You are on page 1of 8


FACTS: Petitioners were former union members of Radio Philippines Network

Employees Union (RPNEU), SEBA of the rank-and-file employees of Radio
Philippines Network (RPN). The respondents were the unions elected officers and
On suspicion of union mismanagement, petitioners, together with some other union
members, filed a complaint for impeachment of their Union President, which was
eventually abandoned. They later re-lodged the impeachment complaint against all
the union officers and members of RPNEU before DOLE.
Three complaints against petitioners and 12 others were filed before the RPNEUs
Committee on Grievance and Investigation (the Committee) for violation of CBL.
Petitioners denied charges against them, but their expulsions were recommended
and affirmed.
RPNEUs officers informed their company of the expulsion of petitioners and the 12
others from the union and requested the management to serve them notices of
termination from employment in compliance with their CBAs union security clause.
Petitioners filed complaints for ULP against the respondents, questioning legality of
their expulsion from the union and their subsequent termination from employment.
LA ruled in favor of the petitioners and adjudged the respondents guilty of ULP
pursuant to Article 249 [260] (a) and (b).
NLRC vacated and set aside the LA decision and dismissed the complaint for ULP
for lack of merit, finding that petitioners filed a suit calling for the impeachment of the
officers and members of the Executive Board of RPNEU without first resorting to
internal remedies available under its own CBL. CA sustained the NLRC decision.
ISSUE: W/N respondents committed ULP.
HELD: Court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the CA decision.
Petitioners posit that the procedure that should have been followed by the
respondents in resolving the charges against them was a provision in their CBL,
requiring members to put their grievance in writing to be submitted to their union
president, who shall strive to have the parties settle their differences amicably.
Petitioners maintain that any form of grievance would be referred only to the
committee upon failure of the parties to settle amicably.

Based on RPNEUs CBL, the charges were not mere internal squabbles, but
violations that demand proper investigation because, if proven, would constitute
grounds for their expulsion from the union.
For a charge of ULP against a labor organization to prosper, the onus probandi rests
upon the party alleging it to prove or substantiate such claims by the requisite
quantum of evidence. In labor cases, substantial evidence or such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required.
Moreover, it is indubitable that all the prohibited acts constituting ULP should
materially relate to the workers' right to self-organization.
FACTS: Nelson A. Culili was employed by Eastern Telecommunications Philippines,
Inc. (ETPI) as a Technician in its Field Operations Department, and was eventually
promoted to Senior Technician in the Customer Premises Equipment Management
Unit of the Service Quality Department.
Due to business troubles and losses, ETPI was compelled to implement a RightSizing Program which consisted of two phases: (1) the reduction of ETPIs workforce
to only those employees that were necessary and which ETPI could sustain; (2) a
company-wide reorganization which would result in the transfer, merger, absorption
or abolition of certain departments of ETPI.
Among the departments abolished was Culilis department; his functions were
absorbed by another department. Culilis position was terminated due to redundancy.
Culili alleged that neither he nor DOLE were formally notified of the termination,
further claiming that he only found out about it after he was barred from entering
ETPIs premises when he tried to report for work; that the company decided to
terminate him even before his position was found redundant; and that after he was
terminated, EPTI hired labor-only contractors to do the functions he used to do,
which showed that his functions were not redundant and that violated of their CBL.
He filed a complaint against ETPI and its officers for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
practice violating Art. 248 [259] (c) and (e), and money claims before LA.
LA found ETPI guilty of illegal dismissal and ULP, believing that ETPI intended to
dismiss Culili even before his position was declared redundant. NLRC affirmed on
ETPI filed a Petition for Certiorari before CA. CA found that Culilis position was
validly abolished due to redundancy, and that ETPI cannot be held guilty of ULP.

ISSUE: W/N ETPI committed ULP.

HELD: Court disagreed with Culili, holding that his termination was due to an
authorized cause and cannot be considered ULP on the part of ETPI.
Culili asserted that ETPI is guilty of ULP because his functions were sourced out to
labor-only contractors and he was discriminated against when his co-employees
were treated differently when they were each offered an additional motorcycle to
induce them to avail of the Special Retirement Program. ETPI denied hiring outside
contractors and averred that the motorcycles were not given to his co-employees but
were purchased by them pursuant to their Collective Bargaining Agreement, which
allowed a retiring employee to purchase the motorcycle he was assigned during his

that their work is neither casual nor seasonal as they are performing work or
activities necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of SMC. Thus, it was
contended that there exists a "labor-only" contracting situation. It was then
demanded that the employment status of these workers be regularized.
SMC failed to make a favorable response and Union filed a notice of strike for unfair
labor practice, CBA violations, and union busting, and filed a second notice of strike.
SMC filed a verified Complaint for Injunction and Damages before RTC; it issued
TRO for the purpose of maintaining status quo.
Union filed a Motion to Dismiss SMCs Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the case/nature of the action; it was opposed by SMC.
ISSUE: W/N controversy relates to a labor dispute.

ULP refers to acts that violate the workers' right to organize and to the observance of
a CBA. Court declared that there should be no dispute that all the prohibited acts
constituting ULP in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization. Thus, an
employer may only be held liable for ULP if it can be shown that his acts affect
in whatever manner the right of his employees to self-organize.
There is no showing that ETPI, in implementing its Right-Sizing Program, was
motivated by ill will, bad faith or malice, or that it was aimed at interfering with its
employees right to self-organize. In fact, ETPI negotiated and consulted with ETEU
before implementing its Right-Sizing Program.
Good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the
same. By imputing bad faith to the actuations of ETPI, Culili has the burden of proof
to present substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor practice. Culili
failed to discharge this burden and his bare allegations deserve no credit.
FACTS: Union and SMC executed a CBA, which provided that "temporary,
probationary, or contract employees and workers are excluded from the bargaining
unit and, therefore, outside the scope of this Agreement."
Union advised SMC that some workers Lipercon and D'Rite, independent contractor
companies under SMC, had signed up for union membership and sought the
regularization of their employment with SMC, and alleged these employees, while
appearing to be contractual workers supposedly independent contractors, have been
continuously working for SMC for a period ranging from six months to fifteen years;

HELD: Court held that controversy is a labor dispute falling under the jurisdiction of
A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions
of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment,
While SMC submits that no ER-EE relationship exists, a labor dispute can
nevertheless exist, provided the controversy concerns, among others, the terms and
conditions of employment or a "change" or "arrangement" thereof. Put differently, and
as defined by law, the existence of a labor dispute is not negative by the fact that the
SMC and defendants do not stand in the proximate relation of employer and
A labor dispute does exist herein is evident. The Union seeks to regularize the status
of the employees contracted by Lipercon and D'Rite in effect, that they be absorbed
into the working unit of SMC. This matter definitely dwells on the working relationship
between said employees vis-a-vis SMC. Terms, tenure and conditions of their
employment and the arrangement of those terms are thus involved bringing the
matter within the purview of a labor dispute. Further, the Union also seeks to
represent those workers, who have signed up for Union membership, for the purpose
of CB. SMC resists that Union demand on the ground that there is no employeremployee relationship between it and those workers and because the demand
violates the terms of their CBA. Obvious then is that representation and association,

for the purpose of negotiating the conditions of employment are also involved. In
fact, the injunction sought by SMC was precisely also to prevent such representation.
Again, the matter of representation falls within the scope of a labor dispute. Neither
can it be denied that the controversy below is directly connected with the labor
dispute already taken cognizance of by the NCMB.
FACTS: Loreta C. Sol has been a regular Radio Monitor of Sterling Products
International, Inc; she filed a complaint against the said firm for underpayment,
money equivalent of her vacation leave from 1952 to 1959, and Christmas bonus for
1959, equivalent to one month salary. The complaint resulted in her dismissal,
without just cause.
Company alleged that Sol is an independent contractor whose services were
retained by them to submit reports of radio monitoring work performed outside of
their office; that company no longer required Sols services and therefore, it gave her
notice of termination, as it did in fact terminate her services, as an independent
contractor; that company terminated the services of Sol for good and justifiable
reasons and in accordance with business requirements; that the complaint states no
cause of action and that company did not and are not engaged in unfair labor
CIR held that Sol is only an independent contractor and that company didnt commit
Sol moved to reconsidered, and lower court reversed the CIR decision. The court
further ruled that company committed ULP; that company showed supervision and
control over Sol and her work, thus she was an employee.
Company filed petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N Sol is an independent contractor.
W/N Company committed ULP
1. Court held that Sol was not an independent contractor.
Sol was directed to listen to certain broadcasts; instructions were given her,
when to listen and what to listen, the stations to be listened to, the hours of
broadcasts, and the days when listening was to be done. Sol had to follow
these directions. The mere fact that while performing the duties assigned to

her she was not under the supervision of the company does not render her a
contractor, because what she has to do, the hours that she has to work and
the report that she has to submit all these are according to instructions
given by the employer. It is not correct to say, therefore, that she was an
independent contractor, for an independent contractor is one who does
not receive instructions as to what to do, how to do, without specific
2. Court found that company did not commit ULP.
Sol was not connected with any LO, nor has she ever attempted to join
a LO, or to assist, or contribute to a labor organization. The company
cannot, therefore, be considered as having committed an unfair labor
The employment contract between the company and Sol expressly stated
that Sol could be dismissed upon fifteen days' advance notice, if company
desire. Sol was dismissed on January 13, 1959 and therefore the dismissal
should be governed by the provisions of RA1787.
Such contract is therefore null and void. Inasmuch as respondent Sol was
employed since the year 1952 and was in the employment of the petitioners
from that time up to 1959, or a period of seven years, she is entitled to three
and one-half months pay in accordance with Section 1 of the Act.
FACTS: American President Lines (company) entered into a contract with the Marine
Security Agency for the latter to guard and protect the formers vessels while they
were moored at the port of Manila. It was stipulated in the contract that its term was
for one year commencing from the date of its execution and it may be terminated by
either party upon 30 days notice to the other.
Marine Security Agency hired and assigned the guards who kept watching over the
petitioners vessels. The guards were not known to APL who dealt only with the
agency on matters pertaining to the service of the guards. A lump sum would be paid
by the APL to the agency, who in turn determined and paid the compensation of the
individual watchmen.
Upon prior notice given by APL to Marine Security Agency, the contract was
terminated on January 4, 1961 after it had run its term. After the termination of its
contract, APL executed a new contract with the Philippine Scout Veterans Security

and Investigation Agency also for the purpose of having its vessels protected while
they called at the port of Manila, and this contract was also for a fixed period of one

The agency stands between the company and the watchmen; and it is the
agency that is answerable to the company for the conduct of its guards.
2. Court also held that company did not commit ULP.

Maritime Security Union (MSU) filed a complaint against the petitioner for ULP under
RA 875, alleging that company had refused to negotiate an agreement with them and
had discriminated against them with regard to their tenure of employment by
dismissing them for no other reason than their membership with the union and union
activities, was lodged with the defunct Court of Industrial Relations. However, before
that court could resolve the case, LCP was enacted and the case was transferred to
the NLRC.

In view of the finding that there is no ER-EE relationship between the

company and the members of the agency, it should necessarily follow
that the company cannot be guilty of ULP as charged by the watchmen.
Under Republic Act 875, Section 13, an ULP may be committed only within
the context of an ER-EE relationship.

Arbiter Lomabao found the company to be an employer of MSU and that the
company is guilty of ULP. Thus, he ordered the company to reinstate the individual
complainants of MSU and to pay them straight three years in backwages. NLRC
affirmed the Arbiters decision with the qualification that only those complainants who
are sixty years old or younger and capacitated to discharge their former duties
should be reinstated without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and with
three years of backwages; and those who could not be so reinstated should be given
separation pay in addition to their backwages for three years.


FACTS: Lucia P. Sereneo was employed as a professional medical representative by
the company, eventually becoming field sales training manager. During her
employment, she received several awards from company in recognition of her
remarkable marketing excellence. However, when she was elected president of
SELU and started the re-negotiation with the company on the CBA, company
suddenly became dissatisfied with her sales performance.

MOL affirmed the NLRC decision. The company appealed to the Office of the
President, which affirmed such an order.

In one instance, company sent her a notice asking her to submit an explanation why
she failed to implement marketing projects, and in another, she was required to
comment on the complaint charging her with misappropriation of company funds,
falsification and tampering of company records, and submission of false reports. This
prompted SELU to file with NCMB a notice of strike on the grounds of ULP and union
busting; but the notice of strike was dismissed.

ISSUE: W/N there is ER-EE relationship between the company and the individual
watchmen of the agency allegedly members of MSU.
W/N the company refused to negotiate CBA with the individual watchmen and
discriminated against them in respect to their tenure of employment by terminating
their contract because of their union activities.
1. Court held that the watchmen under the agency are not employees of the
A watchman cannot perform any security service for the companys vessels
unless the agency first accepts him as its watchman. With respect to his
wages, the amount to be paid to a security guard is beyond the power of the
company to determine. Certainly, the lump sum amount paid by the company
to the agency in consideration of the latters service is much more than the
wages of any one watchman. In point of fact, it is the agency that quantifies
and pays the wages to which a watchman is entitled.

Subsequently, company sent Sereneo a Memorandum terminating her services for

loss of trust and confidence.
Company denied the allegations in the complaint, alleging that Sereneo failed to
perform her duties; thus prompting the company to send her two letters charging her
with willful violation of company rules and regulations and directing her to submit a
written explanation. But she refused to submit her explanation, prompting company
to evaluate her records; they found her guilty of dishonesty, willful breach of trust and
willful disobedience, and then sent her a notice terminating her services.
LA found company guilty of ULP for dismissing Sereneo illegally and ordering them
to reinstate her to her former position of medical representative without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges, and to pay her backwages and attorneys fee.

On appeal, NLRC reversed the LA decision and dismissed the petition of Sereneo.
SELU and Sereneo moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. They filed petition
for certiorari before CA; CA affirmed the NLRC decision.

Union filed notice to strike due to the Companys refusal to bargain. During the
hearing of the certification proceedings, Judge Tabigne cautioned the parties to
maintain the status quo; he specifically advised the employees not to go on strike,
making it clear, however, that in the presence of ULP they could go on strike even
without any notice. Tabigne dismissed the ULP complaint for lack of merit.

ISSUE: W/N Sereneo was illegally dismissed from employment, and that the
company was guilty of ULP and union busting.

The Company in its answer denied the charges of ULP.

HELD: Court affirmed the NLRC and CA decisions.

ISSUE: W/N company committed ULP.

Sereneo was indeed found to have committed dishonesty through falsified company
call cards altering the dates of her actual visits to physicians, and misappropriation of
company funds through falsified food receipts. She breached the trust reposed in her
by company. Hence, her dismissal from the service was in order.

HELD: Court held that there was ULP.

The advice of Judge Tabigne to maintain the status quo cannot be considered as a
lawful order within the contemplation of the Magna Carta of Labor, particularly
Section 10 thereof; to so regard it as an order would be to grant respondent court
authority to forbid a strike in an uncertified case which it is not empowered to do. The
fact that the strike was not staged until April 22, 1965 is eloquent proof enough of the
desire of the Association and its officers and members to respect the advice of Judge
Tabigne. However, as shown in this case during the pendency of the certification
proceedings unfair labor practices were committed by the Company; hence, the
Association was justified in staging a strike and certainly this is not in violation of the
advice of Judge Tabigne on March 29, 1965.

Art. 282 [297] (c) states that fraud or willful breach by the employee of trust reposed
in him by his employer or duly authorized representative is a ground for terminating
an employment. SELU and Sereneos accusation of union busting is bereft of any
proof, not finding evidence to sustain such charge.
It is the union, therefore, who had the burden of proof to present substantial
evidence to support its allegations (of unfair labor practices committed by
It is not enough that the union believed that the employer committed acts of unfair
labor practice when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to
warrant such a belief.
FACTS: Union is the LO of Filipino managers supervisors in Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
Union informed company of the formers registration; Company replied inquiring on
the position titles of the employees which the Union sought to represent. Union sent
a set of proposals to the Company, including its recognition as the duly SEBA for
managers and supervisors in the Company; Company countered stating that a
distinction exists between representatives of management and individuals employed
as supervisors and that it is Company's belief that managerial employees are not
qualified for membership in a LO; hence, it is digested that the Union institute a
certification proceeding so as to remove any question with regard to position titles
that should be included in BU.

Additional ruling: When company moved to reconsider decision

ISSUE: W/N ULP may be committed against managerial personnel who are
members of union.
HELD: Speaking solely of the commission of ULP on managerial personnel, a lack of
appreciation as to what is truly impressed with legal relevance. The basic question is
whether the managerial personnel can organize. What Company failed to take into
account is that the right to self-organization is not merely a statutory creation. It is
fortified by our Constitution. All are free to exercise such right unless their purpose is
contrary to law. Certainly it would be to attach unorthodoxy to, not to say an
emasculation of, the concept of law if managers as such were precluded from
organizing. Having done so and having been duly registered, as did occur in this
case, their union is entitled to all the rights under Republic Act No. 875. Considering
what is denominated an unfair labor practice under Section 4 of such Act and the
facts set forth in our decision, there can be only one answer to the objection raised
that no unfair labor practice could be committed by respondent Company insofar as
managerial personnel is concerned.


FACTS: Respondents were employees in Republic Bank (Bank) who were
terminated for having written and published "a patently libelous letter . . . tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt not only of officers and employees of this
bank, but also of your employer, the bank itself." The letter referred to was a lettercharge which the respondents had written to the bank president, demanding his
resignation on the grounds of immorality, nepotism in the appointment and favoritism
as well as discrimination in the promotion of bank employees.
Copies of this letter were admittedly given to the chairman of the board of directors of
the Bank, and the Governor of the Central Bank.
A complaint was filed, alleging that Bank's conduct violated section 4(a) (5) of the
Industrial Peace Act which makes it an ULP for an employer "to dismiss, discharge or
otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having filed charges or
for having given or being about to give testimony under this Act."
Bank moved for the dismissal of the complaint, contending that respondents were
discharged not for union activities but for having written and published a libelous
letter against the bank president.
Court held that the charge, the filing of which is the cause of the dismissal of the
employee, must be related to his right to self-organization in order to give rise to ULP
on the part of the employer; and found Bank guilty of ULP, ordering it to reinstate the
respondents, with full back wages and without loss of seniority and other privileges.
ISSUE: W/N Bank committed ULP.
HELD: Court affirmed CIR decision.
Bank contends that the writing of the letter-charge was not a "union action" but
merely their "individual" act of the respondents.
However, Court held that even assuming that the latter acted in their individual
capacities when they wrote the letter-charge they were nonetheless protected for
they were engaged in concerted activity, in the exercise of their right of selforganization that includes concerted activity for mutual aid and protection,
interference with which constitutes ULP. The joining in protests or demands, even by
a small group of employees, if in furtherance of their interests, is a concerted activity
protected by the Industrial Peace Act. It is not necessary that union activity be
involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated.

Bank should have referred the letter-charge to their grievance committee; failing
such would commit ULP. For CB does not end with the execution of an agreement. It
is a continuous process. The duty to bargain imposes on the parties during the term
of their agreement the mutual obligation "to meet and confer promptly and
expeditiously and in good faith . . . for the purpose of adjusting any grievances or
question arising under such agreement"; such is intended to promote, as it were, a
friendly dialogue between labor and management as a means of maintaining
industrial peace.
FACTS: The petitioners and respondents held a formal meeting to discuss the
formation of a union. The following day, 17 employees were barred from entering the
factory premises located, and were ordered to transfer to T&H Shopfitters
warehouse at Subic Bay Freeport Zone. Afterwards, the said 17 employees were
repeatedly ordered to go on forced leave due to the unavailability of work.
DOLE issued a certificate of registration in favor of THS-GQ Union.
Respondents contended that the affected employees were not given regular work
assignments, while subcontractors were continuously hired to perform their
functions. Through the assistance of NCMB, petitioners agreed to give priority to
regular employees in the distribution of work assignments; they never complied with
its commitment and hired contractual workers instead.
Eventually, the certification election was scheduled, and petitioner Ben Huang
announced to his employees the relocation of their office and workers to Cabangan,
Zambales. Some of the respondents, who visited the site discovered that it was a
"talahiban" or grassland, to which the union officers and members were made to
work as grass cutters.
Meanwhile, petitioners sponsored a field trip to Iba, Zambales for its employees, and
the officers and members of THS-GQ Union were purportedly excluded from the field
trip. On the evening of the field trip, a certain Angel Madriaga, a sales officer of
petitioners, campaigned against the union in the forthcoming certification election.
The following week after the CE was held, the petitioners retrenched THG-GQ Union
officers and members assigned at the Zambales plant. Respondents claimed that the
work weeks of those employees in the SBFZ plant were drastically reduced to only
three (3) days in a month.

Respondents filed complaint for ULP by way of union busting, and Illegal Lockout,
with moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees against T&H Shopfitters
Corporation and Gin Queen Corporation before the LA.
LA dismissed respondents complaint and all their money claims for lack of merit.
NLRC reversed the LA decision and ruled in favor of respondents. Petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied the same decision.
Petitioners instituted a petition for certiorari before CA, but the court found no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in reversing the LA decision.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioners committed ULP.
HELD: Court affirmed CA decision.
ULP relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers right to organize.
As specified in Art 248 [259] and 249 [260], the prohibited acts must necessarily
relate to the workers' right to self-organization.
The questioned acts of petitioners, namely: 1) sponsoring a field trip to Zambales for
its employees, to the exclusion of union members, before the scheduled certification
election; 2) the active campaign by the sales officer of petitioners against the union
prevailing as a bargaining agent during the field trip; 3) escorting its employees after
the field trip to the polling center; 4) the continuous hiring of subcontractors
performing respondents functions; 5) assigning union members to the Cabangan
site to work as grass cutters; and 6) the enforcement of work on a rotational basis for
union members, all reek of interference on the part of petitioners.
The various acts of petitioners, taken together, reasonably support an inference that,
indeed, such were all orchestrated to restrict respondents free exercise of their right
to self-organization. The Court is of the considered view the petitioners undisputed
actions prior and immediately before the scheduled certification election, while
seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled in the affairs of its employees in selecting
their exclusive bargaining representative.

and other employees of PTI held a series of meetings to discuss the protection of
their interests as employees.
Renato Claros, president of company, suspected that respondents were about to
form a union; he made known to Diosdado Garcia, operations manager, his objection
to the formation of a union.
In December 1997, PTI employees requested for a cash advance, but it was denied;
this resulted in demoralization on the employees' ranks. PTI acceded to the request
of some, but not all, of the employees. This led respondents to form a union for their
mutual aid and protection.
In order to block the continued formation of the union, PTI transferred all union
members and sympathizers to one of its sub-companies, Lubas Transport (Lubas).
Despite this, the schedule of drivers and conductors, as well as their company
identification cards, were still being issued by PTI; DTRs, tickets, reports, and salary
claims of the respondents were also filed at the PTI office.
Lubas deteriorated because of the refusal of PTI to maintain and repair the units
being used therein, which resulted in the virtual stoppage of its operations and
respondents' loss of employment.
Respondents charged petitioners with illegal dismissal, ULP, and illegal deductions
and prayed for the award of benefits, damages, and attorneys fees.
Petitioners denied the material allegations of the complaints contending that
respondents were no longer their employees, since they all transferred to Lubas at
their own request; that had nothing to do with the management and operations of
Lubas, as well as the control and supervision of the latter's employees; that were not
aware of the existence of any union in their company.
LA held that respondents were illegally dismissed by Lubas, and dismissed all the
other charges; that petitioners are not guilty of unfair labor practice in the absence of
evidence to show that they violated respondents right to self-organization.
Respondents filed a Partial Appeal with the NLRC praying that PTI should also be
held equally liable as Lubas, but it was only partially granted.


FACTS: Respondents were the employees of company as drivers, conductors,
mechanics, and inspectors, and operations manager. In addition to regular monthly
income, respondents received commissions equivalent to 8%-10% of their wages;
sometime in October 1997, the commissions were reduced to 7 to 9%. Respondents

They moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. They filed petition for certiorari
before CA; CA ruled that company is guilty of ULP; that Lubas is a mere
instrumentality, agent conduit, or adjunct of PTI; and that companys act of
transferring respondents employment to Lubas is indicative of their intent to frustrate
the efforts of respondents to organize themselves into a union.

ISSUE: W/N Company committed ULP.

HELD: Court found no reason to depart from the findings of the CA. Under Article
248 [259] (a) and (e), an employer is guilty of ULP if it interferes with, restrains or
coerces its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or if it
discriminates in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any LO.

Indeed, evidence of company's ULP is shown by the fact that after respondents'
transfer to Lubas, company left them high and dry insofar as the operations of Lubas
was concerned. The company withheld the necessary financial and logistic support
such as spare parts, and repair and maintenance of the transferred buses until only
two units remained in running condition. This left respondents virtually jobless.