G.R. No. 146728 - General Milling Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146728)

Factual Background

The petitioner employed one hundred ninety workers in two plants in Cebu City and Lapu-Lapu City, all of whom were members of the respondent union, a duly certified bargaining agent. The parties executed a CBA on April 28, 1989, retroactive to December 1, 1988, with a three-year term for economic provisions and representation aspects. On November 29, 1991, the union submitted a proposed CBA and requested a counter-proposal within ten days. As early as October 1991, petitioner had received collective and individual letters from employees asserting withdrawal from union membership. Believing the union had ceased to exist, petitioner did not submit a counter-proposal.

Subsequent Events and Grievance

Petitioner wrote to union officers on December 16, 1991, stating management felt there was no basis to negotiate with a non-existent union but expressing willingness to dialogue. The union replied on December 19, 1991, denying any massive disaffiliation and presented a manifesto signed by members. On January 13, 1992, petitioner dismissed union member Marcia Tumbiga for alleged incompetence; the union demanded grievance procedures under the CBA, but petitioner referred to its December 16 letter. The union then filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRC alleging refusal to bargain, interference with self-organization, and discrimination.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC

The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint and recommended a petition for 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 decision, citing Article 253-A as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715 and ruling that the union remained the exclusive bargaining agent. The NLRC ordered petitioner to abide by the union’s CBA draft for two years beginning December 1, 1991, and awarded attorneys' fees. On reconsideration, the NLRC, by resolution dated October 6, 1998, set aside its January 30, 1998 decision, finding petitioner’s doubts about the union justified and rejecting the coercion allegation.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The union filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court initially dismissed the petition for failure to attach required documents but later treated a refiling as a motion for reconsideration and gave it due course. On July 19, 2000, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the NLRC resolution of October 6, 1998, and reinstated the NLRC decision of January 30, 1998 except for the award of attorneys' fees. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration by resolution dated October 26, 2000.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner challenged the Court of Appeals decision on three grounds: alleged failure to state clearly the facts and law on which it was based; grave abuse of discretion in reversing the NLRC without a finding of substantial error or grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and error in holding that the NLRC had jurisdiction to determine the terms and conditions of a CBA. The principal legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain and for interfering with employees' right to self-organization, and in imposing the union's draft CBA for two years.

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision dated July 19, 2000, and its resolution dated October 26, 2000. The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the duty to bargain collectively and for interfering with the right of employees to self-organization, and in imposing the draft CBA proposed by the union for the remaining two years of the original CBA's duration. Costs were awarded against petitioner.

Duty to Bargain Collectively: Legal Basis and Application

The Court analyzed Article 253-A, which mandates that the representation aspect of a CBA shall be for a term of five years and prohibits challenges to majority status or certification elections outside the sixty-day period before expiration of that five-year term. The Court noted that the union presented its proposal within five years of the representation term and within the three-year period for renegotiation of economic provisions. The Court concluded that petitioner had no valid reason to refuse negotiations and that its failure to reply to the union's proposal constituted bad faith. Citing Article 248(g) which makes it unlawful for an employer to violate the duty to bargain collectively, and Article 252 which defines that duty as a mutual obligation to meet promptly and in good faith, the Court found that petitioner's conduct—failing to submit a counter-proposal and casting unfounded doubts on the union's status—was an evasion of the statutory duty and therefore an unfair labor practice.

Interference with the Right of Self-Organization

The Court addressed the resignation letters submitted by petitioner from thirteen union members between February and June 1993. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the timing of these resignations, occurring during the pendency of the case before the labor arbiter, evidenced attempts by petitioner to cast doubt on union status and indicated interference with employees' right to

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146728)

Parties and Posture

General Milling Corporation filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50383.
General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (GMC-ILU) and Rito Mangubat were respondents in the certiorari proceedings.
The petition challenged the appellate court's reinstatement of the National Labor Relations Commission decision dated January 30, 1998, and the appellate court's July 19, 2000 decision and October 26, 2000 resolution.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision and resolution with costs against the petitioner.

Facts

General Milling Corporation employed 190 workers in its Cebu City and Lapu-Lapu City plants and the workers were members of the GMC-ILU, the duly certified bargaining agent.
The parties executed a collective bargaining agreement on April 28, 1989 which was retroactive to December 1, 1988 and which therefore expired on November 30, 1991.
On November 29, 1991 the GMC-ILU submitted a proposed CBA and requested a counter-proposal within ten calendar days.
In October 1991 GMC had received collective and individual letters from employees claiming withdrawal from union membership on religious and personal grounds.
GMC did not send a counter-proposal and on December 16, 1991 wrote union officers stating it saw no basis to negotiate with a union which it believed no longer existed.
On December 19, 1991 the union officers denied any massive disaffiliation and submitted a manifesto signed by members confirming continued membership.
On January 13, 1992 GMC dismissed union member Marcia Tumbiga for incompetence and refused the union’s demand to submit the matter to the CBA grievance procedure, referring instead to its December 16, 1991 letter.
The union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice with the NLRC, Arbitration Division, Cebu City on July 2, 1992 alleging refusal to bargain, interference with self-organization, and discrimination.

Procedural History

The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint and recommended a certification election to determine whether the union retained workers’ support.
On January 30, 1998 the NLRC set aside the labor arbiter’s decision and ordered GMC to abide by the union’s proposed CBA for two years from December 1, 1991 to November 30, 1993 and awarded attorneys’ fees.
On reconsideration the NLRC issued a resolution dated October 6, 1998 setting aside its January 30, 1998 decision.
The union filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which initially dismissed it for failure to attach required documents and later treated a refiling as a motion for reconsideration.
On July 19, 2000 the Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the NLRC October 6, 1998 resolution, and reinstated the NLRC January 30, 1998 decision except for deletion of the attorneys’ fees award.
The Court of Appeals denied GMC’s motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2000, after which GMC filed the present petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding GMC guilty of unfair labor practice for refusal to bargain collectively.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding GMC guilty of interfering with the employees’ right to self-organization.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing upon GMC the draft CBA proposed by the union for the remaining