1. G.R. No. 80737 September 29, 1988 PHILIPPINE GRAPHIC ARTS INC., IGMIDIO R.

SILVERIO AND
CARLOS CABAL, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROSALINA M.
PULPULAAN AND EMELITA SALONGA, respondents GUTIERREZ, JR., J

FACTS:

Petitioner corporation was forced by economic circumstances to require its workers to go on

mandatory vacation leave. The workers were paid while on leave but the pay was charged against their
respective earned leaves. As a result, the private respondents filed complaints for unfair labor practice
and discrimination.

Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for ULP. Ordering the Philippine Graphic arts,
inc to restore and grant to all its employees the company policy regarding groceries previously enjoyed
by them.

The private respondents filed a "partial appeal" with (NLRC) questioning the Labor Arbiter's dismissal of
their complaint for ULP and the resultant forced vacation leaves which were actually without pay.

NLRC affirmed the arbiter's decision with modification ordering the employers to refund the amount
equivalent to the earned leave of the employees.

Issue: whether or not the forced vacation leave without pay is unfair labor practice and if not an unfair
labor practice, whether or not it was tainted with arbitrariness.

Held:

The Court is convinced from the records now before it, that there was no unfair labor practice. As found
by the NLRC, the private respondents themselves never questioned the existence of an economic crisis
but, in fact, admitted its existence.

There is also no showing that the imposition of forced leave was exercised for the purpose of defeating
or circumventing the rights of employees under special laws or under valid agreements.

Petitioner contends that before the implementation of the forced leave a consensus on how to deal
with deteriorating economic conditions was reached between the employer and employees, and such in
consonance with their collective bargaining agreement. Thus the Court finds that the decision to resort
to forced leaves was, under the circumstances, a management prerogative.

Private respondents contend that the petitioners should discuss said management's plan in the
grievance procedure so that the Union members thereof may well be apprised of the reason therefor.
The Court however do not agree.

The statutory law on grievance procedure provides that:

ART. 261. Grievance machinery.

Whenever a grievance arises from the interpretation or implementation of a collective agreement,

including disciplinary actions imposed on members of the bargaining unit, the employer and the
bargaining representative shall meet to adjust the grievance. Where the grievance procedure as
provided herein does not apply, grievances shall be subject to negotiation, conciliation or arbitration as
provided elsewhere in this Code.

As the law stands, both employers and bargaining representative of the employees are required to go
through the grievance machinery in case a grievance arises. And though the law does not provide who,
as between labor and capital, should initiate that said grievance be brought first to the, grievance
machinery, it is only logical, just and equitable that whoever is aggrieved should initiate settlement of
the grievance through the grievance machinery. To impose the compulsory procedure on employers
alone would be oppressive of capital, notwithstanding the fact that in most cases the grievance is of the
employees

In the case at bar private respondents instituted a case before the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor
practices and discrimination, prior to any referral to the grievance machinery, which they are equally
mandated to go through and under the circumstances they were better situated to initiate. The SC
ordered the decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED

2. G.R. No. L-25291 January 30, 1971

THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU, FGU INSURANCE GROUP
WORKERS and EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU, and INSULAR LIFE BUILDING EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION-NATU
vs.
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., FGU INSURANCE GROUP, JOSE M. OLBES and COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

FACTS: The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers
& Employees Association-NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU (hereinafter
referred to as the Unions), while still members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into
separate CBAs with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU Insurance Group (hereinafter
referred to as the Companies).

Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia; the latter was formerly the
secretary-treasurer of the FFW and acting president of the Insular Life/FGU unions and the Insular Life
Building Employees Association. Garcia, as such acting president, in a circular issued in his name and
signed by him, tried to dissuade the members of the Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining
the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU), to no avail.
Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of the
Department of Justice. Thereafter, the Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as assistant
corporate secretary and legal assistant in their Legal Department. Enaje was hired as personnel manager
of the Companies, and was likewise made chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the
collective bargaining with the Unions.
Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies; negotiations were conducted on the Union’s
proposals, but these were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of union shop, as a result of which the
Unions filed on January 27, 1958 a notice of strike for “deadlock on collective bargaining.” The issue was
dropped subsequently (in short, nagkasundo). But, the parties negotiated on the labor demands but
with no satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of salary increases.

Meanwhile, 87 unionists were reclassified as supervisors without increase in salary nor in

responsibility while negotiations were going on in the Department of Labor after the notice to strike
was served on the Companies. These employees resigned from the Unions.
On May 21, 1958 the Companies through their acting manager and president, sent to each of the
strikers a letter (exhibit A) quoted verbatim as follows:
We recognize it is your privilege both to strike and to conduct picketing.

However, if any of you would like to come back to work voluntarily, you may:

1. Advise the nearest police officer or security guard of your intention to do so.
2. Take your meals within the office.
3. Make a choice whether to go home at the end of the day or to sleep nights at the office where
comfortable cots have been prepared.
4. Enjoy free coffee and occasional movies.
5. Be paid overtime for work performed in excess of eight hours.
6. Be sure arrangements will be made for your families.
7. The decision to make is yours — whether you still believe in the motives of the strike or in the
fairness of the Management.

Unions, however, continued on strike, with the exception of a few unionists who were convinced to
desist by the aforesaid letter

From the date the strike was called on May 21, 1958, until it was called off on May 31, 1958, some
management men tried to break thru the Unions’ picket lines xxx succeeded in penetrating the picket
lines in front of the Insular Life Building, thus causing injuries to the picketers and also to the strike-
breakers due to the resistance offered by some picketers.
Alleging that some non-strikers were injured and with the use of photographs as evidence, the
Companies then filed criminal charges against the strikers with the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila.xxx
Another letter was sent by the company to the individual strikers:

The first day of the strike was last 21 May 1958.

Our position remains unchanged and the strike has made us even more convinced of our decision.

We do not know how long you intend to stay out, but we cannot hold your positions open for long. We
have continued to operate and will continue to do so with or without you.

If you are still interested in continuing in the employ of the Group Companies, and if there are no
criminal charges pending against you, we are giving you until 2 June 1958 to report for work at the home
office. If by this date you have not yet reported, we may be forced to obtain your replacement.

Before, the decisions was yours to make.

So it is now.

Incidentally, all of the more than 120 criminal charges filed against the members of the Unions, except
3, were dismissed by the fiscal’s office and by the courts. These three cases involved “slight physical
injuries” against one striker and “light coercion” against two others.
At any rate, because of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against them as well as the
ultimatum of the Companies giving them until June 2, 1958 to return to their jobs or else be replaced,
the striking employees decided to call off their strike and to report back to work on June 2, 1958.

* However, before readmitting the strikers, the Companies required them not only to secure clearances
from the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila but also to be screened by a management committee among the
members of which were Enage and Garcia. The screening committee initially rejected 83 strikers with
pending criminal charges. However, all non-strikers with pending criminal charges which arose from the
breakthrough incident were readmitted immediately by the Companies without being required to
secure clearances from the fiscal’s office. Subsequently, when practically all the strikers had secured
clearances from the fiscal’s office, the Companies readmitted only some but adamantly refused
readmission to 34 officials and members of the Unions who were most active in the strike, on the
ground that they committed “acts inimical to the interest of the respondents,” without however
stating the specific acts allegedly committed. Some 24 of the above number were ultimately notified
months later that they were being dismissed retroactively as of June 2, 1958 and given separation pay
checks computed under Rep. Act 1787, while others (ten in number) up to now have not been
readmitted although there have been no formal dismissal notices given to them.

CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Companies under Republic Act 875.
The complaint specifically charged the Companies with (1) interfering with the members of the Unions
in the exercise of their right to concerted action, by sending out individual letters to them urging them
to abandon their strike and return to work, with a promise of comfortable cots, free coffee and movies,
and paid overtime, and, subsequently, by warning them that if they did not return to work on or before
June 2, 1958, they might be replaced; and (2) discriminating against the members of the Unions as
regards readmission to work after the strike on the basis of their union membership and degree of
participation in the strike.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent company is guilty of ULP

HELD: YES

The act of an employer in notifying absent employees individually during a strike following unproductive
efforts at collective bargaining that the plant would be operated the next day and that their jobs were
open for them should they want to come in has been held to be an unfair labor practice, as an active
interference with the right of collective bargaining through dealing with the employees individually
instead of through their collective bargaining representatives.
Although the union is on strike, the employer is still under obligation to bargain with the union as the
employees’ bargaining representative.

Individual solicitation of the employees or visiting their homes, with the employer or his representative
urging the employees to cease union activity or cease striking, constitutes unfair labor practice. All the
above-detailed activities are unfair labor practices because they tend to undermine the concerted
activity of the employees, an activity to which they are entitled free from the employer’s molestation.

Indeed, when the respondents offered reinstatement and attempted to “bribe” the strikers with
“comfortable cots,” “free coffee and occasional movies,” “overtime” pay for “work performed in excess
of eight hours,” and “arrangements” for their families, so they would abandon the strike and return to
work, they were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and, consequently, of unfair labor
practice. It is equivalent to an attempt to break a strike for an employer to offer reinstatement to
striking employees individually, when they are represented by a union, since the employees thus offered
reinstatement are unable to determine what the consequences of returning to work would be.

ULP also: (super short cut na to) Hiring of Enage and Garcia with attractive compensations; respondents
reclassified 87 employees as supervisors without increase in salary or in responsibility, in effect
compelling these employees to resign from their unions; respondents, thru their president and
manager, respondent Jose M. Olbes, brought three truckloads of non-strikers and others, escorted by
armed men, who, despite the presence of eight entrances to the three buildings occupied by the
Companies, entered thru only one gate less than two meters wide and in the process, crashed thru the
picket line posted in front of the premises of the Insular Life Building. This resulted in injuries on the part
of the picketers and the strike-breakers; respondents brought against the picketers criminal charges,
only three of which were not dismissed, and these three only for slight misdemeanors. As a result of
these criminal actions, the respondents were able to obtain an injunction from the court of first instance
restraining the strikers from stopping, impeding, obstructing, etc. the free and peaceful use of the
Companies’ gates, entrance and driveway and the free movement of persons and vehicles to and from,
out and in, of the Companies’ buildings.
Verily, the above actuations of the respondents before and after the issuance of the letters, exhibit A
and B, yield the clear inference that the said letters formed of the respondents scheme to preclude if
not destroy unionism within them.
 II. The respondents did not merely discriminate against all the strikers in general. They separated the
active from the less active unionists on the basis of their militancy, or lack of it, on the picket lines.
Unionists belonging to the first category were refused readmission even after they were able to secure
clearances from the competent authorities with respect to the criminal charges filed against them.

It is noteworthy that — perhaps in an anticipatory effort to exculpate themselves from charges of

discrimination in the readmission of strikers returning to work — the respondents delegated the power
to readmit to a committee.

III. Anent the third assignment of error, the record shows that not a single dismissed striker was given
the opportunity to defend himself against the supposed charges against him. As earlier mentioned,
when the striking employees reported back for work on June 2, 1958, the respondents refused to
readmit them unless they first secured the necessary clearances; but when all, except three, were able
to secure and subsequently present the required clearances, the respondents still refused to take them
back.

Indeed, the individual cases of dismissed officers and members of the striking unions do not indicate
sufficient basis for dismissal

3. Labor Relations Case Digest: Complex

Electric V. NLRC (1999) G.R. No.
121315 July 19, 1999

G.R. No. 121315 July 19, 1999

Lessons Applicable: Unfair Labor Practice

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:
 Complex Electronics Corporation was engaged in the manufacture of electronic
products. It was actually a subcontractor of electronic products where its customers
gave their job orders, sent their own materials and consigned their equipment to it.
 The rank and file workers of Complex were organized into a union known as the
Complex Electronics Employees Association
 Complex received a facsimile message from Lite-On Philippines Electronics Co.,
requiring it to lower its price by 10%.
o Complex informed its Lite-On personnel that such request of lowering their selling price
by 10% was not feasible as they were already incurring losses at the present prices of
their products.
o Complex regretfully informed the employees that it was left with no alternative but to
close down the operations of the Lite-On Line
 retrenchment will not take place until after 1 month
 try to prolong the work for as many people as possible for as long as it can
 retrenchment pay as provided for by law i.e. half a month for every year of service in
accordance with Article 283 of the Labor Code of Philippines.
 Complex filed a notice of closure of the Lite-On Line with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) and the retrenchment of the ninety-seven (97) affected
employees.
 Union filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
 In the evening of April 6, 1992, the machinery, equipment and materials being used for
production at Complex were pulled-out from the company premises and transferred to
the premises of Ionics Circuit, Inc. (Ionics) at Cabuyao, Laguna.
o Fearful that the machinery, equipment and materials would be rendered inoperative and
unproductive due to the impending strike of the workers, the customers ordered their
pull-out and transfer to Ionics.
o Complex was compelled to cease operations
o Ionics contended that it was an entity separate and distinct from Complex and had been
in existence since July 5, 1984 or eight (8) years before the labor dispute arose at
Complex. Like Complex, it was also engaged in the semi-conductor business where the
machinery, equipment and materials were consigned to them by their customers
o President of Complex was also the President of Ionics, the latter denied having Qua as
their owner since he had no recorded subscription of P1,200,00.00 in Ionics as claimed
by the Union. Ionics further argued that the hiring of some displaced workers of
Complex was an exercise of management prerogatives.
 complaint was, thereafter, filed with the Labor Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for unfair
labor practice, illegal closure/illegal lockout, money claims for vacation leave, sick leave,
 unpaid wages, 13th month pay, damages and attorney's fees. The Union alleged that
the pull-out of the machinery, equipment and materials from the company premises,
which resulted to the sudden closure of the company was in violation of Section 3 and
8, Rule XIII, Book V of the Labor Code of the Philippines and the existing CBA
 Labor Arbiter: reinstate the 531 above-listed employees to their former position; charge
of slowdown strike filed by respondent Complex against the union is hereby dismissed
for lack of merit.
 NLRC: pay 531 complainants equivalent to one month pay in lieu of notice and
separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service and a fraction of
six months considered as one whole year.

ISSUE: W/N there was ULP

HELD:
NO.
 A "runaway shop" is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners from one
location to another to escape union labor regulations or state laws, but the term is also
used to describe a plant removed to a new location in order to discriminate against
employees at the old plant because of their union activities.
o It is one wherein the employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily
closes its business for anti-union purposes
o relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons
o Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. At
the time the labor dispute arose at Complex, Ionics was already existing as an
independent company.
o The Union failed to show that the primary reason for the closure of the establishment
was due to the union activities of the employees.
o The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned or controlled by the same or
single stockholder is not a sufficient ground for disregarding separate corporate
personalities.
 No illegal lockout/illegal dismissal
o closure, therefore, was not motivated by the union activities of the employees, but rather
by necessity since it can no longer engage in production without the much needed
materials, equipment and machinery.
o The determination to cease operation is a prerogative of management that is usually not
interfered with by the State as no employer can be required to continue operating at a
loss simply to maintain the workers in employment.
 personal liability of Lawrence Qua- absence of malice or bad faith, a stockholder or an
officer of a corporation cannot be made personally liable for corporate liabilities.
 We see no valid and cogent reason why petitioner should not be likewise sanctioned
for its failure to serve the mandatory written notice. Under the attendant facts, we find
the amount of P5,000.00, to be just and reasonable.

CORPORATION,
DEVELOPMENT
L.
0 PROGRESSIVEJORGE
4.

4. PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JORGE L. ARANETA, JUDY A. ROXAS, MANUEL B. JOVER

, RAMON LLORENTE and PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS and ARANETA COLISEUM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, respondents.

G.R. No. L-39546 November 29, 1977|

FERNANDEZ, J.:

FACTS:

In September 1962, Araneta Coliseum Employees Association (ACEA) a legitimate labor organization in
behalf of forty-eight (48) members, instituted Case No. 3304-ULP for unfair labor practice in the Court of
Industrial Relations against Progressive Development Corporation (PDC), a domestic business entity
operating the Araneta Coliseum, Jorge Araneta, Judy A. Roxas, Manuel B. Jover and Ramon Llorente, as
officers of the corporation PDC and Progressive Employees Union (PEU), a labor organization existing in
the PDC. The complaint alleged that the PDC, through its officers, initiated a move to disauthorize the
counsel of the complainant ACEA from appearing in a union conference with the respondents,
petitioners herein; that the supervisors of PDC encouraged, and assisted in, the formation of the
Progressive Employees Union (PEU) and coerced the employees, particularly the individual
complainants, to disaffiliate from the complainant6.

Ernesto Tejares 12. Ariston Eruela Jr.' The respondents again reneged on its commitment; complainants
filed the present complaint. But for all their persistence, the risk they had to undergo in conducting a
strike in the face of overwhelming odds, complainants in an ironic4Cheers| aranas | arriola |
buenaventura | cabanilla | chua | estoperes | go | lalia | lapinig | macaraeg | muoz | panghulan |
peralta | valparaiso | 2012-2013union and to affiliate with the PEU; that in July and August 1962 the
respondents, petitioners herein, discriminated against the individual complainants by either not giving
them their working schedules, lessening their number of working days and eventually dismissing them
from their employment, because of their refusal to disaffiliate from their union and join the Progressive
Employees Union; The respondents, corporation PDC, Jorge L. Araneta, Judy A. Roxas and Manuel B.
Jover claimed in their answer that the individual complainants were merely casuals or temporary
employees and their services depended on the availability of work as ushers, usherettes, guards and
janitors when there were shows, performances or exhibits at the Araneta Coliseum.

They alleged that they did not interfere with the complainant union and in fact they met and conferred
with said union's counsel; that they did not initiate nor assist the PEU; that they did not discriminate
against the individual complainants nor dismiss them as said complainants were only casuals or
temporary employees; that the services of complainant Gregorio Viray were terminated because the
office to which he was assigned was closed and that complainant Reynaldo Asis was dismissed for
collecting his salary without actually rendering the corresponding services. 4 The Progressive Employees
Union (PEU) denied that the officers and supervisors of the corporation PDC initiated and assisted in its
formation and claimed that its organization is the joint efforts of the overwhelming majority of the
employees and laborers of the corporation PDC, free from any undue influence, interference and/or
intimidation from any party. The PEU claimed that the institution of the unfair labor practice case by the
complainants is a desperate attempt to unduly delay the proceedings in Case No. 1054-MC for
certification election. 5 Ramon Llorente denied all imputations against him in the complaint and alleged
that Gregorio Viray, a casual janitor, was separated when his office was closed. Llorente claimed that he
severed his employment with the PDC in June 1962 and could not have committed the acts complained
of against him in July and August 1962.

ISSUE: Whether or not Progressive Development Corporation is guilty of unfair labor practice?

HELD: YES. It is contended by the petitioners that the individual complainants and members of the
respondent ACEA were naturally hired by the petitioner company only as casuals, extras or
replacements in various positions of ushers, usherettes, Porters, attendants and/or janitors, and all in
rotation basis only because of the numerous other applicants for accommodation, hence there was no
basis for petitioners to have dismissed with discrimination the individual complainants and members of
the respondent ACEA because of petitioners' practice of hiring by rotation. 10 This contention is without
merit. As testified to by Jose Generoso, Jr., President of the Progressive Employees Union, their
members were also casual employees but are now regulars. This fact shows that the casual status of the
members of ACEA could not have been the cause of their dismissals. Moreover, as testified to by
Concordia Araiza, a witness for petitioners, it was the Personnel Manager, Ramon Llorente, who was in
charge of assigning ushers and usherettes every time there were scheduled shows; and that while the
Araneta Coliseum maintained only such number of ushers, usherettes and janitors, if their services were
needed, every time there was a scheduled show or during show days, the Coliseum hired additional
personnel. 11 It is, therefore, clear that the services of the members of the ACEA were also needed,
their casual status notwithstanding. It appears that the individual complainants, during show days, were
always scheduled to work until June 1962 when they were not included in the schedule anymore. 12
This virtually amounted to dismissal, without prior notice. Their not being included in thelist of schedule
since June 1962 could only be the result of petitioners' earlier threat of dismissal should said
complainants refuse to heed petitioners' admonition for them to resign from the ACEA. From the facts
of record, it is clear that the individual complainants were dismissed because they refused to resign
from the Araneta Coliseum Employees Association and to affiliate with the Progressive Employees Union
which was being aided and abetted by the Progressive Development Corporation. The assertion of the
petitioner Progressive Development Corporation and its officials that they have nothing to do with the
formation of the Progressive Employees Union is not supported by the facts of record. The President
then of the Progressive Employees Union was Jose Generoso, Jr., Stage Manager of the Progressive
Development Corporation. The stage Manager, Generoso, has supervisory power over the twenty-two
(22) employees under him. Generoso was then the No. 2 man in the Araneta Coliseum, being an
assistant of the Director of said Coliseum. While the Progressive Employees Union was allegedly
organized on June 26, 1962, it was only on July 11, 1962 that its existence was publicly announced when
the management of the petitioner corporation refused to meet with the Araneta Coliseum Employees
Association. The Progressive Employees Union never collected dues from its members and all their
members are now regular employees and are still working in the construction unit of the Philippine
Development Corporation.

There is evidence that the Progressive Employees Union became inactive after the death of Atty.
Reonista the former counsel of the Progressive Development Corporation. 14 This shows that the
Progressive Employees Union was organized to camouflage the petitioner corporation's dislike for the
Araneta Coliseum Employees Association and to stave off the latter's recognition. It is also a fact that the
Progressive Employees Union, after exerting efforts to win in the Certification Election, Case No. 1054-
MC, did not conclude and enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the management. According
to Generoso, the Progressive Employees Union was already disbanded. 15 As regards Gregorio Viray, it is
not refuted that he was an active member of the ACEA and that he was in charge of around eighteen
(18) janitors. There can be no other reason for dismissal except his active membership with the Araneta
Coliseum Employees Association because the office where he was working was not closed. After Ramon
Llorente with whom Viray was assigned had resigned, his position was taken over by Alicia Nonado
Iglesias. 16 The evidence shows that Reynaldo Asis, like the other individual complainants, was
dismissed because he refused to join the Progressive Employees Union. The petitioners were correctly
found to have committed acts constituting unfair labor practice. Under the circumstances and equity of
the case, and considering the length of time and the union-busting activities of petitioner, the individual
complainants are granted back wages for five (5) years without qualification or deduction. WHEREFORE,
the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with the modification that the Progressive Development
Corporation is ordered to reinstate the individual complainants to their former or substantially
equivalent positions with the same rank and compensation and without loss of seniority and other
privileges within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of this decision and said Progressive
Development Corporation is further ordered to pay the individual complainants back wages equivalent
to five (5) years without qualification or deduction, with costs against the petitioners. This decision is
declared immediately executory. SO ORDERED.