Case Summary (G.R. No. 129118)
Key Dates and Procedural History
March 1, 1985: Colgate Palmolive Sales Union filed a Notice of Strike claiming unfair labor practices (refusal to bargain, dismissal of union officers/members, coercion to retract union membership, and restraining nonunion members from joining).
Following unsuccessful conciliation, MOLE assumed jurisdiction under Article 264(g) of the Labor Code and the matter was docketed at the BLR (AJML-3-142-85, BLR-3-86-85).
August 9, 1985: Respondent Minister issued a decision finding no merit in most unfair labor practice charges, but directly certified the Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force and ordered the reinstatement of the three dismissed salesmen.
December 27, 1985: Minister denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner sought certiorari from the Supreme Court; a Temporary Restraining Order was issued by the Court and later made permanent. Supreme Court decision reversing the Minister’s order was rendered on June 30, 1988.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Constitutional basis applied by the Court: the constitutional mandate to assure workers’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining (appropriate constitutional framework in force at the time of decision).
Statutory/regulatory provisions engaged: Article 264(g) of the Labor Code (assumption of jurisdiction by the Minister), the representation provisions of the Labor Code (Arts. 257–260), and the procedural requirements in Rule V, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code concerning certification and cancellation of unions. The decision emphasizes the statutory scheme designed to ascertain majority representation and to protect both workers’ organizational rights and procedural safeguards.
Issues Presented to the Court
- Whether the respondent Minister committed grave abuse of discretion by directly certifying the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent solely on the Union’s self-serving assertion of majority support.
- Whether the respondent Minister committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering the reinstatement of the three dismissed salesmen despite finding that there were grounds for their dismissal.
Factual Findings Relevant to the Issues
- The Union claimed registration with BLR and asserted membership of 87 out of 117 regular salesmen.
- Petitioner disputed the Union’s majority claim, pointed to a petition for cancellation of the Union filed by Monchito Rosales on behalf of salesmen opposing the union, and contended that the company had valid managerial reasons and substantiated findings supporting suspension and eventual dismissal of the three salesmen.
- Petitioner alleged management distributed a survey form to newly hired salesmen and coerced responses adverse to the union; the Union alleged that such distribution and coercion were intended to frustrate unionization.
- The respondent Minister, while finding no merit in most unfair labor practice claims, stated that the company had grounds for dismissal of the three salesmen yet certified the Union and ordered the three reinstated on the ground that they were first offenders.
Court’s Legal Reasoning on Direct Certification
The Court held that the Minister exceeded proper procedure in directly certifying the Union because the statutory scheme for representation (Arts. 257–260 and Rules Implementing the Labor Code) prescribes specific procedures to determine majority status and to resolve competing claims, including cancellation proceedings. The Court emphasized that these procedures are designed to ensure that the certified bargaining representative truly reflects employees’ choice and to protect the integrity of the process. The Minister’s direct certification was based principally on the Union’s untested, self-serving assertion of majority membership and ignored the existence of a pending cancellation petition and competing claims to representation. The Court found that an assumption of majority support without subjecting that claim to the procedural tests (e.g., certification election or appropriate inquiry under the rules) was a bypass of legally mandated safeguards. By doing so, the Minister effectively substituted his unilateral determination for the statutory processes that protect employees’ right to choose, thereby creating a wrongful procedural shortcut that threatened both the rule of law and the employer’s position.
Court’s Legal Reasoning on Reinstatement of Dismissed Employees
The Court found the Minister’s order to reinstate the three dismissed salesmen incompatible with the Minister’s own finding that there were grounds to dismiss them. Reinstatement, the Court observed, cannot be reconciled with a determination that just cause exists for dismissal. Where the evidence suffices to support dismissal, the law does not require reinstatement merely because the dismissed employees are “first offenders.” The Court further noted the obligation to respect both labor rights and legitimate managerial prerogatives; compelling an employer to continue the employment of a person found guilty of misconduct that is inimical to the employer’s interest would be legally improper. The Minister failed to make any f
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 129118)
Case Citation, Court and Date
- Reported at 246 Phil. 331, Second Division, G.R. No. 73681.
- Decision dated June 30, 1988.
- Decision penned by Justice Paras.
- Justices Yap, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concurred.
Nature of the Petition and Relief Sought
- Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside and annul the Order of respondent Minister of Labor and Employment (MOLE) directly certifying the Colgate Palmolive Sales Union as the recognized and duly-authorized collective bargaining agent for petitioner’s sales force.
- Petition also sought to annul the MOLE order that ordered the reinstatement of three dismissed employees.
- The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining respondents from enforcing and/or carrying out the assailed order; that TRO was later made permanent.
Antecedent Facts — Strike Notice and Assumption of Jurisdiction
- On March 1, 1985, the respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
- Grounds alleged in the Notice of Strike: unfair labor practice consisting of (a) alleged refusal to bargain, (b) dismissal of union officers/members, (c) coercion of employees to retract their membership with the union, and (d) restraining nonunion members from joining the union.
- After efforts at amicable settlement proved unavailing, the Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner, assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 264(g) of the Labor Code.
- The assumed case was captioned AJML-3-142-85, BLR-3-86-85, “In Re: Assumption of Jurisdiction over the Labor Dispute at Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc.”
Petitioner’s (Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc.) Position and Defenses
- Petitioner’s position paper advanced multiple contentions and factual assertions, summarized as follows:
- (a) There is no legal basis for the charge that the company refused to bargain collectively because the alleged union was not the certified agent of the company salesmen.
- (b) The union’s status as a legitimate labor organization was under question because on March 6, 1985, a Monchito Rosales informed the BLR that an overwhelming majority of the salesmen were not in favor of the Notice of Strike (Annex “C”).
- (c) Records of the Ministry of Labor and Employment showed that a petition for cancellation of the registration of the alleged union was filed by Monchito Rosales on behalf of certain salesmen who opposed the formation of the Colgate Palmolive Sales Labor Union.
- (d) Preventive suspensions and eventual dismissals of salesmen Peregrino Sayson, Salvador Reynante and Cornelio Mejia were carried out pursuant to management’s inherent right and prerogative to discipline erring employees; preliminary investigations showed substantial grounds to believe they violated company rules, necessitating suspension pending further investigation.
- (e) The company sustained damages resulting from the infractions of the three salesmen; final results of the investigation convinced the company of the existence of just causes for their dismissal.
- (f) The formation of the union and the membership therein of Sayson, Reynante and Mejia were not in any manner connected with the company’s decision to dismiss them; the timing was purely coincidental.
- (g) The union’s charge that membership and refusal to retract precipitated the dismissals was “totally false” and amounted to a malicious imputation of union busting.
- (h) The company never coerced, attempted to coerce, or interfered with employees’ right to self-organization; it did not thwart or defeat the employees’ right to form a union within legal limits.
- (i) At the time there were two other unions representing employees: factory workers represented by Colgate Palmolive Employees Union (PAFLU) and salaried employees represented by Philippine Association of Free Labor Union (PAFLU) CPPI Office Chapter, with relevant collective bargaining agreements noted and expiration dates referenced (pp. 4-6, Rollo).
Respondent Union’s Position
- The respondent Union’s position paper reiterated the Notice to Strike allegations and asserted the following:
- The Union was duly registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations under Registry No. 10312-LC.
- The Union claimed total membership of 87 regular salesmen out of 117 regular salesmen employed by the company as of November 30, 1985.
- The Union claimed that since registration, more than two-thirds of the total salesmen employed were already members, which, in the Union’s view, established that the salesmen’s true sentiment was to form and organize the Colgate-Palmolive Salesmen Union.
- The Union alleged unreasonable delay in recognition by the company, and alleged that upon being informed of the organization and presented with CB proposals, the company took an adversarial stance.
- The Union alleged that the company secretly distributed a “survey sheet on union membership” to newly hired salesmen from Visayas, Mindanao and Metro Manila, purposely avoiding regular salesmen who were Union members.
- The Union alleged that District Sales Managers and Sales Supervisors coerced salesmen from Visayas and Mindanao to fill out the survey with answers adverse to the union; the Union alleged the company used those survey sheets, allegedly secured by coercion, to claim opposition to the union—acts the Union characterized as unfair labor practices.
Respondent Minister’s Decision (August 9, 1985) — Findings and Orders
- On August 9, 1985, respondent Minister rendered a decision with the following principal findings and conclusions:
- (a) Found no merit in the Union’s complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by petitioner as regards the alleged refusal to negotiate with the Union and the secret distribution of survey sheets intended to discourage unionism.
- (b) Found the three salesmen (Peregrino Sayson, Salvador Reynante, and Cornelio Mejia) “not without fault” and that “the company has grounds to dismiss above named sale