Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Assn of Employees and Faculty of Letran

Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Assn of Employees and Faculty of Letran

G.R. No.141471

September 18, 2000

DOCTRINE: An employer’s utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining, and a company’s refusal to make counter-proposal to the union’s proposed CBA is an indication of its bad faith.

FACTS:

Salvador Abtria, then President of respondent union, Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran, initiated the renegotiation of its Collective Bargaining Agreement with petitioner Colegio de San Juan de Letran for the last two (2) years of the CBA's five (5) year lifetime from 1989-1994.On the same year, the union elected a new set of officers wherein private respondent Eleanor Ambas emerged as the newly elected President. Ambas wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was already prepared for signing by the parties. Petitioner accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the National Labor Relations Commission.

Labor Arbiter Edgardo M. Madriaga: decided in favor of the petitioner. However, the Labor Arbiter's decision was reversed on appeal before the NLRC. The union notified the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of its intention to strike on the grounds (sic) of petitioner's: non-compliance with the NLRC (1) order to delete the name of Atty. Federico Leynes as the union's legal counsel; and (2) refusal to bargain.

The union filed a notice of strike.The union received petitioner's letter dismissing Ambas for alleged insubordination. Hence, the union amended its notice of strike to include Ambas' dismissal. Both parties again discussed the ground rules for the CBA renegotiation. However, petitioner stopped the negotiations after it purportedly received information that a new group of employees had filed a petition for certification election.The union finally struck.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction and ordered all striking employees including the union president to return to work and for the petitioner to accept them back under the same terms and conditions before the actual strike. Secretary of Labor and Employment: issued an order declaring petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice on two counts and directing the reinstatement of private respondent Ambas with backwages. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) upon mere information that a petition for certification has been filed by another legitimate labor organization.

HELD:

YES, because Petitioner's utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any counter-proposals. This inaction on the part of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13, 1996. Petitioner could only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as its excuse for failing to file its reply. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining, to wit:

Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. - The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:

(a)      When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice.