Union of Filipro Employees-Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Nestlé Philippines, Inc.
Union of Filipro Employees-Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Nestlé Philippines, Inc.
Union of Filipro Employees-Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Nestlé Philippines, Inc.
*
G.R. No. 158930-31. August 22, 2006.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
522
523
524
525
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The Case
_______________
526
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Union of Filipro Employees-Drug, Food and Allied
Industries Unions-
Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Nestlé Philippines, Inc.
2
tion dated 27 June3
2003, of the 4Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No.69805 and No. 71540.
G.R. No. 158930-31 was filed by Union of Filipro
Employees·Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions·
Kilusang Mayo Uno (UFE-DFA-KMU) against Nestlé
Philippines, Incorporated (Nestlé) seeking the reverse of
the Court of Appeals Decision in so far as the latterÊs
failure to adjudge Nestlé guilty of unfair labor practice is
concerned, as well as the Resolution of 27 June 2003
denying its Partial Motion for Reconsideration; G.R. No.
158944-45 was instituted by Nestlé against UFE-DFA-
KMU similarly seeking to annul and set aside the Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals declaring 1) the
Retirement Plan a valid collective bargaining issue; and 2)
the scope of assumption of jurisdiction power of the
Secretary of the DOLE to be limited to the resolution of
questions and matters pertaining merely to the ground
rules of the collective bargaining negotiations to be
conducted between the parties.
In as much as the cases involve the same set of parties;
arose from the same set of circumstances, i.e., from several
Orders issued by then Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), Hon. Patricia A. Sto.
Tomas, respecting her assumption of jurisdiction over the
labor dispute between Nestlé5 and UFE-DFA-KMU,
Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions; and likewise assail the
same Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals,6
the
Court ordered the consolidation of the two petitions.
_______________
2 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 158930-31, Vol. I), pp. 47-48, Annex „B‰ of the
Petition; Rollo (G.R. Nos. 158944-45), pp. 60-61, Annex „B‰ of the
Petition.
3 Entitled „Union of Filipro Employees-Drug, Food and Allied
Industries Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno (UFE-DFA-KMU) v. Hon. Patricia
A. Sto. Tomas and Nestlé Philippines, Inc. (Cabuyao Plant).‰
4 Entitled „Union of Filipro Employees-DFA-KMU v. Office of the
DOLE Secretary and Nestlé Philippines, Inc.‰
5 Concerning employees at NestléÊs Alabang and Cabuyao factories.
6 SC Resolution dated 29 March 2004; Rollo (G.R. No. 158930s-31, Vol.
II), pp. 1247-1248.
527
The Facts
_______________
528
_______________
529
_______________
530
This is not the first time that this Office had occasion to resolve the
grounds and arguments now being raised x x x. In a more recent
case·In re: labor dispute at Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation
x x x this Office ruled:
xxxx
As ruled by the Supreme Court in the Philtread case:
Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code does not violate the workerÊs constitutional right to strike.
xxx xxx
_______________
531
_______________
22 „x x x x
Accordingly, any strike or lockout is hereby enjoined. The parties are
directed to cease and desist from committing any act that might lead to
the further deterioration of the current labor relations situation.
xxxx
23 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 158944-45), pp. 192-193.
24 Position Paper of Nestlé; Annex „O‰ of the Petition; Rollo (G.R. Nos.
158944-45), pp. 194-310.
532
_______________
25 Annexes „P‰ & „Q‰ of the Petition; Rollo (G.R. No. 158944-45), pp.
311-336 and pp. 337-339.
26 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 158930-31, Vol. I), pp. 323-324.
27 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 158944-45), p. 428.
28 Id.
533
_______________
534
_______________
31 Annex „L‰ of the Petition; Rollo (G.R. Nos. 158930-31, Vol. I), pp.
802-806.
32 Id., at p. 43.
535
The Issues
I.
II.
I.
_______________
II.
_______________
34 Id., at p. 1735.
537
still a valid CBA issue, hence, it could not be argued that the true
intention of the parties is that the Retirement Plan, although
referred in the CBA, would not in any way form part of the CBA
(citation omitted) as it could be clearly inferred by this Court that it
is to be used as an integral part of the CBA and to be used as a topic
for future bargaining, in consonance with the ruling of the Supreme
Court in the previous Nestlé Case that „the Retirement Plan was a
35
collective bargaining issue right from the start.‰
_______________
538
_______________
539
540
_______________
541
the existing agreement during the sixty day period and/or until a
new agreement is reached by the parties.
_______________
542
_______________
543
544
x x x The records disclose that the Union filed two Notices of Strike.
The First is dated October 31, 2001 whose grounds are cited
verbatim here-under:
„A. Bargaining Deadlock
_______________
545
_______________
546
Under the circumstances, therefore, there was no way for the Court
of Appeals to make a ruling on the issues of unfair labor practice
and damages, simply because there was nothing to support or
justify such action. Although petitioner was afforded by the
Secretary the opportunity to be heard and more, it simply chose to
55
omit the said issues in the proceedings below.
We are persuaded.
The concept of „unfair labor practice‰ is defined by the
Labor Code as:
_______________
547
VOL. 499, AUGUST 22, 2006 547
Union of Filipro Employees-Drug, Food and Allied Industries
Unions-
Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Nestlé Philippines, Inc.
548
549
_______________
550
_______________
60 San Miguel Corporation v. Del Rosario, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603,
13 December 2005, 477 SCRA 604, 619.
61 The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees
Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, 346 Phil. 524, 534; 281
SCRA 509, 518 (1997).
62 Id.
63 Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. Meris, G.R. No. 155098, 16
September 2005, 470 SCRA 125, 136.
64 Id.
65 Id.
551
_______________
552
··o0o··