Lawyerly

GR No. 171664

2013-03-06

MENDOZA, J.

This is so because the law on unfair labor practices is not intended to deprive employers of their fundamental right to prescribe and enforce such rules as they honestly believe to be necessary to the proper, productive and profitable operation of their business.[39]

GR No. 175002

2013-02-18

PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. ANECITO MOLON

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

On the other hand, the term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code[70] which, at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization,[71] with the sole exception of Article 257(f) (previously Article 248[f]).[72] As explained in the case of Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communications:[73]

GR No. 159460

2010-11-15

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. ERNESTO U. GAMIER

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The right to strike, while constitutionally recognized, is not without legal constrictions.[46] Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides: Art. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) x x x

GR No. 159460

2010-11-15

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. ERNESTO U. GAMIER

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The Court has consistently ruled that once the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute, such jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike or lockout.[47] A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption order and/or certification is a prohibited activity and thus illegal.[48]

GR No. 174420

2010-03-22

MIGUELA SANTUYO v. REMERCO GARMENTS MANUFACTURING

CORONA, J.

Nonetheless, the Secretary of the Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute between the union and RGMI and resolved the same in his September 18, 1996 order. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code[20] gives the Secretary of Labor discretion[21] to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute likely to cause a strike or a lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest and to decide the controversy or to refer the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. In doing so, the Secretary of Labor shall resolve all questions and controversies in order to settle the dispute. His power is therefore plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the issue. [22]

GR No. 177283

2009-04-07

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. VS.DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

SO ORDERED.[8] (Underscoring supplied)

GR No. 178647

2009-02-13

GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

NACHURA, J.

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]

GR No. 151309

2008-10-15

BISIG MANGGAGAWA SA TRYCO v. NLRC

NACHURA, J.

More importantly, there was no showing or any indication that the transfer orders were motivated by an intention to interfere with the petitioners' right to organize. Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers' right to organize. With the exception of Article 248(f) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the prohibited acts are related to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are not unfair labor practices.[26]

GR Nos. 169829-30

2008-04-16

STEEL CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS

AZCUNA, J.

The powers granted to the Secretary under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code have been characterized as an exercise of the police power of the State, aimed at promoting the public good. When the Secretary exercises these powers, he is granted "great breadth of discretion" to find a solution to a labor dispute. The most obvious of these powers is the automatic enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its lifting if one has already taken place.[63]

GR NO. 165757

2006-10-17

GALAXIE STEEL WORKERS UNION v. NLRC

CARPIO-MORALES, J.

Indeed, Galaxie's documentary evidence shows that it had been experiencing serious financial losses at the time it closed business operations. As aptly found by the Court of Appeals: The NLRC's finding on the legality of the closure should be upheld for it is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the audited financial statements showing that Galaxie continuously incurred losses from 1997 up to mid-1999, to wit: P65,753,480.65 in 1997, P48,429,785.89 in 1998, and P13,204,389.97 in 1999; and of the various demand notices of payments from creditor banks. Besides, the petitioners had not presented evidence to the contrary; nor did they establish that the closure was motivated by Galaxie's anti-union stance. True, the union was seeking the holding of a certification election at the time that Galaxie closed its business operation, but that, without more, was not sufficient to attribute anti-unionism against Galaxie. (Underscoring supplied) Upon the other hand, petitioners failed to present concrete evidence supporting their claim of unfair labor practice. Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers' right to organize,[12] and are defined in Articles 248 and 261 of the Labor Code. The prohibited acts relate to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of Collective Bargaining Agreement without which relation the acts, no matter how unfair, are not deemed unfair labor practices.[13]

	GR No. 171664 2013-03-06	BANKARD v. NLRC – FIRST DIVISION MENDOZA, J.
This is so because the law on unfair labor practices is not intended to deprive employers of their fundamental right to prescribe and enforce such rules as they honestly believe to be necessary to the proper, productive and profitable operation of their business.[39]
	GR No. 175002 2013-02-18	PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. ANECITO MOLON PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On the other hand, the term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code[70] which, at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization,[71] with the sole exception of Article 257(f) (previously Article 248[f]).[72] As explained in the case of Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communications:[73]
	GR No. 159460 2010-11-15	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. ERNESTO U. GAMIER VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The right to strike, while constitutionally recognized, is not without legal constrictions.[46] Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides: Art. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) x x x
	GR No. 159460 2010-11-15	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. ERNESTO U. GAMIER VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court has consistently ruled that once the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute, such jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike or lockout.[47] A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption order and/or certification is a prohibited activity and thus illegal.[48]
	GR No. 174420 2010-03-22	MIGUELA SANTUYO v. REMERCO GARMENTS MANUFACTURING CORONA, J.
Nonetheless, the Secretary of the Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute between the union and RGMI and resolved the same in his September 18, 1996 order. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code[20] gives the Secretary of Labor discretion[21] to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute likely to cause a strike or a lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest and to decide the controversy or to refer the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. In doing so, the Secretary of Labor shall resolve all questions and controversies in order to settle the dispute. His power is therefore plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the issue. [22]
	GR No. 177283 2009-04-07	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. VS.DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 178647 2009-02-13	GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. NACHURA, J.
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]
	GR No. 151309 2008-10-15	BISIG MANGGAGAWA SA TRYCO v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
More importantly, there was no showing or any indication that the transfer orders were motivated by an intention to interfere with the petitioners' right to organize. Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers' right to organize. With the exception of Article 248(f) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the prohibited acts are related to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are not unfair labor practices.[26]
	GR Nos. 169829-30 2008-04-16	STEEL CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS AZCUNA, J.
The powers granted to the Secretary under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code have been characterized as an exercise of the police power of the State, aimed at promoting the public good. When the Secretary exercises these powers, he is granted "great breadth of discretion" to find a solution to a labor dispute. The most obvious of these powers is the automatic enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its lifting if one has already taken place.[63]
	GR NO. 165757 2006-10-17	GALAXIE STEEL WORKERS UNION v. NLRC CARPIO-MORALES, J.
Indeed, Galaxie's documentary evidence shows that it had been experiencing serious financial losses at the time it closed business operations. As aptly found by the Court of Appeals: The NLRC's finding on the legality of the closure should be upheld for it is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the audited financial statements showing that Galaxie continuously incurred losses from 1997 up to mid-1999, to wit: P65,753,480.65 in 1997, P48,429,785.89 in 1998, and P13,204,389.97 in 1999; and of the various demand notices of payments from creditor banks. Besides, the petitioners had not presented evidence to the contrary; nor did they establish that the closure was motivated by Galaxie's anti-union stance. True, the union was seeking the holding of a certification election at the time that Galaxie closed its business operation, but that, without more, was not sufficient to attribute anti-unionism against Galaxie. (Underscoring supplied) Upon the other hand, petitioners failed to present concrete evidence supporting their claim of unfair labor practice. Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers' right to organize,[12] and are defined in Articles 248 and 261 of the Labor Code. The prohibited acts relate to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of Collective Bargaining Agreement without which relation the acts, no matter how unfair, are not deemed unfair labor practices.[13]

PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION v. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS