Order.
On14January2002,Sec.Sto.Tomasdeniedsaidmotionforreconsideration.
On15January2002,despitetheorderenjoiningtheconductofanystrikeorlockoutand
conciliationeffortsbytheNCMB,theemployeemembersofUFEDFAKMUatNestls
CabuyaoPlantwentonstrike.
Inviewoftheabove,inanOrderdatedon16January2002,Sec.Sto.Tomasdirected:(1)
themembersofUFEDFAKMUtoreturntoworkwithintwentyfour(24)hoursfrom
receiptofsuchOrder;(2)Nestl toacceptbackallreturningworkersunderthesame
termsandconditionsexistingprecedingtothestrike;(3)bothpartiestoceaseanddesist
fromcommittingactsinimicaltotheongoingconciliationproceedingsleadingtothe
furtherdeteriorationofthesituation;and(4)thesubmissionoftheirrespectiveposition
paperswithinten(10)daysfromreceiptthereof.ButnotwithstandingtheReturntoWork
Order,themembersofUFEDFAKMUcontinuedwiththeirstrike,thus,promptingSec.
Sto.TomastoseektheassistanceofthePhilippineNationalPolice(PNP)forthe
enforcementofsaidorder.
On7February2002,Nestl andUFEDFAKMUfiledtheirrespectivepositionpapers.
Nestl addressedseveralissuesconcerningeconomicprovisionsoftheCBAaswellas
thenoninclusionoftheissueoftheRetirementPlaninthecollectivebargaining
negotiations.Ontheotherhand,UFEDFAKMUlimiteditselftotheissueofwhetheror
nottheretirementplanwasamandatorysubjectinitsCBAnegotiations.

On29March2004,thisCourtresolved21toconsolidatethetwopetitionsinasmuchasthey
(1)involvedthesamesetofparties;(2)arosefromthesamesetofcircumstances,i.e.,
fromseveralOrdersissuedbythenDOLESecretary,Hon.PatriciaA.Sto.Tomas,
respectingherassumptionofjurisdictionoverthelabordisputebetweenNestl andUFE
DFAKMU,AlabangandCabuyaoDivisions;22and(3)similarlyassailedthesame
DecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.
Aftergivingduecoursetotheinstantconsolidatedpetitions,thisCourtpromulgatedon22
August2006itsDecision,nowsubjectofUFEDFAKMUsMotionforPartial
ReconsiderationandNestlsMotionforClarification.
InitsMotionforPartialReconsideration,UFEDFAKMUwouldhavethisCourtaddress
anddiscussanewpointsorargumentsthathavebasicallybeenpasseduponinthisCourts
22August2006Decision.Firstly,itquestionsthisCourtsfindingthatNestl wasnot
guiltyofunfairlaborpractice,consideringthatthetransactionspeaksforitself,i.e,res
ipsaloquitor.AndmadeanissueagainisthequestionofwhetherornottheDOLE
SecretarycantakecognizanceofmattersbeyondtheamendedNoticeofStrike.
AstoNestlsprayerforclarification,thecorporationseekselucidationrespectingthe
dispositivepartofthisCourtsDecisiondirectinghereinpartiestoresumenegotiationson
theretirementcompensationpackageoftheconcernedemployees.Itpositsthat"[i]n
directingthepartiestonegotiatetheRetirementPlan,theHonorableCourtxxxmight
haveoverlookedthefactthathere,theSecretaryofLaborhadalreadyassumed
jurisdictionovertheentire20012004CBAcontroversyxxx."
Astothechargeofunfairlaborpractice:
Themotiondoesnotputforwardnewargumentstosubstantiatetheprayerfor
reconsiderationofthisCourtsDecisionexceptforthesolecontentionthatthetransaction
speaksforitself,i.e.,resipsaloquitor.Nonetheless,evenaperusaloftheargumentsof
UFEDFAKMUinitspetitionandmemoranduminconsiderationofthepointheretofore
raisedwillnotconvinceustochangeourdispositionofthequestionofunfairlabor
practice.UFEDFAKMUarguesthereinthatNestls"refusaltobargainonavery
importantCBAeconomicprovisionconstitutesunfairlaborpractice." 23Itexplainsthat
Nestl setasapreconditionfortheholdingofcollectivebargainingnegotiationsthenon
inclusionoftheissueofRetirementPlan.Initswords,"respondentNestl Phils.,Inc.
insistedthattheUnionshouldfirstagreethattheretirementplanisnotabargainingissue
beforerespondentNestl wouldagreetodiscussotherissuesintheCBA."24Itthen
concludedthat"theCourtofAppealscommittedalegalerrorinnotrulingthatrespondent
companyisguiltyofunfairlaborpractice.Italsocommittedalegalerrorinfailingto
awarddamagestothepetitionerfortheULPcommittedbytherespondent."25
Weareunconvincedstill.

UFEDFAKMUmovedtoreconsidertheaforequotedruling,butsuchwassubsequently
deniedon6May2002.
Forthesecondtime,UFEDFAKMUwenttotheCourtofAppealsviaanotherPetition
forCertiorariseekingtoannultheOrdersof02April2002and06May2002ofthe
SecretaryoftheDOLE,havingbeenissuedingraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolack
orexcessofjurisdiction.
On27February2003,theappellatecourtpromulgateditsDecisiononthetwinpetitions
forcertiorari,rulingentirelyinfavorofUFEDFAKMU,thedispositivepartthereof
stating
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,therebeinggraveabuseonthepartofthepublic
respondentinissuingalltheassailedOrders,bothpetitionsareherebyGRANTED.The
assailedOrdersdatedFebruary11,2001,andMarch8,2001(CAG.R.SPNo.69805),as
wellastheOrdersdatedApril2,2002andMay6,2002(CAG.R.SPNo.71540)ofthe
SecretaryofLaborandEmploymentinthecaseentitled:"INRE:LABORDISPUTEAT
NESTLEPHILIPPINESINC.(CABUYAOFACTORY)"underOSAJ002301
(NCMBRBIVCAVPM0803501,NCMBRBIVLAGNS1003701,NCMBRBIV
LAGNS111003901)areherebyANNULLEDandSETASIDE.Privaterespondent
isherebydirectedtoresumetheCBAnegotiationswiththepetitioner. 20
Bothpartiesappealedtheaforequotedruling.Nestl essentiallyassailedthatpartofthe
decisionfindingtheDOLESecretarytohavegravelyabusedherdiscretionamountingto
lackorexcessofjurisdictionwhensheruledthattheRetirementPlanwasnotavalid
issuetobetackledduringtheCBAnegotiations;UFEDFAKMU,incontrast,questioned
theappellatecourtsdecisionfindingNestl freeandclearofanyunfairlaborpractice.
SincethemotionsforreconsiderationofbothpartiesweredeniedbytheCourtofAppeals
inajointResolutiondated27June2003,UFEDFAKMUandNestl separatelyfiledthe
instantPetitionsforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,as
amended.
G.R.No.15893031wasfiledbyUFEDFAKMUagainstNestl seekingtoreversethe
CourtofAppealsDecisioninsofarastheappellatecourtsfailuretofindNestl guiltyof
unfairlaborpracticewasconcerned;whileG.R.No.15894445wasinstitutedbyNestl
againstUFEDFAKMUlikewiselookingtoannulandsetasidethepartoftheCourtof
AppealsDecisiondeclaringthat:1)theRetirementPlanwasavalidcollectivebargaining
issue;and2)thescopeofthepoweroftheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofLaborand
Employment(DOLE)toassumejurisdictionoverthelabordisputebetweenUFEDFA
KMUandNestl waslimitedtotheresolutionofquestionsandmatterspertainingmerely
tothegroundrulesofthecollectivebargainingnegotiationstobeconductedbetweenthe
parties.

negotiationwithanopenmindandmakereasonableefforttoreachacommongroundof
agreement.
Herein,theunionmerelybasesitsclaimofrefusaltobargainonaletter 28dated29May
2001writtenbyNestl wherethelatterlaiddownitspositionthat"unilateralgrants,
onetimecompanygrants,companyinitiatedpoliciesandprograms,whichinclude,but
arenotlimitedtotheRetirementPlan,IncidentalStraightDutyPayandCallingPay
Premium,arebytheirverynaturenotpropersubjectsofCBAnegotiationsandtherefore
shallbeexcludedtherefrom."ButaswehavestatedinthisCourtsDecision,saidletteris
nottantamounttorefusaltobargain.InthinkingtoexcludetheissueofRetirementPlan
fromtheCBAnegotiations,Nestl,cannotbefaultedforconsideringthesamebenefitas
unilaterallygranted,consideringthateightoutofninebargainingunitshaveallegedly
agreedtotreattheRetirementPlanasaunilaterallygrantedbenefit.Thisisnotacase
wheretheemployerexhibitedanindifferentattitudetowardscollectivebargaining,
becausethenegotiationswerenottheunilateralactivityofthebargainingrepresentative.
Nestlsdesiretosettlethedisputeandproceedwiththenegotiationbeingevidentinits
cryforcompulsoryarbitrationisproofenoughofitsexertionofreasonableeffortatgood
faithbargaining.
Inthecaseatbar,NestleneverrefusedtobargaincollectivelywithUFEDFAKMU.The
corporationsimplywantedtoexcludetheRetirementPlanfromtheissuestobetakenup
duringCBAnegotiations,onthepostulationthatsuchwasinthenatureofaunilaterally
grantedbenefit.Anemployerssteadfastinsistencetoexcludeaparticularsubstantive
provisionisnodifferentfromabargainingrepresentativesperseverancetoincludeone
thattheydeemofabsolutenecessity.Indeed,anadamantinsistenceonabargaining
positiontothepointwherethenegotiationsreachanimpassedoesnotestablishbadfaith.
[fn24p.10]Itisbutnaturalthatatnegotiations,managementandlaboradoptpositionsor
makedemandsandofferproposalsandcounterproposals.Onaccountoftheimportance
oftheeconomicissueproposedbyUFEDFAKMU,Nestlecouldhaverefusedtobargain
withtheformer butitdidnot.Andthemanagementsfirmstandagainsttheissueofthe
RetirementPlandidnotmeanthatitwasbargaininginbadfaith.Ithadarighttoinsiston
itspositiontothepointofstalemate.
Theforegoingthingsconsidered,thisCourtreplicatesbelowitscleardispositionofthe
issue:
Theconceptof"unfairlaborpractice"isdefinedbytheLaborCodeas:
ART.247. CONCEPTOFUNFAIRLABORPRACTICEANDPROCEDUREFOR
PROSECUTIONTHEREOF. Unfairlaborpracticesviolatetheconstitutionalrightof
workersandemployeestoselforganization,areinimicaltothelegitimateinterestsofboth
laborandmanagement,includingtheirrighttobargaincollectivelyandotherwisedeal

ThedutytobargaincollectivelyismandatedbyArticles252and253oftheLaborCode,
asamended,whichstate
ART.252.Meaningofdutytobargaincollectively. Thedutytobargaincollectively
meanstheperformanceofamutualobligationtomeetandconvenepromptlyand
expeditiouslyingoodfaithforthepurposeofnegotiatinganagreementwithrespectto
wages,hours,ofworkandallothertermsandconditionsofemploymentincluding
proposalsforadjustinganygrievancesorquestionsarisingundersuchagreementand
executingacontractincorporatingsuchagreementsifrequestedbyeitherpartybutsuch
dutydoesnotcompelanypartytoagreetoaproposalortomakeanyconcession.
ART.253.Dutytobargaincollectivelywhenthereexistsacollectivebargaining
agreement. Whenthereisacollectivebargainingagreement,thedutytobargain
collectivelyshallalsomeanthatneitherpartyshallterminatenormodifysuchagreement
duringitslifetime.However,eitherpartycanserveawrittennoticetoterminateormodify
theagreementatleastsixty(60)dayspriortoitsexpirationdate.Itshallbethedutyof
bothpartiestokeepthestatusquoandtocontinueinfullforceandeffectthetermsof
conditionsoftheexistingagreementduringthe60dayperiodand/oruntilanew
agreementisreachedbytheparties.
Obviously,thepurposeofcollectivebargainingisthereachingofanagreementresulting
inacontractbindingontheparties;butthefailuretoreachanagreementafter
negotiationshavecontinuedforareasonableperioddoesnotestablishalackofgood
faith.Thestatutesinviteandcontemplateacollectivebargainingcontract,buttheydonot
compelone.Thedutytobargaindoesnotincludetheobligationtoreachanagreement.
Thecrucialquestion,therefore,ofwhetherornotapartyhasmethisstatutorydutyto
bargainingoodfaithtypicallyturnsonthefactsoftheindividualcase.Aswehavesaid,
thereisnopersetestofgoodfaithinbargaining.Goodfaithorbadfaithisaninferenceto
bedrawnfromthefacts.Tosomedegree,thequestionofgoodfaithmaybeaquestionof
credibility.Theeffectofanemployersoraunionsindividualactionsisnotthetestof
goodfaithbargaining,buttheimpactofallsuchoccasionsoractions,consideredasa
whole,andtheinferencesfairlydrawntherefromcollectivelymayofferabasisforthe
findingoftheNLRC.26
Forachargeofunfairlaborpracticetoprosper,itmustbeshownthatNestl was
motivatedbyillwill,"badfaith,orfraud,orwasoppressivetolabor,ordoneinamanner
contrarytomorals,goodcustoms,orpublicpolicy,and,ofcourse,thatsocialhumiliation,
woundedfeelings,orgraveanxietyresultedxxx"27indisclaimingunilateralgrantsas
propersubjectsintheircollectivebargainingnegotiations.Whilethelawmakesitan
obligationfortheemployerandtheemployeestobargaincollectivelywitheachother,
suchcompulsiondoesnotincludethecommitmenttoprecipitatelyacceptoragreetothe
proposalsoftheother.Allitcontemplatesisthatbothpartiesshouldapproachthe

Herein,Nestl isaccusedofviolatingitsdutytobargaincollectivelywhenitpurportedly
imposedapreconditiontoitsagreementtodiscussandengageincollectivebargaining
negotiationswithUFEDFAKMU.
Ameticulousreviewoftherecordandpleadingsofthecasesatbarshowsthat,ofthetwo
noticesofstrikefiledbyUFEDFAKMUbeforetheNCMB,itwasonlyonthesecond
thatthegroundofunfairlaborpracticewasalleged.Worse,the7November2001Notice
ofStrikemerelycontainedageneralallegationthatNestl committedunfairlabor
practicebybargaininginbadfaithforsupposedly"settingpreconditionintheground
rules(Retirementissue)."(NoticeofStrikeof7November2001;Annex"C"ofUFE
DFAKMUPositionPaper;DOLEoriginalrecords,p.146.)Incontrast,Nestl,inits
PositionPaper,didnotconfineitselftotheissueofthenoninclusionoftheRetirement
Planbutextensivelydiscusseditsstanceonothereconomicmatterspertainingtothe
CBA.ItisUFEDFAKMU,therefore,whohadtheburdenofprooftopresentsubstantial
evidencetosupporttheallegationofunfairlaborpractice.
AperusaloftheallegationsandargumentsraisedbyUFEDFAKMUinthe
Memorandum(inG.R.Nos.15893031)willreadilydisclosetheneedforthepresentation
ofevidenceotherthanitsbarecontentionofunfairlaborpracticeinordertomakecertain
theproprietyorimproprietyoftheULPchargehurledagainstNestl.UnderRuleXIII,
Sec.4,BookVoftheImplementingRulesoftheLaborCode:
xxx.Incasesofunfairlaborpractices,thenoticeofstrikeshallasfaraspracticable,
statetheactscomplainedofandtheeffortstoresolvethedisputeamicably."(Emphasis
supplied.)
Inthecaseatbar,exceptfortheassertionputforthbyUFEDFAKMU,neitherthe
secondNoticeofStrikenortherecordsofthesecasessubstantiateafindingofunfairlabor
practice.Itisnotenoughthattheunionbelievedthattheemployercommittedactsof
unfairlaborpracticewhenthecircumstancesclearlynegateevenaprimafacieshowingto
warrantsuchabelief.(Tiuv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.123276,18
August1997,277SCRA681,688.)
Employersareaccordedrightsandprivilegestoassuretheirselfdeterminationand
independenceandreasonablereturnofcapital.(CapitolMedicalCenter,Inc.v.Meris,
G.R.No.155098,16September2005,470SCRA125,136.)Thismassofprivileges
comprisesthesocalledmanagementprerogatives.(CapitolMedicalCenter,Inc.v.Meris,
G.R.No.155098,16September2005,470SCRA125,136.)Inthisconnection,theruleis
thatgoodfaithisalwayspresumed.Aslongasthecompanysexerciseofthesameisin
goodfaithtoadvanceitsinterestandnotforpurposeofdefeatingorcircumventingthe
rightsofemployeesunderthelaworavalidagreement,suchexercisewillbeupheld.
(CapitolMedicalCenter,Inc.v.Meris,G.R.No.155098,16September2005,470SCRA
125,136.)

witheachotherinanatmosphereoffreedomandmutualrespect,disruptindustrialpeace
andhinderthepromotionofhealthyandstablelabormanagementrelations.
xxxx.
Thesamecodelikewiseprovidestheactsconstitutingunfairlaborpracticescommittedby
employers,towit:
ART.248.UNFAIRLABORPRACTICESOFEMPLOYERS. Itshallbeunlawfulfor
anemployertocommitanyofthefollowingunfairlaborpractices:
(a)Tointerferewith,restrainorcoerceemployeesintheexerciseoftheirrighttoself
organization;
(b)Torequireasaconditionofemploymentthatapersonoranemployeeshallnotjoina
labororganizationorshallwithdrawfromonetowhichhebelongs;
(c)Tocontractoutservicesorfunctionsbeingperformedbyunionmemberswhensuch
willinterferewith,restrainorcoerceemployeesintheexerciseoftheirrighttoself
organization;
(d)Toinitiate,dominate,assistorotherwiseinterferewiththeformationoradministration
ofanylabororganization,includingthegivingoffinancialorothersupporttoitorits
organizersorsupporters;
(e)Todiscriminateinregardtowages,hoursofwork,andothertermsandconditionsof
employmentinordertoencourageordiscouragemembershipinanylabororganization.
NothinginthisCodeorinanyotherlawshallstopthepartiesfromrequiringmembership
inarecognizedcollectivebargainingagentasaconditionforemployment,exceptthose
employeeswhoarealreadymembersofanotherunionatthetimeofthesigningofthe
collectivebargainingagreement.
Employeesofanappropriatecollectivebargainingunitwhoarenotmembersofthe
recognizedcollectivebargainingagentmaybeassessedareasonablefeeequivalenttothe
duesandotherfeespaidbymembersoftherecognizedcollectivebargainingagent,if
suchnonunionmembersacceptthebenefitsunderthecollectiveagreement.Provided,
ThattheindividualauthorizationrequiredunderArticle242,paragraph(o)ofthisCode
shallnotapplytothenonmembersoftherecognizedcollectivebargainingagent;[The
articlereferredtois241,not242. CAA]
(f)Todismiss,discharge,orotherwiseprejudiceordiscriminateagainstanemployeefor
havinggivenorbeingabouttogivetestimonyunderthisCode;
(g)ToviolatethedutytobargaincollectivelyasprescribedbythisCode;
(h)Topaynegotiationorattorneysfeestotheunionoritsofficersoragentsaspartofthe
settlementofanyissueincollectivebargainingoranyotherdispute;or
(i)Toviolateacollectivebargainingagreement.
Theprovisionsoftheprecedingparagraphnotwithstanding,onlytheofficersandagents
ofcorporationsassociationsorpartnershipswhohaveactuallyparticipated,authorizedor
ratifiedunfairlaborpracticesshallbeheldcriminallyliable.(Emphasissupplied.)

Bargaininginbadfaith
Settingpreconditioninthegroundrules(Retirementissue)"
NowhereinthesecondNoticeofStrikeisitindicatedthatthisNoticeisanamendmentto
andtooktheplaceofthefirstNoticeofStrike.Infact,ourAssumptionofJurisdiction
OrderdatedNovember29,2001specificallycitedthetwo(2)NoticesofStrikewithout
anyobjectiononthepartoftheUnionxxx.29
Hadthepartiesnotbeenatthestagewherethesubstantiveprovisionsoftheproposed
CBAhadbeenputinissue,theunionwouldnothavebasedthereonitsinitialnoticeto
strike.ThisCourtmaintainsitsoriginalpositionintheDecisionthat,basedontheNotices
ofStrikefiledbyUFEDFAKMU,theSecretaryoftheDOLErightlydecidedonmatters
ofsubstance.Thattheunionlateronchangeditsmindisofnomomentbecausetogive
premiumtosuchwouldmakethelegallymandateddiscretionarypoweroftheDole
Secretarysubservienttothewhimsoftheparties.
Astothepointofclarificationontheresumptionofnegotiationsrespectingthe
RetirementPlan:
AsforthesupposedconfusionoruncertaintyofthedispositivepartofthisCourts
Decision,Nestlemovesforclarificationofthestatement "Thepartiesaredirectedto
resumenegotiationsrespectingtheRetirementPlanandtotakeactionconsistentwiththe
discussionhereinabovesetforth.Nocosts."TheentirefalloofthisCourtsDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thePetitioninG.R.No.15893031seekingthat
Nestl bedeclaredtohavecommittedunfairlaborpracticeinallegedlysettinga
preconditiontobargainingisDENIED.ThePetitioninG.R.No.15894445,however,is
PARTLYGRANTEDinthatweREVERSEtherulingoftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.SPNo.69805insofarasitruledthattheSecretaryoftheDOLEgravelyabusedher
discretioninfailingtoconfineherassumptionofjurisdictionpoweroverthegroundrules
oftheCBAnegotiations;buttherulingoftheCourtofAppealsontheinclusionofthe
RetirementPlanasavalidissueinthecollectivebargainingnegotiationsbetweenUFE
DFAKMUandNestl isAFFIRMED.Thepartiesaredirectedtoresumenegotiations
respectingtheRetirementPlanandtotakeactionconsistentwiththediscussions
hereinabovesetforth.Nocosts.
Nestleinterpretstheforegoingasanorderforthepartiestoresumenegotiationsby
themselvesrespectingtheissueofretirementbenefitsduetheemployeesoftheCabuyao
Plant.Otherwisestated,NestlepositsthatthedispositivepartoftheDecisiondirectsthe
partiestosubmittoavoluntarymodeofdisputesettlement.
AreadthroughofthisCourtsDecisionrevealsthattheambiguityismoreostensiblethan
real.ThisCourtsDecisionof22August2006designatedmarkedboundariesastothe
implicationsoftheassailedOrdersoftheSecretaryoftheDOLE.Wesaidthereinthat1)

Thereisnopersetestofgoodfaithinbargaining.(HongkongShanghaiBanking
CorporationEmployeesUnionv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.
125038,6November1997,281SCRA509,518.)Goodfaithorbadfaithisaninference
tobedrawnfromthefacts.(HongkongShanghaiBankingCorporationEmployeesUnion
v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.125038,6November1997,281
SCRA509,518.)Herein,noproofwaspresentedtoexemplifybadfaithonthepartof
Nestl apartfrommereallegation.Construingarguendothatthecontentofthe
aforequotedletterof29May2001laiddownapreconditiontoitsagreementtobargain
withUFEDFAKMU,NestlsinclusioninitsPositionPaperofitsproposalsaffecting
othermatterscoveredbytheCBAnegatestheclaimofrefusaltobargainorbargainingin
badfaith.Accordingly,sinceUFEDFAKMUfailedtoproffersubstantialevidencethat
wouldovercomethelegalpresumptionofgoodfaithonthepartofNestl,theawardof
moralandexemplarydamagesisunavailing.
AstothejurisdictionoftheDOLESecretaryundertheamendedNoticeofStrike:
ThisCourtisnotconvincedbytheargumentraisedbyUFEDFAKMUthattheDOLE
SecretaryshouldnothavegonebeyondthedisagreementonthegroundrulesoftheCBA
negotiations.Theuniondoggedlyassertsthattheentirelabordisputebetweenherein
partiesconcernsonlythegroundrules.
Lestitbeforgotten,itwasUFEDFAKMUwhichfirstallegedabargainingdeadlockas
thebasisforthefilingofitsNoticeofStrike;andatthetimeofthefilingofthefirst
NoticeofStrike,severalconciliationconferenceshadalreadybeenundertakenwhereboth
partieshadalreadyexchangedwitheachothertheirrespectiveCBAproposals.Infact,
duringtheconciliationmeetingsbeforetheNCMB,butpriortothefilingofthenoticesof
strike,thepartieshadalreadydelvedintomattersaffectingthemeatofthecollective
bargainingagreement.
TheSecretaryoftheDOLEsimplyreliedontheNoticesofStrikethatwerefiledbyUFE
DFAKMUasstatedinherOrderof08March2002,towit:
xxxTherecordsdisclosethattheUnionfiledtwoNoticesofStrike.TheFirstisdated
October31,2001whosegroundsarecitedverbatimhereunder:
"A.BargainingDeadlock
1.Economicissues(specify)
1.Retirement
2.PanelComposition
3.CostsandAttendance
4.CBA"
ThesecondNoticeofStrikeisdatedNovember7,2001andthecitedgroundislike
quotedverbatimbelow:
"B.UnfairLaborPractices(specify)

decisioniscrystalandcannotbeinterpretedanyotherway.TheSecretaryhavingalready
assumedjurisdictionoverthelabordisputesubjectoftheseconsolidatedpetitions,the
issueconcerningtheretirementbenefitsoftheconcernedemployeesmustberemanded
backtohimforproperdisposition.
Alltold,inconsiderationofthepointsaforediscussedandthefactthatnosubstantial
argumentshavebeenraisedbyeitherparty,thisCourtremainsunconvincedthatitshould
modifyorreverseinanywayitsdispositionofhereincasesinitsearlierDecision.The
labordisputebetweentheNestleandUFEDFAKMUhasdraggedonlongenough.As
nootherissuesareavailing,letthisResolutionwriteanendingtotheprotractedlabor
disputebetweenNestl andUFEDFAKMU(CabuyaoDivision).
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thebasicissuesofthecasehavingbeenpassed
uponandtherebeingnonewargumentsavailing,theMotionforPartialReconsideration
isherebyDENIEDWITHFINALITYforlackofmerit.Letthesecasesberemandedto
the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment for proper disposition,
consistent with the discussions in this Courts Decision of 22 August 2006 and as
hereinabovesetforth.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.

theRetirementPlanisstillavalidissueforhereinparties collectivebargaining
negotiations;2)theCourtofAppealscommittedreversibleerrorinlimitingtotheissueof
thegroundrulesthescopeofthepoweroftheSecretaryofLabortoassumejurisdiction
overthesubjectlabordispute;and3)Nestl isnotguiltyofunfairlaborpractice.
NowhereinourDecisiondidwerequirepartiestosubmittonegotiatebythemselvesthe
tenoroftheretirementbenefitsoftheconcernedemployeesofNestl,preciselybecause
theSecretaryoftheDOLEhadalreadyassumedjurisdictionoverthelabordisputesubject
ofhereinpetitions.Again,wespelloutwhatencompasstheSecretarysassumptionof
jurisdictionpower.TheSecretaryoftheDOLEhasbeenexplicitlygrantedbyArticle
263(g)oftheLaborCodetheauthoritytoassumejurisdictionoveralabordisputecausing
orlikelytocauseastrikeorlockoutinanindustryindispensabletothenationalinterest,
anddecidethesameaccordingly.And,asamatterofnecessity,itincludesquestions
incidentaltothelabordispute;thatis,issuesthatarenecessarilyinvolvedinthedispute
itself,andnotjusttothatascribedintheNoticeofStrikeorotherwisesubmittedtohim
forresolution.Inthecaseatbar,theissueofretirementbenefitswasspecificallywhatwas
presentedbeforetheSecretaryoftheDOLE;hence,WerejectNestlsinterpretation.Our