---

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES—MANILA PAVILLION HOTEL CHAPTER, 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 Decision¹ dated 30 May 2007 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96171, which affirmed the Resolution² 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 30 June 2005; and the economic provisions of the same were to be effective for three years or until 30 June 2003. The parties subsequently re-negotiated the economic provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and extended the term of their effectivity for another two years or until 30 June 2005.⁵

During the 60-day freedom period which preceded the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, starting on 1 May 2005 and ending on 30 June 2005, the Hotel and HIMPHLU negotiated the extension of the provisions of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement for two years, effective 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007. The parties signed the Memorandum of Agreement on 20 May 2005 and the employees ratified it on 27 May 2005.⁶

On 21 June 2005, NUWHRAIN was accorded by the Labor Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) the status of a legitimate labor organization.⁷ Thereafter, NUWHRAIN exercised the right to challenge the majority status of the incumbent union, HIMPHLU, by filing a Petition for Certification Election on 28 June 2005.⁸

On 5 July 2007, the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE allowed the registration of the Memorandum of Agreement executed between HIMPHLU and the Hotel, extending the effectivity of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement for another two years.⁹

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 28 July 2005¹⁰ for the dismissal of 36 employees following their expulsion from HIMPHLU for alleged acts of disloyalty and violation of its Constitution and by-laws. An Investigation Report¹¹ was attached to the said written demand, stating that the 36 employees, who were members of HIMPHLU, joined NUWHRAIN, in violation of Section 2, Article IV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which provided for a union security clause that reads: ¹²

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 1 August 2005, the Hotel issued Disciplinary Action Notices¹³ (Notices) to the 36 employees identified in the written demand of HIMPHLU. The Notices directed the 36 employees to submit a written explanation for their alleged acts of disloyalty and violation of the union security clause for which HIMPHLU sought their dismissal.

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 5 August 2005 and 1 September 2005.¹⁴ However, NUWHRAIN proceeded to file a Notice of Strike before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on 8 September 2005 on the ground of unfair labor practice under Article 248, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Labor Code.¹⁵ The Secretary of Labor intervened and certified the case for compulsory arbitration with the NLRC. The case was docketed as NLRC NCR CC No. 000307-05 NCMB NCR NS 09-199-05, entitled IN RE: Labor Dispute at Manila Pavilion Hotel.¹⁶

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 5 August 2005, respondent’s Vice President, Norma Azores, stated her preference to deal with HIMPHLU, while blaming NUWHRAIN for the labor problems of the Hotel. On 1 September 2005, the Resident Manager of the Hotel, Bernardo Corpus, Jr., implored NUWHRAIN’s members to withdraw their Petition for Certification Election and reaffirm their membership in HIMPHLU. The Notices and the statements made by the officers of the respondent and the Hotel were allegedly intended to intimidate and coerce the employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. NUWHRAIN claimed that it was entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P20,000.00¹⁷

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 Resolution¹⁹ dated 5 May 2006, the NLRC pronounced that the Hotel was not guilty of unfair labor practice. Firstly, the NLRC adjudged that the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement between respondent and HIMPHLU, extending the effectivity of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement, was entered into with the view of responding to the employees’ economic needs, and not intended to interfere with or restrain the exercise of the right to self-organization of NUWHRAIN’s members. Secondly, the NLRC determined that the issuance of the Notices directing the 36 employees to explain why they should not be dismissed was in compliance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement provisions regarding the union security clause. Even thereafter, the Hotel had not acted improperly as it did not wrongfully terminate any of the 36 employees. Thirdly, the NLRC interpreted the statements made by the officials of respondent and the Hotel during the reconciliatory conferences – encouraging the withdrawal of the Petition for Certification Election and the reaffirmation by the 36 employees of their membership in HIMPHLU – as proposed solutions to avoid the dismissal of the said employees. The NLRC concluded that these statements did not constitute unfair labor practice for they could not have coerced or influenced either of the contending unions, both of whom did not agree in the suggested course of action or to any other manner of settling the dispute. Finally, the NLRC declared that the claim for moral and exemplary damages of NUWHRAIN lacked sufficient factual and legal bases.

NUWHRAIN filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing NLRC Resolution. It was denied by the NLRC in another Resolution dated 30 June 2006.²⁰ Thus, NUWHRAIN filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as C.A. G.R. SP No. 96171.

In the meantime, on 16 June 2006, the Certification Election for regular rank and file employees of the Hotel was held, which HIMPHLU won. It was accordingly certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for rank and file employees of the Hotel.²¹

On 30 May 2007, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision²² 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 24 August 2007.²³

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 ASUNCION V. NLRC, 362 SCRA 56 [2001].

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 28 July 2005, demanding the dismissal of 36 of its former members who joined NUWHRAIN. In its letter, HIMPHLU alleged that it had found these members guilty of disloyalty and demanded their dismissal pursuant to the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Had the Hotel totally ignored this demand, as NUWHRAIN suggests it should have done, the Hotel would have been subjected to a suit for its failure to comply with the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

"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. Ramos²⁹ 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 30 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96171 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner NUWHRAIN.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

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

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, 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

Footnotes

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 Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioners Tito F. Genilo and Gregorio O. Bilog III. Id. at 152-166.

³ Id. at 4.

⁴ Id.

⁵ Id. at 228.

⁶ Id. at 264-267.

⁷ Id. at. 270.

⁸ Id. at 268-269.

⁹ Id. at 280.

¹⁰ Id. at 66.

¹¹ Id. at 67-68.

¹² Id. at 92.

¹³ Id. at 70.

¹⁴ Id. at 28.

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 Id. at 133-134.

¹⁹ Id. at 152-166.

²⁰ Id. at 181-182.

²¹ Id. at 300-306.

²² Id. at. 26-39.

²³ Id. at. 40.

²⁴ Id. at 10-11.

²⁵ Azucena, C.A., The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, volume 2, Fifth Edition, 2004, p. 242.

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, 20 April 1983, 121 SCRA 444, 464.

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 UNION in good standing for the duration of this Agreement. Likewise, as a condition for continued employment with the HOTEL, all employees who shall become permanent or regular during the effectivity of this Agreement must join the UNION Automatic membership within thirty (30) days from the date of their regular employment. (Records, p. 63).

²⁹ 383 Phil. 329, 373 (2000).

³⁰ Soriano v. Atienza, G.R. No. 68619, 16 March 1989, 171 SCRA 284, 289-290.

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 Union of Workers in Hotels and Allied Industries v. National Labor Relations Commission, 350 Phil. 641, 652 (1998); University of the Immaculate Concepcion v. U.I.C. Teaching and Non-Teaching Personnel and Employees Union, 414 Phil. 522, 534-535 (2001).

³⁶ De La Salle University v. De La Salle University Employees Association, supra note 34 at 586.

³⁷ Rollo, p. 116.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

---