004 Colegio De San Juan De letran v.

Assoc of faculty of Letran (Rayos) was altered from Mondays to Fridays to Tuesdays to Saturdays. When she did not
September 18 2000| Kapunan, J. | Duty to Bargain Collectively budge, although her schedule was changed, she was outrightly dismissed for
PETITIONER: Colegio De San Juan De Letran alleged insubordination.
RESPONDENTS: Association of faculty of Letran DOCTRINE: 1. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to
SUMMARY: The first president of the Union Abtria iniatiated the renegotiation the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to
for the CBA with San Juan for the last 2 years of the CBA’s lifetime. In the same bargain collectively. In the case at bar, petitioner's actuation shows a lack of
year, there was an election for a new president named Eleanor Ambas. The 2 sincere desire to negotiate rendering it guilty of unfair labor practice.
parties then eventually agreed to disregared the UNSIGNED CBA and to start 2. In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the bargaining process there
negotiation on a new 5 year CBA starting 1994-1999. On 1996, the union must be a valid petition for certification election raising a legitimate
submitted its proposals to San Juan. In the meantime Ambas (new president) was representation issue. Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification election
informed that her schedule was being changed from Mon-Fri to Tues to Sat. does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer.
Ambas protested and requested management to submit the issue to a grievance FACTS:
machinery under the OLD CBA. However, Ambas was dismissed for alleged 1. Salvador Abtria, then President of respondent union, Association of
insubordination. Hence, the Union amended its notice of strike to include Ambas’ Employees and Faculty of Letran, initiated the renegotiation of itsCBA with
dismissal. Both parties then tried to discuss the ground rules for the CBA petitioner Colegio de San Juan de Letran for the last two (2) years of the
renegotiation. However, San Juan stopped the negotiations after it received INFO CBA's 5 year lifetime from 1989-1994.
that a NEW group of employees filed a petition for certification election. On June 2. On the same year, the union elected a new set of officers wherein private
18, 1996 the union did a strike and Sec of Labor assumed jurisdiction & ordered respondent Eleanor Ambas emerged as the newly elected President.
all striking employees including union pres. To return to work and for San Juan to 3. Ambas wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but San Juan,
accept them back under the same terms and conditions before the actual strike. through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was already prepared for
San Juan readmitted everyone except AMBAS. Sec of Labor declared San juan signing by the parties. The parties submitted the disputed CBA to a
guilty of unfair labor practice on 2 counts and directing the reinstatement of referendum by the union members, who eventually rejected the said CBA.
Amabas with backwages. San Juan filed an MR but it was denied. San Juan 4. San Juan accused the union of bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC.
sought a review for the order of Sec. Labor before the CA. CA dismissed the Labor Arbiter Edgardo M. Madriaga decided in favor of San Juan.
petition and affirmed the findings of the secretary of labor. Hence, the present 5. However, the Labor Arbiter's decision was reversed on appeal before the
petition. ISSUE: 1) Whether San Juan is guilty of unfair Labor practice by NLRC
refusing to bargain with the Union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing 6. On January 1996, the union notified the National Conciliation and
negotiations for a new CBA upon mere info. That a petition for certificate election Mediation Board (NCMB) of its intention to strike on the grounds (sic) of
has been filed by another legitimate labor Org.? Yes, guilty of unfair labor petitioner's: non-compliance with the NLRC (1) order to delete the name of
practice. SC DENIED the petition. San Juan's actuation showed a lack of sincere Atty. Federico Leynes as the union's legal counsel; and (2) refusal to
desire to negotiate rendering it guilty of unfair labor practice. It’s utter lack of bargain.
interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a timely 7. On January 18, 1996, the parties agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and
reply to the proposals presented by the latter. More than a month after the to start negotiation on a new 5 year CBA starting 1994-1999.
proposals were submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any 8. On February 7, 1996, the union submitted its proposals to San Juan, which
counterproposals. Said inaction prompted the union to file its second notified the union six days later or on February 13, 1996 that the same had
notice of strike on March 13, 1996. No explanation as to why the Board of been submitted to its Board of Trustees.
Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as its excuse for failing to 9. In the meantime, Ambas was informed that her work schedule was being
file its reply. San Juan clearly violated Article 250 of the Labor Code governing changed from Monday to Friday to Tuesday to Saturday. Ambas protested
the procedure in collective bargaining. and requested management to submit the issue to a grievance machinery
2) Whether the termination of the union president amounts to an interference of under the old CBA.
the employees right to self-organization? Yes, the dismissal was in violation of the 10. Due to San Juan’s inaction, the union led a notice of strike on March 13,
employees' right to self-organization. The factual backdrop of the termination of 1996. The parties met on March 27, 1996 before the NCMB to discuss the
Ms. Ambas led to no other conclusion that she was dismissed in order to strip the ground rules for the negotiation. On March 29, 1996, the union received
union of a leader who would fight for the right of her co-workers at the bargaining petitioner's letter dismissing Ambas for alleged insubordination. Hence, the
table. The record showed that it was when Ms. Ambas was the union president union amended its notice of strike to include Ambas' dismissal.
and during the period of tense and difficult negotiations when her work schedule
 11. On April 20, 1996, both parties again discussed the ground rules for the good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to
CBA renegotiation. However, petitioner stopped the negotiations after wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment
itpurportedly received information that a new group of employees had led a including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising
petition for certification election. under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such
12. Union went on strike. Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel
jurisdiction and ordered all striking employees including the union president any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.
to return to work and for San Juan to accept them back under the same 5. There is a requirement on both parties of the performance of the mutual
terms and conditions before the actual strike. San Juanreadmitted the obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for
striking members except Ambas. the purpose of negotiating an agreement. The Union lived up to this
13. The parties then submitted their pleadings including their position papers. requisite when it presented its proposals for the CBA to petitioner on
14. Sec of Labor issued an order declaring petitioner guilty of unfair labor February 7, 1996. On the other hand, San Juan devised ways and means in
practice on two counts and directing the reinstatement of private respondent order to prevent the negotiation. This is a clear violation of Article 250
Ambas with backwages. San Juan filed a motion for reconsideration which Procedure in collective bargaining. The following procedures shall be
was denied in an Order dated May 29, 1997. observed in collective bargaining: (a) When a party desires to negotiate
15. MR DENIED, San Juan sought a review of the order of the Secretary of an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a
Labor and Employment before the Court of Appeals. CA dismissed the statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto
petition and affirmed the findings of the Secretary of Labor and not later than 10 calendar days from receipt of such notice.
Employment. 6. In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the bargaining process
there must be a valid petition for certification election raising a legitimate
ISSUE/s: representation issue.
(1) Whether petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with 7. Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification election does not ipso
the union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new CBA facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. The petition
upon mere information that a petition for certification has been filed by another must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its
legitimate labor organization? Yes, guilty of unfair labor practice. SC DENIED the Implementing Rules. Foremost is that a petition for certification election
petition. San Juan's actuation showed a lack of sincere desire to negotiate rendering it must be filed during the sixty-day freedom period.
guilty of unfair labor practice. 8. The "Contract Bar Rule" - If a collective bargaining agreement has
been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a
(2) Whether the termination of the union president amounts to an interference of the petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only
employees' right to self-organization? Yes, the dismissal was in violation of the be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such
employees' right to self-organization. agreement." No petition for certification election for any representation
issue may be filed after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. The old
RULING: The petition is without merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the CBA is extended until a new one is signed. The rule is that despite the lapse
petition is DENIED for lack of merit. So ORDERED. of the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as
continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly
RATIO: executed. Hence, the contract bar rule still applies.
Issue 1: 9. Consequently, there is no legitimate representation issue and, as such, the
1. SC finds that San Juan has not shown any compelling reason sufficient to filing did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation.
overturn the ruling of the Court of Appeals alarming the findings of the 10. There is no doubt that petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by its stern
Secretary of Labor and Employment. refusal to bargain in good faith with respondent union.
2. It is axiomatic that the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding
on the Supreme Court and will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal. Issue 2:
3. In this case, the San Juan failed to show any extraordinary circumstance 1. Concerning the issue on the validity of the termination of the union
justifying a departure from this established doctrine. president, we hold that the dismissal was in violation of the employees' right
4. Article 252 of the Labor Code defines the meaning of the phrase "duty to to self-organization. To justify the dismissal, petitioner asserts that the
bargain collectively," as follows: Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain union president was terminated for cause, allegedly for insubordination for
collectively. The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of her failure to comply with new working schedule assigned to her, and
a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in
 pursuant to its managerial prerogative to discipline and/or dismiss its
employees.
2. While we recognize the right of the employer to terminate the services of an
employee for a just or authorized cause, nevertheless, the dismissal of
employees must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the
tenets of equity and fair play. The employer's right to terminate the services
of an employee for just or authorized cause must be exercised in good faith.
More importantly, it must not amount to interfering with, restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization
because it would amount to, as in this case, unlawful labor practice under
Article 248 of the Labor Code.
3. The termination of Ms. Ambas leads us to no other conclusion that she was
dismissed in order to strip the union of a leader who would fight for the
right of her co-workers at the bargaining table.
4. When she did not budge, although her schedule was changed, she was
outrightly dismissed for alleged insubordination. We quote with approval
the following findings of the Secretary of Labor on this matter, to wit:
"Assuming arguendo that Ms. Ambas was guilty, such disobedience was
not, however, a valid ground to terminate her employment. The disputed
management action was directly connected with Ms. Ambas' determination
to change the complexion of the CBA.
5. As a matter of fact, Ms. Ambas position in faithfully and truthfully carrying
out her duties and responsibilities to her Union and its members in getting a
fair share of the fruits of their collective endeavors was the proximate cause
for her dismissal, the charge insubordination being merely a ploy to give a
color of legality to the contemplated management action dismiss her.
6. Thus, the dismissal of Ms. Ambas was heavily tainted with and
evidently done in bad faith. Manifestly, it was designed to interfere with
the members' right to self-organization. Admittedly, management has
the prerogative to discipline its employees for insubordination. But
when the exercise of such management right tends to interfere with the
employees' right to self-organization, it amounts to unionbusting and is
therefore a prohibited act.
7. When management refused to treat the charge of insubordination as a
grievance within the scope of the Grievance Machinery, the action of the
College in dismissing her from the service became arbitrary, capricious and
whimsical, and therefore violated Ms. Ambas' right to due process."
8. The right to self-organization of employees must not be interfered with
by the employer on the pretext of exercising management prerogative
of disciplining its employees. In this case, the totality of conduct of the
employer shows an evident attempt to restrain the employees from fully
exercising their rights under the law. This cannot be done under the
Labor Code.