Facts: Petitioner University of the Immaculate Conception is a private educational institution located in Davao City.
Private respondent Teodora C. Axalan is a regular faculty member in the university holding the position of Associate Professor II. Aside from being a regular faculty member, Axalan is the elected president of the employees’ union.
From 18 November to 22 November 2002, Axalan attended a seminar in Quezon City on website development. Axalan then received a memorandum6 from Dean Maria Rosa Celestial asking her to explain in writing why she should not be dismissed for having been absent without official leave.
In her letter, Axalan claimed that she held online classes while attending the seminar. She explained that she was under the impression that faculty members would not be marked absent even if they were not physically present in the classroom as long as they conducted online classes. In reply, Dean Celestial relayed to Axalan the message of the university president that no administrative charge would be filed if Axalan would admit having been absent without official leave and write a letter of apology seeking forgiveness. Convinced that she could not be deemed absent since she held online classes, Axalan opted not to write the letter of admission and contrition the university president requested. The Dean wrote Axalan that the university president had created an ad hoc grievance committee to investigate the AWOL charge.
From 28 January to 3 February 2003, Axalan attended a seminar in Baguio City on advanced paralegal training. Dean Celestial wrote Axalan informing her that her participation in the paralegal seminar in Baguio City was the subject of a second AWOL charge.11 The dean asked Axalan to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against her.
After conducting hearings and receiving evidence, the ad hoc grievance committee found Axalan to have incurred AWOL on both instances and recommended that Axalan be suspended without pay for six months on each AWOL charge. The university president approved the committee’s recommendation.On 1 December 2003, Axalan filed a complaint against the university for illegal suspension, constructive dismissal, reinstatement with backwages, and unfair labor practice with prayer for damages and attorney’s fees.
The university moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. The university maintained that jurisdiction lay in the voluntary arbitrator.
On 11 October 2004, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision holding that the suspension of Axalan amounted to constructive dismissal entitling her to reinstatement and payment of backwages, salary differentials, damages, and attorney’s fees,
The NLRC held that the Labor Arbiter, not the voluntary arbitrator, had jurisdiction as the controversy did not pertain to a dispute involving the union and the university.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. In its 13 December 2007 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed the university’s petition.
Issue: 1) W/N the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction over the labor dispute;
(2) whether Axalan was constructively dismissed;
Held: The University contends that based on the transcript of stenographic notes from the ad hoc grievance committee hearing held on 20 February 2003, the parties agreed that the voluntary arbitrator would have jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
In San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC,26 the Court ruled that for the exception to apply, there must be agreement between the parties clearly conferring jurisdiction to the voluntary arbitrator. Such agreement may be stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement. However, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, it is enough that there is evidence on record showing the parties have agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration.27
As can be gleaned from the transcript of stenographic notes of the administrative hearing held on 20 February 2003, the parties in this case clearly agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration.
Thus, the Labor Arbiter should have immediately disposed of the complaint and referred the same to the voluntary arbitrator when the university moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by the
evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. Patently erroneous findings of the Labor Arbiter, even when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are not binding on this Court.
As to the second issue, constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with no other option but to quit.
In this case however, there was no cessation of employment relations between the parties.It is unrefuted that Axalan promptly resumed teaching at the university right after the expiration of the suspension period. In other words, Axalan never quit. Hence, Axalan cannot claim that she was left with no choice but to quit, a crucial element in a finding of constructive dismissal. Thus, Axalan cannot be deemed to have been constructively dismissed.
Significantly, at the time the Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision on 11 October 2004, Axalan had already returned to her teaching job at the university on 1 October 2004. The Labor Arbiter’s Decision ordering the reinstatement of Axalan, who at the time had already returned to work, is thus absurd.
There being no constructive dismissal, there is no legal basis for the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement as well as payment of backwages, salary differentials, damages, and attorney’s fees.30 Thus, the third issue raised in the petition is now moot
PRINCE TRANSPORT, Inc. and Mr. RENATO CLAROS vs. DIOSDADO GARCIA et.al; G.R. No. 167291; January 12, 2011; SECOND DIVISION; PERALTA, J.:
Facts: Respondents were employees of herein petitioner company. The latter is engaged in the business of transporting of passengers by land. The controversy begun when the company reduced the commissions of the respondents, this led the latter to hold meetings to discuss the protection of their interests as employees. The company learned about this meetings and suspected that his employees were about to form a union. They made known to its employees his objection in the formation of a union. Later on, the employees requested for a cash advance and the company denied it but allowed some to the employees.
Because of this the respondents formed a union, the company then transferred the members of the union and its sympathizers to one of its sub-companies Lubas Transport Inc. The respondents then filed a complaint in the LA against the company.
The LA dismissed the same. Respondents appealed to the NLRC, and the latter partially granted that same. The company appealed to the CA and the latter dismissed said petition.
Issue: W/N the Company is guilty of ULP in transferring its employees who formed a Union and its sympathizers to its sub-company Lubas.
Held: The respondents’ transfer of work assignments to Lubas was designed by petitioners as a subterfuge to foil the former’s right to organize themselves into a union. Under Article 248 (a) and (e) of the Labor Code, an employer is guilty of unfair labor practice if it interferes with, restrains or coerces its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or if it discriminates in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.
Indeed, evidence of petitioners' unfair labor practice is shown by the established fact that, after respondents' transfer to Lubas, petitioners left them high and dry insofar as the operations of Lubas was concerned. The Court finds no error in the findings and conclusion of the CA that petitioners "withheld the necessary financial and logistic support such as spare parts, and repair and maintenance of the transferred buses until only two units remained in running condition." This left respondents virtually jobless.
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its owner, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION vs. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC); G.R. No. 178296; January 12, 2011; SECOND DIVISION;
NACHURA, J.
Facts: On October 11, 1995, respondent filed with the Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) a petition for certification election.2 The Med-Arbiter granted the petition on February 14, 1996 and ordered the holding of a certification election.3 On appeal, the DOLE Secretary, in a Resolution dated August 15, 1996, affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s order and remanded the case to the Med-Arbiter for the holding of a preelection conference on February 26, 1997. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied on September 23, 1996
The preelection conference was not held as initially scheduled; it was held a year later, or on February 20, 1998. Petitioner moved to archive or to dismiss the petition due to alleged repeated non-appearance of respondent. The latter agreed to suspend proceedings until further notice. The preelection conference resumed on January 29, 2000.
Subsequently, petitioner discovered that respondent had failed to submit to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) its annual financial report for several years and the list of its members since it filed its registration papers in 1995. Consequently, on May 19, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration of respondent, on the ground of the non-submission of the said documents. Petitioner prayed that respondent’s Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter be cancelled and its name be deleted from the list of legitimate labor organizations. It further requested the suspension of the certification election proceedings.
On June 1, 2000, petitioner reiterated its request by filing a Motion to Dismiss or Suspend the [Certification Election] Proceedings,5 arguing that the dismissal or suspension of the proceedings is warranted, considering that the legitimacy of respondent is seriously being challenged in the petition for cancellation of registration. Petitioner maintained that the resolution of the issue of whether respondent is a legitimate labor organization is crucial to the issue of whether it may exercise rights of a legitimate labor organization, which include the right to be certified as the bargaining agent of the covered employees.
Nevertheless, the certification election pushed through on June 23, 2000. Respondent emerged as the winner.
On June 28, 2000, petitioner filed a Protest with Motion to Defer Certification of Election Results and Winner,7 stating that the certification election held on June 23, 2000 was an exercise in futility because, once respondent’s registration is cancelled, it would no longer be entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. Petitioner also claimed that some of respondent’s members were not qualified to join the union because they were either confidential employees or managerial employees
Med-Arbiter held that the pendency of a petition for cancellation of registration is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. Thus, in an Order11 dated January 26, 2001, the Med-Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s protest, and certified respondent as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all supervisory employees.
Petitioner subsequently appealed the said Order to the DOLE Secretary.12 The appeal was later dismissed by DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas (DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas) in the Resolution of August 21, 2002.13 Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the motion was also denied.
In the meantime, Regional Director Alex E. Maraan (Regional Director Maraan) of DOLE-NCR finally resolved the petition for cancellation of registration. While finding that respondent had indeed failed to file financial reports and the list of its members for several years, he, nonetheless, denied the petition, ratiocinating that freedom of association and the employees’ right to self-organization are more substantive considerations. He took into account the fact that respondent won the certification election and that it had already been certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. In view of the foregoing, Regional Director Maraan—
while emphasizing that the non-compliance with the law is not viewed with favor—considered the belated submission of the annual financial reports and the list of members as sufficient compliance thereof and considered them as having been submitted on time. The dispositive portion of the decision15 dated December 29, 2001 reads:
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the decision to the BLR.17 BLR Director Hans Leo Cacdac inhibited himself from the case because he had been a former counsel of respondent.
In view of Director Cacdac’s inhibition, DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas took cognizance of the appeal. In a resolution18 dated February 21, 2003, she dismissed the appeal, holding that the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of association and right of workers to self-organization outweighed respondent’s noncompliance with the statutory requirements to maintain its status as a legitimate labor organization.
In a Decision dated May 30, 2005, the CA denied the petition. The CA opined that the DOLE Secretary may legally assume jurisdiction over an appeal from the decision of the Regional Director in the event that the Director of the BLR inhibits himself from the case. According to the CA, in the absence of the BLR Director, there is no person more competent to resolve the appeal than the DOLE Secretary. The CA brushed aside the allegation of bias and partiality on the part of the DOLE Secretary, considering that such allegation was not supported by any evidence.
Issue: W/N failure to submit reportorial requirements to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) is a ground for cancellation of registration.
Held: No. Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty.
It is undisputed that appellee failed to submit its annual financial reports and list of individual members in accordance with Article 239 of the Labor Code. However, the existence of this ground should not necessarily lead to the cancellation of union registration. Article 239 recognizes the regulatory authority of the State to exact compliance with reporting requirements. Yet there is more at stake in this case than merely monitoring union activities and requiring periodic documentation thereof.
The more substantive considerations involve the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association and right of workers to self-organization. Also involved is the public policy to promote free trade unionism and collective bargaining as instruments of industrial peace and democracy. An overly stringent interpretation of the statute governing cancellation of union registration without regard to surrounding circumstances cannot be allowed.
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL [CABEU-NFL], represented by its President, PABLITO SAGURAN vs. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS, INC. [CAB], represented by its President, ANTONIO STEVEN L.
CHAN; G.R. No. 186605; November 17, 2010; SECOND DIVISION;
MENDOZA, J
FACTS: Respondent Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. (CAB) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. It is represented by its President, Antonio Steven L. Chan (Chan), in this proceeding. CABEU-NFL is a duly registered labor union and a certified bargaining agent of the CAB rank-and-file employees, represented by its President, Pablito Saguran (Saguran).
On January 19, 2004, CABEU-NFL sent CAB a proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)6 seeking increases in the daily wage and vacation and sick leave benefits of the monthly employees and the grant of leave benefits and 13th month pay to seasonal workers. On March 27, 2004, CAB responded with a counter-proposal to the effect that the production bonus incentive and special production bonus and incentives be maintained. In addition, respondent CAB agreed to execute a pro-rated increase of wages every time the government would mandate an increase in the minimum wage. CAB, however, did not agree to grant additional and separate Christmas bonuses. On May 21, 2004, CAB received an Amended Union Proposal sent by CABEU-NFL reducing its previous demand regarding wages and bonuses. CAB, however, maintained its position on the matter. Thus, the collective bargaining negotiations resulted in a deadlock. On account of the impasse, "CABEU-NFL filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board(NCMB). The NCMB then assumed conciliatory-mediation jurisdiction and summoned the parties to conciliation conferences."
In its June 2, 2005 Letter sent to CAB (letter-request), CABEU-NFL requested copies of CAB’s annual financial statements from 2001 to 2004 and asked for the resumption of conciliation meetings. CAB replied through its June 14, 2005 Letter (letter-response) to NCMB Regional Director of Dumaguete City Isidro Cepeda, which reads:
Mr. Pablito Saguran who is no longer an employee of the Central for he was one of those lawfully terminated due to an authorized cause and the Union which Mr. Saguran purportedly represents has already lost its majority status by reason of the disauthorization and withdrawal of support thereto by more than 90% of the rank and file employees in the bargaining unit of Central sometime in January, 2005, and the workers themselves, acting as principal, after disauthorizing the previous agent CABEU-NFL have organized themselves into a new Union known as Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Labor Association (CABELA) and after obtaining their registration certificate and making due representation that it is a duly organized union representing almost all the rank and file workers in the Central, had concluded a new collective bargaining agreement with the Central on April 21, 2005 in Dumaguete City
It appears that the NCMB failed to act on the letter-response of CAB. Neither did it convene CAB and CABEU-NFL to continue the negotiations between them. Reacting from the letter-response of CAB, CABEU-NFL filed a Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice for the former’s refusal to bargain with it.
On July 13, 2006, the LA dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the NLRC in its July 18, 2007 Decision reversed the LA’s decision and found CAB guilty of unfair labor practice. Unsatisfied, CAB elevated the matter to the CA by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in reversing the LA decision and issuing the questioned resolution.
On September 26, 2008, the CA found CAB’s petition meritorious and reversed the NLRC decision and resolution.
Issue: W/the company is guilty of ULP
HELD: No, for a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that CAB was motivated by ill will, "bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted x x x" in suspending
negotiations with CABEU-NFL. Notably, CAB believed that CABEU-NFL was no longer the representative of the workers. It just wanted to foster industrial peace by bowing to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its rank and file workers and by negotiating and concluding in good faith a CBA with CABELA." Such actions of CAB are nowhere tantamount to anti-unionism, the evil sought to be punished in cases of unfair labor practices.