THIRD
DIVISION
|
NATIONAL
Petitioner, - versus
- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and ACESITE PHILIPPINES HOTEL CORPORATION, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 179402 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA,
and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: September 30, 2008 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1]
dated 30 May 2007 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96171,
which affirmed the Resolution[2]
dated 5 May 2006 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR
CC No. 000307-05 NCMB NCR NS 09-199-05, dismissing for lack of merit the
complaint for unfair labor practice filed by petitioner National Union of
Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel
(NUWHRAIN) against Manila Pavilion Hotel (the Hotel).
Petitioner NUWHRAIN is a legitimate labor organization composed of rank-and-file employees of the Hotel,[3] while respondent Acesite Philippines Hotel Corporation is the owner and operator of said Hotel.[4]
The factual antecedents of the instant
Petition are as follows:
The Hotel
entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with HI-MANILA PAVILION HOTEL
LABOR UNION (HIMPHLU), the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees of the Hotel. Both parties
consented that the representation aspect and other non-economic provisions of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement were to be effective for five years or
until
During the
60-day freedom period which preceded the expiration of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, starting on
On
On
After the
lapse of the 60-day freedom period, but pending the disposition of the Petition
for Certification Election filed by NUWHRAIN, HIMPHLU served the Hotel with a
written demand dated
Section 2. DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO UNION SECURITY CLAUSE. Accordingly, failure to join the UNION within the period specified in the immediately preceding section or failure to maintain membership with the UNION in good standing either through resignation or expulsion from the UNION in accordance with the UNION’s Constitution and by-laws due to disloyalty, joining another union or non-payment of UNION dues shall be a ground for the UNION to demand the dismissal from the HOTEL of the employee concerned. The demand shall be accompanied by the UNION’s investigation report and the HOTEL shall act accordingly subject to existing laws and jurisprudence on the matter, provided, however, that the UNION shall hold the HOTEL free and harmless from any and all liabilities that may arise should the dismissed employee question in any manner the dismissal. The HOTEL shall not, however, be compelled to act on any such UNION demand if made within a period of sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of this agreement. (Emphasis provided)
On
The Hotel
called the contending unions and the employees concerned for a reconciliatory
conference in an attempt to avoid the dismissal of the 36 employees. The reconciliatory conferences facilitated by
the Hotel were held on
NUWHRAIN
asserted that the Hotel committed unfair labor practice when it issued the
Notices to the 36 employees who switched allegiance from HIMPHLU to NUWHRAIN. During the reconciliatory conference held on P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P20,000.00[17]
Respondent
countered that it merely complied with its contractual obligations with HIMPHLU
when it issued the assailed Notices, and clarified that none of the 36
employees were dismissed by the Hotel.
It further denied that respondent’s Vice President Norma Azores and the
Hotel’s Resident Manager Bernardo Corpus, Jr. made the statements attributed to
them, purportedly expressing their preference for HIMPHLU during the
reconciliatory conferences. Thus,
respondent insisted that it did not commit unfair labor practice, nor was it
liable for moral and exemplary damages.[18]
In a
Resolution[19]
dated
NUWHRAIN
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing NLRC Resolution. It was denied by the NLRC in another
Resolution dated
In the
meantime, on
On 30 May
2007, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision[22]
in C.A. G.R. SP No. 96171, upholding the Resolution dated 5 May 2006 of the
NLRC in NLRC NCR CC No. 000307-05 NCMB NCR NS 09-199-05. It declared that the Hotel had acted
prudently when it issued the Notices to the 36 employees after HIMPHLU demanded
their dismissal. It clarified that these
Notices did not amount to the termination of the employees concerned but merely
sought their explanation on why the union security clause should not be applied
to them. The appellate court also gave
credence to the denial by the officers of the respondent and the Hotel that
they made statements favoring HIMPHLU over NUWHRAIN during the reconciliatory
conferences. The Court of Appeals
further noted that the unhampered organization and registration of NUWHRAIN
negated its allegation that the Hotel required its employees not to join a
labor organization as a condition for their employment.
NUWHRAIN’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
aforementioned Decision of the Court of Appeals was denied by the same court in
a Resolution dated
Hence, the
present Petition, in which NUWHRAIN makes the following assignment of errors:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GAVE MORE PROBATIVE VALUE TO RESPONDENT HOTEL’S GENERAL AND UNSWORN DENIAL
VERSUS THAT OF PETITIONER’S SWORN TESTIMONY NARRATING RESPONDENT’S HOTEL’S
VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION. SUCH A RULING CONTRADICTS EXISTING
JURISPRUDENCE SUCH AS MASAGANA CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC. V. NLRC, G.R. NO. 106916,
SEPTEBMER 3, 1999; JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION V. NLRC, 246 SCRA 445 [1995]; and
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT HOTEL IS NOT GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 248 OF THE LABOR CODE AND THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN PROGRESSINVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V. CIR, 80 SCRA 434 [1977] and INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU V. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 37 SCRA 244 [1971].[24]
The instant Petition lacks merit, and
must accordingly be denied.
NUWHRAIN maintains that the respondent
committed unfair labor practice when (1) the Hotel issued the Notices to the 36
employees, former members of HIMPHLU, who switched allegiance to NUWHRAIN; and (2) the officers of the
respondent and the Hotel allegedly uttered statements during the reconciliatory
conferences indicating their preference for HIMPHLU and their disapproval of NUWHRAIN.
This argument is specious.
The records clearly show that the Notices
were issued after HIMPHLU served the Hotel with a letter dated
“Union security” is a generic term
which is applied to and comprehends “closed shop,” “union shop,” “maintenance
of membership” or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees the
obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting
employment.[25] Article
248(e) of the Labor Code recognizes the effectivity
of a union shop clause:
Art.
248. Unfair labor practices of employers.
(e) To discriminate 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. Nothing
in this Code or in any other law shall prevent the parties from requiring
membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for
employment, except of those employees who are already members of another union
at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
The law allows stipulations for
“union shop” and “closed shop” as a means of encouraging workers to join and
support the union of their choice in the protection of their rights and
interests vis-à-vis the employer. By
thus promoting unionism, workers are able to negotiate with management on an
even playing field and with more persuasiveness than if they were to
individually and separately bargain with the employer.[26] In Villar v. Inciong,[27]
this Court held that employees have the right to disaffiliate from their union
and form a new organization of their own; however, they must suffer the
consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
In the present case, the Collective Bargaining
Agreement includes a union security provision.[28] To avoid the clear possibility of liability
for breaching the union security clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
and to protect its own interests, the only sensible option left to the Hotel,
upon its receipt of the demand of HIMPHLU for the dismissal of the 36 employees,
was to conduct its own inquiry so as to make its own findings on whether there was
sufficient ground to dismiss the said employees who defected from HIMPHLU. The issuance by the respondent of the Notices
requiring the 36 employees to submit their explanations to the charges against
them was the reasonable and logical first step in a fair investigation. It is important to note that the Hotel did
not take further steps to terminate the 36 employees. Instead, it arranged for reconciliatory
conferences between the contending unions in order to avert the possibility of
dismissing the 36 employees for violation of the union security clause of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
This Court, in Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v.
Ramos[29] clearly
stated the general rule: the dismissal of an employee by the company pursuant
to a labor union’s demand in accordance with a union security agreement does
not constitute unfair labor practice. An employer is not considered guilty of
unfair labor practice if it merely complied in good faith with the request of
the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union
pursuant to the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.[30] In the case at bar, there is even less
possibility of sustaining a finding of guilt for unfair labor practice where
respondent did not dismiss the 36 employees, despite the insistence of HIMPHLU,
the sole bargaining agent for the rank and file employees of the Hotel, on the
basis of the union security clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The only act attributed to the respondent is
its issuance of the Notices which, contrary to being an unfair labor practice,
even afforded the employees involved a chance to be heard.
The cases cited by NUWHRAIN are not applicable to the present
case given their diverse factual backgrounds.
In Progressive Development
Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations,[31]
the Court declared the employer guilty of unfair labor practice for singling
out its workers who refused to join the employer’s preferred union by not
giving them work assignments and regular status, and eventually dismissing said
employees. The employer was found guilty
of unfair labor practice in Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd.,[32]
for (1) the dismissal of some of its striking employees without even giving
them an opportunity to explain their side; and (2) the acts of discrimination,
including the delayed reinstatement of striking employees and the offering of
bribes, bonuses, and wage increases to loyal employees after refusing to
bargain with the union. None of these
acts were attributed to the respondent in the present case.
NUWHRAIN claimed that during the reconciliatory
conferences, respondent’s Vice President Norma Azores expressed her
preference to deal with HIMPHLU, while blaming NUWHRAIN for the Hotel’s labor
problems; and the Hotel’s Resident Manager Bernardo Corpus, Jr. implored NUWHRAINs’ members to withdraw their Petition for
Certification Election and reaffirm their membership in HIMPHLU. Before the Court of Appeals, respondent
denied that such statements were made and that the officers of the respondent
and the Hotel were merely misquoted.
During the reconciliatory conferences, wherein the officers of the
respondent and the Hotel acted as mediators, one of the proposals laid on the
table to settle the dispute between the unions and preclude the dismissal of
the 36 employees was for NUWHRAIN to withdraw its Petition for Certification
Election and, in return, for HIMPHLU to re-accept the employees without
sanctions.
Still, NUWHRAIN asserts that the sworn testimony
signed by its six union members that the officers of the respondent and the
Hotel did utter the offending statements deserve more credence than the unsworn denial of respondent.
NUWHRAIN has the burden of proving its
allegation that Norma Azores and Bernardo Corpus, Jr. did make the statements
being attributed to them. The burden of
proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.[33]
And in labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or
such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion,[34]
which NUWHRAIN failed to discharge in the present case.
Undoubtedly, the members of NUWHRAIN
would owe their loyalty to their union, a natural bias which somewhat puts into
question their credibility as witnesses, especially since the success of this
case would also redound to their benefit. The fact that six members of the
union signed a single statement, instead of each member presenting their
sincere and individual narrations of events, gives the impression that it was
signed in a perfunctory manner and motivated by a sense of union solidarity. The self-serving statement signed by six of NUWHRAIN’s members
have very little weight, even if made under oath, absent any other independent
evidence which indicates that the officers of the respondent and the Hotel made
such hostile and coercive utterances that tend to interfere or influence the
employees’ exercise of the right to self-organization.
In
the case at bar, the NLRC found, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that the
officers of the respondent and the Hotel did not make statements that would
have constituted unfair labor practice.
Findings of fact of the NLRC are given much weight and are considered
conclusive by this Court. It is only
when such findings are not substantially supported by the records that this
Court will step in and make its independent evaluation of the facts. [35] Considering the expertise of these agencies
in matters pertaining to labor disputes, the findings of administrative
agencies of the Department of Labor are generally accorded not only respect,
but also finality.[36]
Even the surrounding circumstances
would contradict NUWHRAIN’s allegation that the respondent
interfered with or coerced its employees in their choice of union
membership. In their Reply before the
NLRC, NUWHRAIN admitted that before issuing its Notices, the respondent maintained a
neutral stand in the dispute between HIMPHLU and NUWHRAIN. [37] Neither did the respondent threaten the 36
employees who shifted their allegiance to NUWHRAIN with any form of reprisal; they were
not dismissed for their affiliation with NUWHRAIN.
The records are bereft of any instance that would show that respondent
rode roughshod over its employees’ freedom to decide which union to join.
In all, respondent had not committed
any act which would constitute unfair labor practice.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZAssociate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Jose C.
Mendoza and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring. Rollo, pp. 26-39.
[2] Signed
by Presiding Commissioner
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] CA rollo, p.
253. ART 248. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF
EMPLOYERS. It shall be unlawful for an
employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
(a)
To
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization;
(b)
To
require as a condition of employment
that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or
shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;
[16] Records,
pp. 6-8.
[17] Rollo, pp. 57-58.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Del Monte Philippines, Inc. v. Saldivar, G.R. No. 158620, 11 October 2006, 504 SCRA 192, 203-204; and Liberty Flour Mills Employees v. Liberty Flour Mills, Inc., G.R. Nos. 58768-70, 29 December 1989, 180 SCRA 668, 679-680.
[27] G.R.
No. L-50283-84,
[28] Section
1 of Article IV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement reads:
Section
1. UNION SHOP. All UNION members must,
as a condition for continued employment with the HOTEL, maintain their membership
with the
[29] 383 Phil. 329, 373 (2000).
[30] Soriano v. Atienza,
G.R. No. 68619,
[31] 170 Phil. 455 (1977).
[32] 147
Phil. 194 (1971).
[33] Luxuria Homes Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 989, 1000 (1999); Republic v. Obrecido III, G.R. No. 154380, 5 October 2005, 472 SCRA 114, 123; Noceda v. Court of Appeals, 372 Phil. 383, 399 (1999).
[34] Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. Brilliantes, 344 Phil. 624, 635 (1997); De La Salle University v. De La Salle University Employees Association, 386 Phil. 569, 586 (2000).
[35] National
[36] De La Salle University v. De
[37] Rollo, p. 116.