Case Digest (G.R. No. 146728)
Facts:
General Milling Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146728, February 11, 2004, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) operated two plants in Cebu and Lapu‑Lapu City and employed 190 workers who were all members of respondent General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (GMC‑ILU), the certified bargaining agent. On April 28, 1989 the parties executed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective retroactively from December 1, 1988 and expiring November 30, 1991.
On November 29, 1991—one day before the CBA's expiration—the union submitted a proposed CBA and requested a counter‑proposal within ten days. GMC, however, had earlier (as early as October 1991) received letters from some workers claiming withdrawal from union membership and, believing the union no longer had standing, made no counter‑proposal. On December 16, 1991 GMC wrote the union officers saying it saw no basis to negotiate with a union “which no longer existed” but offered to dialogue on other matters; the union replied December 19 denying any massive disaffiliation and submitted a manifesto signed by members.
On January 13, 1992 GMC dismissed union member Marcia Tumbiga for incompetence; the union demanded grievance procedure under the CBA but GMC referred to its December 16 letter. The union filed a complaint on July 2, 1992 with the NLRC (Arbitration Division, Cebu) alleging unfair labor practices (refusal to bargain collectively; interference with self‑organization; discrimination). The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint but recommended a certification election to determine the union's support. The union appealed to the NLRC.
On January 30, 1998 the NLRC set aside the labor arbiter's dismissal, relying on Art. 253‑A of the Labor Code as amended by R.A. No. 6715, and ordered GMC to abide by the union’s proposed CBA for two years (December 1, 1991 to November 30, 1993) and awarded attorney’s fees. The NLRC found that under the amended law the representation aspect of a CBA lasts five years (here, December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1993) and that GMC’s failure to bargain and the timing of 13 resignation letters (February–June 1993) evidenced unfair labor practices and interference.
On reconsideration, the NLRC, by resolution dated October 6, 1998, set aside its January 30, 1998 decision, finding GMC’s doubts about the union justified and the coercion allegation unfounded. The union filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals; the CA initially dismissed it for lack of attachments (February 9, 1999), but after refiling treated the new petition as a motion for reconsideration and gave it due course. On July 19, 2000 the CA granted the petition, set aside the NLRC October 6, 1998 resolution, and reinstated the NLRC decision of January 30, 1998 except that the award of attorneys’ fees was deleted; GMC’s motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied on October 26, 2000.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that GMC committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain collectively and by interfering with the employees’ right to self‑organization?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing the union’s draft CBA upon GMC for two years following t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)