10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

 
*
G.R. No. 99266. March 2, 1999.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND
DIVISION, AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
EMPLOYEES UNION (SMCEU)-PTGWO, respondents.

Labor Law; Collective Bargaining; Words and Phrases;

Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as “the situation
between the labor and the management of the company where there
is failure in the collective bargaining negotiations resulting in a
stalemate.”—Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as “the
situation between the labor and the management of the company
where there is failure in the collective bargaining negotiations
resulting in a stalemate.” This situation, is non-existent in the
present case since there is a Board assigned on the third level
(Step 3) of the grievance machinery to resolve the conflicting
views of the parties. Instead of asking the Conciliation Board
composed of five representatives each from the company and the
union, to decide the conflict, petitioner de-

___________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

clared a deadlock, and thereafter, filed a notice of strike. For

failing to exhaust all the steps in the grievance machinery and
arbitration proceedings provided in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, the notice of strike should have been dismissed by the
NLRC and private respondent union ordered to proceed with the
grievance and arbitration proceedings.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

Same; Same; Grievance Procedure; A labor union, in

abandoning the grievance proceedings and stubbornly refusing to
avail of the remedies under the CBA, violates the mandatory
provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.—As regards the
alleged violation of the CBA, we hold that such a violation is
chargeable against the private respondent union. In abandoning
the grievance proceedings and stubbornly refusing to avail of the
remedies under the CBA, private respondent violated the
mandatory provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

Same; Management Prerogatives; Abolition of departments or

positions in the company is one of the recognized management
prerogatives.—Abolition of departments or positions in the
company is one of the recognized management prerogatives.
Noteworthy is the fact that the private respondent does not
question the validity of the business move of petitioner. In the
absence of proof that the act of petitioner was ill-motivated, it is
presumed that petitioner San Miguel Corporation acted in good
faith. In fact, petitioner acceded to the demands of the private
respondent union by redeploying most of the employees involved.

Same; Strikes; Where the employer has evinced its willingness

to negotiate the fate of the remaining employees affected by the
abolition of office, there is no ground to sustain the notice of strike
filed by a labor union.—So also, in filing complaint with the
NLRC, petitioner prayed that the private respondent union be
compelled to proceed with the grievance and arbitration
proceedings. Petitioner having evinced its willingness to negotiate
the fate of the remaining employees affected, there is no ground to
sustain the notice of strike of the private respondent union. All
things studiedly considered, we are of the ineluctable conclusion,
and so hold, that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in
dismissing the complaint of petitioner SMC for the dismissal of
the notice of strike, issuance of a temporary restraining order,
and an order compelling the respon-

VOL. 304, MARCH 2, 1999 3

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

dent union to settle the dispute under the grievance machinery of

their CBA.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.      Roco,

Bunag, Kapunan, Migallos & Jardeleza for petitioner.
     Romeo C. Lagman for private respondent.

PURISIMA, J.:

At bar is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 651 of the

Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Resolution of the
National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR
CASE NO. 00094-90, which dismissed the complaint of San
Miguel Corporation (SMC), seeking to dismiss the notice of
strike given by the private respondent union and to compel
the latter to comply with the 2provisions of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on grievance machinery,
arbitration, and the no-strike clause, with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In July 1990, San Miguel Corporation, alleging the need
to streamline its operations due to financial losses, shut
down some of its plants and declared 55 positions as
redundant, listed as follows: seventeen (17) employees in
the Business Logistics Division (“BLD”), seventeen (17) in
the Ayala Operations Center (AOC), and eighteen (18) in3
the Magnolia-Manila Buying Station (“Magnolia-MBS”).
Consequently, the private respondent union filed several
grievance cases for the said retrenched employees, praying
for the redeployment of the said employees to the other
divisions of the company.

_____________

1 Dated April 16, 1991; Rollo, pp. 183-184.

2 Annex “A” of Petition.
3 Complaint Annex “F”; Rollo, p. 53.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

The grievance proceedings were conducted pursuant to

Sections 5 and 8, Article VIII of the parties’ 1990 Collective
Bargaining Agreement providing for the following
procedures, to wit:

Sec. 5. Processing of Grievance.—Should a grievance arise, an

earnest effort shall be made to settle the grievance expeditiously
in accordance with the following procedures:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

Step 1.—The individual employee concerned and the Union

Directors, or the Union Steward shall, first take up the employee’s
grievance orally with his immediate superior. If no satisfactory
agreement or adjustment of the grievance is reached, the
grievance shall, within twenty (20) working days from the
occurrence of the cause or event which gave rise to the grievance,
be filed in writing with the Department Manager or the next level
superior who shall render his decision within ten (10) working
days from the receipt of the written grievance. A copy of the
decision shall be furnished the Plant Personnel Officer.
Step 2.—If the decision in Step 1 is rejected, the employee
concerned may elevate or appeal this in writing to the Plant
Manager/Director or his duly authorized representative within
twenty (20) working days from the receipt of the Decision of the
Department Manager. Otherwise, the decision in Step 1 shall be
deemed accepted by the employee.
The Plant Manager/Director assisted by the Plant Personnel
Officer shall determine the necessity of conducting grievance
meetings. If necessary, the Plant Manager/Director and the Plant
Personnel Officer shall meet the employee concerned and the
Union Director/Steward on such date(s) as may be designated by
the Plant Manager. In every plant/office, Grievance Meetings
shall be scheduled at least twice a month.
The Plant Manager shall give his written comments and
decision within ten (10) working days after his receipt of such
grievance or the date of submission of the grievance for resolution,
as the case may be. A copy of his Decision shall be furnished the
Employee Relations Directorate.
Step 3.—If no satisfactory adjustment is arrived at Step 2, the
employee may appeal the Decision to the Conciliation Board as
provided under Section 6 hereof, within fifteen (15) working days
from the date of receipt of the decision of the Plant Man-

VOL. 304, MARCH 2, 1999 5

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

ager/Director or his designate. Otherwise, the decision in Step 2

shall be deemed accepted by the employee.

The Conciliation Board shall meet on the grievance in such dates

as shall be designated by the Division/Business Unit Manager or
his representative. In every Division/Business Unit, Grievance
Meetings of the Conciliation Board shall be scheduled at least
once a month.
The Conciliation Board shall have fifteen (15) working days
from the date of submission of the grievance for resolution within

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

which to decide on the grievance.

Sec. 6. Conciliation Board.—There shall be a conciliation Board
per Business Unit or Division. Every Conciliation Board shall be
composed of not more than five (5) representatives each from the
Company and the Union. Management and the Union may be
assisted by their respective legal counsels.
In every Division/Business Unit, the names of the Company
and Union representatives to the Conciliation Board shall be
submitted to the Division/Business Unit Manager not later than
January of every year. The Conciliation Board members shall act
as such for one (1) year until removed by the Company or the
Union, as the case may be.”
xxx
Sec. 8. Submission to Arbitration.—If the employee or Union is
not satisfied with the Decision of the Conciliation Board and
desires to submit the grievance to arbitration, the employee or the
Union shall serve notice of such intention to the Company within
fifteen (15) working days after receipt of the Board’s decision. If
no such written notice is received by the Company within fifteen
(15) working days, the grievance shall be considered settled on the
basis of the company’s
4
position and shall no longer be available
for arbitration.”

During the grievance proceedings, however, most of the

employees were redeployed, while others accepted early
retirement. As a result only 17 employees remained when
the parties proceeded to the third level (Step 3) of the
grievance

___________________

4 Annex “A,” Petition; Collective Bargaining Agreement, pp. 18-19.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

procedure. In a meeting on October 26, 1990, petitioner

informed private respondent union that if by October 30,
1990, the remaining 17 employees could not yet be
redeployed, their services would be terminated on
November 2, 1990. The said meeting adjourned when Mr.
Daniel S. L. Borbon II, a representative of the union,
declared that5 there was nothing more to discuss in view of
the deadlock.
On November 7, 1990, the private respondent filed with
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a notice

of strike on the following grounds: a) bargaining deadlock;
b) union busting; c) gross violation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such as non-compliance with
the grievance procedure; d) failure to provide private
respondent with a list of vacant positions pursuant to the
parties side agreement that was appended to the 1990
CBA; and e) defiance of voluntary arbitration award.
Petitioner on the other hand, moved to dismiss the notice of
strike but the NCMB failed to act on the motion.
On December
6
21, 1990, petitioner SMC filed a
complaint with the respondent NLRC, praying for: (1) the
dismissal of the notice of strike; (2) an order compelling the
respondent union to submit to grievance and arbitration
the issue listed in the notice of strike; (3) the recovery of
the expenses of litigation.
On April 16, 1991, respondent NLRC came out with a
minute resolution dismissing the complaint; holding, thus:

“NLRC NCR IC NO. 000094-90, entitled San Miguel Corporation,

Complainant-versus-San Miguel Corporation Employees
UnionPTWO (SMCEU), Respondent.—Considering the allegations
in the complaint to restrain Respondent Union from declaring a
strike and to enforce mutual compliance with the provisions of the
collective bargaining agreement on grievance machinery, and the
no-strike clause, with prayer for issuance of temporary
restraining order, and

____________________

5 Annex “B-3,” Petition; Rollo, p. 31.

6 Annex “F,” Petition; Rollo, pp. 48-65.

VOL. 304, MARCH 2, 1999 7

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

the evidence adduced therein, the Answer filed by the respondent

and the memorandum filed by the complainant in support of its
application for the issuance of an injunction, the Second Division,
after due 7deliberation, Resolved to dismiss the complaint for lack
of merit.”

Aggrieved by the said resolution, petitioner found its way

to this court via the present petition, contending that:

“I

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

IT IS THE POSITIVE LEGAL DUTY OF RESPONDENT NLRC

TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO ENJOIN A STRIKE IN
VIOLATION OF A NO STRIKE CLAUSE.

II

INJUNCTION IS THE ONLY IMMEDIATE, EFFECTIVE

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DISASTROUS ECONOMIC 8
WARFARE
THAT ARBITRATION IS DESIGNED TO AVOID.”

On June 3, 1991, to 9
preserve the status quo, the Court
issued a Resolution granting petitioner’s prayer for the
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.
The Petition is impressed with merit.
Rule XXII, Section I, of the Rules 10
and Regulations
Implementing Book V the Labor Code, reads:

“Section 1. Grounds for strike and lockout.—A strike or lockout

may be declared in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor
practices. Violations of the collective bargaining agreements,
except flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with its
economic provisions, shall not be considered unfair labor practice
and shall not be strikeable. No strike or lockout may be declared
on grounds

___________________

7 Annex “J,” Petition; Rollo, p. 183.

8 Rollo, p. 14.
9 Rollo, p. 185.
10 As amended by D.O. No. 09 which took effect on June 21, 1997.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

involving inter-union and intra-union disputes or on issues

brought to voluntary or compulsory arbitration.”

In the case under consideration, the grounds relied upon by

the private respondent union are non-strikeable. The
issues which may lend substance to the notice of strike
filed by the private respondent union are: collective
bargaining deadlock and petitioner’s alleged violation of
the collective bargaining agreement. These grounds,
however, appear more illusory than real.
Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as “the
situation between the labor and the management of the
company where there is failure in the collective bargaining
11
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304
11
negotiations resulting in a stalemate.” This situation, is
non-existent in the present case since there is a Board
assigned on the third level (Step 3) of the grievance
machinery to resolve the conflicting views of the parties.
Instead of asking the Conciliation Board composed of five
representatives each from the company and the union, to
decide the conflict, petitioner declared a deadlock, and
thereafter, filed a notice of strike. For failing to exhaust all
the steps in the grievance machinery and arbitration
proceedings provided in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, the notice of strike should have been dismissed
by the NLRC and private respondent union ordered to
proceed with the grievance and arbitration proceedings. 12
In
the case of Liberal Labor Union vs. Phil. Can Co., the
court declared as illegal the strike staged by the union for
not complying with the grievance procedure provided in the
collective bargaining agreement, ruling that:

“x x x the main purpose of the parties in adopting a procedure in

the settlement of their disputes is to prevent a strike. This
procedure must be followed in its entirety if it is to achieve its
objective. x x x strikes held in violation of the terms contained in
the collective bargaining agreement are illegal, specially when
they provide for

____________________

11 Tayag & P. F. Jardiniano, Dictionary of Philippine Labor Terms, p. 36.

12 91 Phil. 72.

VOL. 304, MARCH 2, 1999 9

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly 13

adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved. x x x”

As regards the alleged violation of the CBA, we hold that

such a violation is chargeable against the private
respondent union. In abandoning the grievance proceedings
and stubbornly refusing to avail of the remedies under the
CBA, private respondent violated the mandatory provisions
of the collective bargaining agreement.
Abolition of departments or positions in the company is 14
one of the recognized management prerogatives.
Noteworthy is the fact that the private respondent does not
question the validity of the business move of petitioner. In
the absence of proof that the act of petitioner was ill-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

motivated, it is presumed that petitioner San Miguel

Corporation acted in good faith. In fact, petitioner acceded
to the demands of the private respondent union by
redeploying most of the employees involved; such that from
an original 17 excess employees in BLD, 15 were
successfully redeployed. In AOC, out of the 17 original
excess, 15 were redeployed. In the Magnolia-Manila Buying
Station, out of 1815employees, 6 were redeployed and only 12
were terminated.
So also, in filing complaint with the NLRC, petitioner
prayed that the private respondent union be compelled to
proceed with the grievance and arbitration proceedings.
Petitioner having evinced its willingness to negotiate the
fate of the remaining employees affected, there is no
ground to sustain the notice of strike of the private
respondent union.
All things studiedly considered, we are of the ineluctable
conclusion, and so hold, that the NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in dismissing the complaint of petitioner SMC
for the dismissal of the notice of strike, issuance of a
temporary

__________________

13 Id., pp. 77-78, citing: Shop N. Save vs. Retail Food Clerks Union
(1940) Cal. Super. Ct. CCT. Tab. Case 91-18675; 2 A. L. R. Ann., 2nd
Series, pp. 1278-1282.
14 Dangan vs. NLRC, et al., 127 SCRA 706, p. 713.
15 Complaint Annex “A”; Rollo, p. 54.

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC

restraining order, and an order compelling the respondent

union to settle the dispute under the grievance machinery
of their CBA.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED. Petitioner San Miguel Corporation and private
respondent San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-
PTGWO are hereby directed to complete the third level
(Step 3) of the Grievance Procedure and proceed with the
Arbitration proceedings if necessary. No pronouncement as
to costs.
SO ORDERED.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
10/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 304

          Romero (Chairman) and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.,

concur.
     Vitug, J., Abroad on official business.
     Panganiban, J., On leave.

Petition granted, petitioner and respondent ordered to

complete grievance procedure and proceed to arbitration
proceedings.

Notes.—Discharges due to alleged redundancy can

hardly be considered company personnel policies and
therefore need not directly be subject to the grievance
machinery nor to voluntary arbitration. (San Miguel
Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 255
SCRA 133 [1996])
Where the dispute is just in the interpretation,
implementation or enforcement stage, it may be referred to
the grievance machinery set up in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement or by voluntary arbitration, but
where there is already actual termination, i.e., violation of
rights, it is already cognizable by the Labor Arbiter.
(Maneja vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 290
SCRA 603 [1998])

——o0o——

11

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8a637a85e0793359003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10