THIRD DIVISION
|
GENERAL Petitioner, – versus – COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. ( Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 178647 Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February
13, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rules on Civil Procedure, petitioner General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free
Workers Union-Tupas (Union) is seeking the reversal of the April 18, 2006
Decision[1]
and May 30, 2007 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80916. The CA affirmed the January 31,
2003 and August 29, 2003 Resolutions[3] of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in favor of respondent Coca-Cola
Bottlers Phil., Inc. (CCBPI).
Sometime in the late 1990s, CCBPI
experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian economic
crisis, decrease in sales, and tougher competition. To curb the negative
effects on the company, it implemented three (3) waves of an Early Retirement
Program.[4] Meanwhile,
there was an inter-office memorandum sent to all of CCBPI’s Plant Human
Resources Managers/Personnel Officers, including those of the CCBPI General
Santos Plant (CCBPI Gen San) mandating them to put on hold “all requests for
hiring to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions in [the] Head
Office and in the Plants.” Because several employees availed of the early
retirement program, vacancies were created in some departments, including the
production department of CCBPI Gen San, where members of petitioner
Faced with the “freeze hiring”
directive, CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation
(JLBP), a company in the business of providing labor and manpower services,
including janitorial services, messengers, and office workers to various
private and government offices.[6]
On January 21, 2002, petitioner filed
with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), Regional Branch 12,
a Notice of Strike on the ground of alleged unfair labor practice committed by CCBPI
Gen San for contracting-out services regularly performed by union members
(“union busting”). After conciliation
and mediation proceedings before the NCMB, the parties failed to come to an
amicable settlement. On July 3, 2002, CCBPI filed a Petition for Assumption of
Jurisdiction with the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. On July
26, 2002, the Secretary of Labor issued an Order enjoining the threatened
strike and certifying the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.[7]
In a Resolution[8]
dated January 31, 2003, the NLRC ruled that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair
labor practice for contracting out jobs to JLBP. The NLRC anchored its ruling on the validity
of the “Going-to-the-Market” (GTM) system implemented by the company, which
called for restructuring its selling and distribution system, leading to the
closure of certain sales offices and the elimination of conventional sales
routes. The NLRC held that petitioner
failed to prove by substantial evidence that the system was meant to curtail
the right to self-organization of petitioner’s members. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied in a Resolution[9]
dated August 29, 2003. Hence, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.
The CA issued the assailed Decision[10]
on April 18, 2006 upholding the NLRC’s finding that CCBPI was not guilty of
unfair labor practice. The CA based its decision on the validity of CCBPI’s
contracting out of jobs in its production department. It held that the contract
between CCBPI and JLBP did not amount to labor-only contracting. It found that JLBP
was an independent contractor and that the decision to contract out jobs was a
valid exercise of management prerogative to meet exigent circumstances. On the
other hand, petitioner failed to adduce evidence to prove that contracting out
of jobs by the company resulted in the dismissal of petitioner’s members,
prevented them from exercising their right to self-organization, led to the
Its motion for reconsideration having
been denied,[11] petitioner
now comes to this Court seeking the reversal of the CA Decision.
The petition is bereft of merit. Hence,
we deny the Petition.
Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on
Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a Petition for Review
on Certiorari.[12]
There is a question of law if the
issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the
probative value of the evidence. The
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on a given
set of circumstances. Once it is clear
that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed
is one of fact. If the query requires a
re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of
surrounding circumstances and their relation to one another, the issue in that
query is factual.[13]
An examination of the issues raised
by petitioner reveals that they are questions of fact. The issues raised, i.e., whether JLBP is an independent contractor, whether CCBPI’s
contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor practice, and whether
such action was a valid exercise of management prerogative, call for a re-examination
of evidence, which is not within the ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction.
Moreover, factual findings of the
NLRC, an administrative agency deemed to have acquired expertise in matters
within its jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but finality
especially when such factual findings are affirmed by the CA.[14]
Furthermore, we find no reversible
error in the assailed Decision.
It is true that the NLRC erroneously concluded
that the contracting- out of jobs in CCBPI Gen San was due to the GTM system, which
actually affected CCBPI’s sales and marketing departments, and had nothing to
do with petitioner’s complaint. However, this does not diminish the NLRC’s
finding that JLBP was a legitimate, independent contractor and that CCBPI Gen
San engaged the services of JLBP to meet business exigencies created by the
freeze-hiring directive of the CCBPI Head Office.
On the other hand, the CA squarely
addressed the issue of job contracting in its assailed Decision and Resolution.
The CA itself examined the facts and
evidence of the parties[15]
and found that, based on the evidence, CCBPI did not engage in labor-only
contracting and, therefore, was not guilty of unfair labor practice.
The NLRC found – and the same was sustained
by the CA – that the company’s action to contract-out the services and
functions performed by Union members did not constitute unfair labor practice
as this was not directed at the members’ right to self-organization.
Article 248 of the Labor Code
provides:
ART. 248. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF EMPLOYERS. – It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
x x x
(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
x x x
Unfair labor practice refers to “acts
that violate the workers’ right to organize.” The prohibited acts are related
to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, even if
unfair, are not unfair labor practices.[16]
Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner
was unable to prove its charge of unfair labor practice. It was the
WHEREFORE, the
foregoing premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80916 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Resolution 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
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been
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 Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp. 55-72.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring; id. at 73-76.
[3] Rollo, pp. 77-87.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 45, Section 1.
[13] Juaban, et al. v. Espina, et al., G.R. No. 170049, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 588, 608, citing Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 438 SCRA 224, 230-231 (2004) and Morales v. Skills International Company, 500 SCRA 186, 194 (2006).
[14] Rowell Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 167714, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 691, 706, citing Land and Housing Development Corporation v. Esquillo, 471 SCRA 488, 494 (2005).
[15] Rollo, p. 66.
[16] Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communication, et al., G.R. No. 144315, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 214, 235, citing Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation, 303 SCRA 113 (1999) and Cesario A. Azucena, Jr., II The Labor Code with Comments and Cases 210 (5th ed. 2004) [The Labor Code with Comments and Cases].
[17] See Tiu, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., 343 Phil. 478, 485 (1997).