SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-52169 June 30, 1980

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG VIA MARE, Petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, VIA MARE CATERING SERVICES and FOOD SPECIALTIES, INC., and GLENDA R. BARRETO respondents.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

The only issue in this petition for certiorari is whether or not respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations had been divested of his jurisdiction to settle a labor dispute between the petitioner and the Via Mare Catering Services and Food Specialties, Inc. Respondent director ruled that he had lost jurisdiction in view of the corporation's application to terminate the employment of some of the petitioner's members with the Regional Director of the National Capital Region. At this juncture, we can readily say that the respondent director had not been divested of his jurisdiction and we have yet to see a more shabby treatment of workers than that accorded by the corporation to its employees in this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The facts are well-stated in the comment of the Solicitor General: chanrobles virtual law library

On October 13, 1979, petitioner Samahang Manggagawa Ng Via Mare (SAMAVIM), a duly organized labor union, requested respondent corporation, Via Mare Catering Services and Food Specialties, Inc., to enter into a collective bargaining agreement therewith submitting proposals (Petition pp. 1-2).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Thereafter, petitioner twice reiterated its request to al respondents to negotiate a cove bargaining a respondent corporation allegedly terminated four (4) of petition's members (Petition, p. 2).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On November 19, 1979, petitioner filed a Notice of Strike with the Ministry of labor c that respondent corporation neither assented nor refused to bargain collectively and that t corporation harassed petitioner's union members (Petition, p. 2; ANNEX "A").chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Bureau of Labor Relations, of which respondent Honorable Carmelo C. Noriel is Director, assumed injunction over the labor dispute and through Med-Arbiter Roberto Landas, summoned petitioner and respondent corporation to a conference/hearing on November 20, 1979. At the scheduled conference/hearing before Med-Arbiter Landas, the parties arrived at the following agreement (Petition, p. 3; ANNEX "B")

Representative of management appeared and manifested that he will meet with counsel of the union tomorrow, 21 November 1979 at Via Mare at 8:00 a.m. to discuss when will (sic) top management will be available to discuss the terms and conditions of employment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Counsel of management assured the union that Via Mare Catering Services and Food Specialties, Inc., will negotiate with the union. (Emphasis supplied)

On November 21, 1979, petitioner and respondent corporation entered into the following "Preliminary Agreement" (Petition, p. 3; ANNEX "C") chanrobles virtual law library

1. That they would meet on November 24, 1979, at 5:00 p.m., at Via Mare for the purpose of informing and determining from either party the CBA panelist and the schedule of negotiation; chanrobles virtual law library

2. That the initial negotiation shall be held, at the very earliest November 27, 1979 or November 28, 1979;chanrobles virtual law library

On November 24, 1979, petitioner and respondent corporation entered into the following 'Initial Agreement' (Petition, p. 4; ANNEX "D") chanrobles virtual law library

1. That management recognizes the fact that SAMAVIM (i.e., petitioner) is duly registered Union in the establishments and accepts the fact of their constitution; chanrobles virtual law library

2. That management panelist to the negotiation would be made known to the Union on November 27, 1979; chanrobles virtual law library

3. That after the panelist, Union and Management shall have met, which at the earliest shall be on November 28, 1979, and there shall negotiation on the proposed CBA be started; chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner and respondent corporation met on November 27, 1979. But on that date, respondent corporation refused to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement as they had previously committed themselves. On November 28, 1979, therefore, petitioner's members staged a walk-out, duly informing the Bureau of Labor Relations thereof (Petition, pp. 4-5, ANNEX "E").chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On November 29, 1979, respondent Noriel issued the following Return-To-Work Order (Petition, P. 5; ANNEX "F").

All striking workers of the Via Mare Catering Services & Food Specialties, Inc., are hereby ordered to return to work immediately and to desist from striking whether the strike is for cause or otherwise. The Management is likewise ordered to allow all workers to return to work under the same terms and conditions prevent previous to the work stoppage.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

This order shall be without prejudice to whatever action any party might take under existing law, decree, rules and regulation.

Petitioner and respondent corporation were also ordered by Med-Arbiter Victorians Calaycay to appear before the Bureau of Labor Relations on December 3, 1979. In the meantime, petitioner's members returned to work (Petition, p. 6).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On December 3. 1979, before the Bureau of Labor Relations, petitioner and respondent corporation entered into an agreement (Petition, p. 5; ANNEX "G") which provided among other things, the following: chanrobles virtual law library

1. There will be a consent election; chanrobles virtual law library

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

6. That the parties will meet on December 17, 1979 to determine the eligible voters and date of election.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

However, on December 4, 1979, respondent corporation through their General Manager, respondent Glenda R. Barreto terminated seventy three (73) union member after having allowed them to work for one day, without prior from the Ministry of Labor, and employed other persons to rep the terminated union members (Petition, pp. 5-6).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On December 4, 1979, petitions filed a motion to cite the private respondents in contempt for alleged violation of respondent Noriel's Return-To-Work Order, alleged union-busting activities, and alleged bad faith in dealing with petite (Petition, p. 6; ANNEX "H").chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Pursuant to a summon, petitioner and respondent corporation appeared before Med-Arbiter Victorians Calaycay on December 5, 1979. On that date, respondent corporation, through counsel stated that the terminated employees will be reinstated and that the date of their re-acceptance will be known at the hearing which was set on December 7, 1979 (Petition, p. 6).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent corporation's counsel did not appear at the hearing on December 7, 1979, thus prompting petitioner to ask for the resolution of its motion to declare private respondent in contempt. Respondent Noriel was, however, at that time in Hongkong upon his to the Philippines, he allegedly refused to act on the motion on the ground that he had lost j on over the labor dispute with the filing on the part of respondent corporation of an application to dear the tion of seventy-three (73) of petitioner's members. According to respondent Noriel jurisdiction over the case now file with the Honorable Director Francisco Estrella, Regional IV, National Capital Region, who takes cognizance of such applications (Petition, p. 7).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner further alleges that on or about November 27, 1979, respondent corporation filed a 'Petition For Certification Elections' before the Bureau of Labor Relations, which petition was d as LRC-M-515-79, but remains unserved on petitioner (Petition, p. 7).

From the foregoing narration it is dear that the private respondents did not comply with their duty to bargain collectively with the petitioner as provided in Articles 252 and 253 of the Labor Code (P.D. No. 442, as amended), namely: chanrobles virtual law library

Art 252. Duty to bargain collectively in the absence collective bargaining agreements.- In the absence of an agreement Or other voluntary arrangement improving for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining , it shall be the duty of the employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

ART. 253. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively.- The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with to wages, hours, of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including for adjusting any grievance or question a under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements and executing requested by either party, but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.

As correctly observed by the Solicitor General: "Under the circumstances, the application for clearance filed by respondent corporation relative -to the members of petitioner-union who were dismissed, is highly suspect as a means to frustrate the intention of respondent corporation not to bargain collectively with petitioner. By this strategem, the membership of petitioner union would be depleted, thus assuring its defeat in the event of a consent or certification election. In this light, said application for clearance cannot be used to defeat the jurisdiction of respondent Director Noriel.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Moreover, the only question before Director Noriel is whether or not the petitioner is the exclusive bargain representative of the employees working for the respondent corporation in respect of which both the petitioner and the respondent corporation agreed to hold a consent or certification election including in the voting those employees who had been dismissed by the corporation conformably to the statement of the corporation's counsel during the hearing before Us on January 9, 1980. Upon the other hand, the issue before Regional Director Estrella is whether or not the termination of he employment of some of the petitioner's member is justified. The two questions are unrelated and can be resolved independently of each other especially since it had been stated as aforesaid that even the dismissed employees could take part in the certification election.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel is hereby ordered to proceed with the holding of the certification election as had been agreed between the petitioner and the respondent corporation. Costs against the private respondents.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.