Purefoods Corporation vs. Nagkakaisang Samahang Manggagawa ng Purefoods Rank-And-File

A certification of non-forum shopping executed by a corporate officer must be accompanied by proof of the signatory's authority from the board of directors; absent such proof, the petition is properly dismissed.

Purefoods Corporation employed rank-and-file workers in its meat division and farms across Luzon, represented by three labor organizations affiliated with the Purefoods Unified Labor Organization (PULO) federation. The unions sought to renegotiate their collective bargaining agreements (CBA) and include PULO representatives in the negotiating panels, which the company refused to recognize, leading to strained labor relations and a subsequent dispute over the closure of one of its farms.

On February 8, 1995, NAGSAMA-Purefoods, the exclusive bargaining agent for Purefoods' meat division rank-and-file workers, signified its intent to renegotiate its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) set to expire on February 28. Along with its proposals, the union submitted a general membership resolution affirming its affiliation with the Purefoods Unified Labor Organization (PULO) and including a PULO representative in its negotiating panel. Purefoods acknowledged receipt but refused to recognize PULO or allow its participation even as an observer. Despite the exclusion of the PULO representative, negotiations deadlocked, prompting NAGSAMA-Purefoods to file a notice of strike on May 15, 1995. During conciliation, all issues were settled except the company's recognition of the union's affiliation with PULO. Concurrently, the St. Thomas Free Workers Union (STFWU) and Purefoods Grandparent Farm Workers Union (PGFWU) submitted similar CBA proposals and resolutions affirming their PULO affiliation, but Purefoods likewise refused to negotiate with PULO representatives, leading to an indefinite postponement of negotiations.

On July 24, 1995, Purefoods concluded a new CBA with another union in its Malvar, Batangas farm. Five days later, company employees transferred approximately 23,000 chickens from the Sto. Tomas farm, where STFWU was the bargaining agent, to the Malvar farm. The following day, regular rank-and-file workers at the Sto. Tomas farm were refused entry, and on July 31, 1995, 22 STFWU members were terminated. The farm manager, supervisors, and electrical workers, who belonged to a different union, were retained.

The labor organizations jointly filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal lockout/dismissal, and damages before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed the ruling, finding that the closure of the Sto. Tomas farm was a union-busting move. The NLRC ordered reinstatement with full backwages and awarded moral and exemplary damages. Purefoods elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Rule 65 petition, but the appellate court dismissed it outright because the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by the senior vice-president without attached proof of authority from the board of directors. The Supreme Court denied the subsequent Rule 45 petition, finding no reason to relax the procedural rules, and affirmed the NLRC's finding that the farm closure was executed in bad faith to circumvent the workers' right to self-organization and collective bargaining.

• Legitimacy of PULO: Petitioner argued that PULO was not a legitimate labor organization or federation because it lacked the required minimum number of member unions.
• Valid Closure and Termination: Petitioner maintained that the closure of the Sto. Tomas farm was not arbitrary but due to the financial non-viability of operations or the pre-termination of the lease agreement by the landowner. It also argued that the termination of employees complied with the 30-day notice requirement and that the employees were paid 30-day advance salary plus separation pay.
• Loss of Bargaining Status: Petitioner contended that STFWU lost its status as bargaining representative when the Sto. Tomas farm was closed.
• Defective Certification Justified: Petitioner impliedly sought liberal application of the rules regarding the certification of non-forum shopping, though it failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the non-compliance or attach proof of authority during its motion for reconsideration.

• Procedural Compliance: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari outright due to a defective certification of non-forum shopping signed by a corporate officer without proof of board authority.
• Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal Dismissal: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that Purefoods Corporation committed unfair labor practice and illegally dismissed STFWU members when it closed the Sto. Tomas farm.

• Procedural Compliance: No. The CA correctly dismissed the petition because the certification of non-forum shopping executed by the senior vice-president lacked attached proof of authority from the board of directors, a mandatory requirement for corporate petitioners.
• Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal Dismissal: No. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; the closure of the Sto. Tomas farm was done in bad faith to bust the union, constituting unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.

• Procedural Compliance: Under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must be accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. When the petitioner is a corporation, the certification must be executed by a natural person authorized by the board of directors, and proof of such authority must be attached to the petition. Absent any authority from the board, no person can bind the corporation. Since the senior vice-president who signed the certificate failed to attach proof of his authority, the CA properly dismissed the petition. The Court refused to apply liberality because the petitioner did not offer a reasonable explanation for the non-compliance and failed to substantially comply with the requirement.
• Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal Dismissal: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 will prosper only if there is grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no such abuse by the NLRC. The closure of the Sto. Tomas farm was attended by badges of bad faith: the unjustified refusal to recognize the unions' affiliation with PULO, the conclusion of a new CBA with another union during the agreed suspension of negotiations, the surreptitious transfer of operations to a less hostile environment, and the selective termination of STFWU members while retaining non-members. Petitioner failed to present evidence of financial losses or pre-termination of the lease. Thus, the closure circumvented the workers' right to collective bargaining and security of tenure. The Court also declared the releases and quitclaims signed by the employees invalid for being executed under economic duress.

• Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for Corporations — When a petitioner is a corporation, the certification of non-forum shopping must be executed by a natural person authorized by the corporation's board of directors, and proof of such authority must be attached to the petition. Failure to attach such proof is a ground for dismissal. The Court applied this strictly, refusing to condone the procedural transgression absent any justifiable cause or substantial compliance.
• Bad Faith in Business Closure as Unfair Labor Practice — The closure of a business operation constitutes unfair labor practice if done in bad faith to circumvent the workers' right to self-organization and collective bargaining. Badges of bad faith include unjustified refusal to recognize union affiliation, concluding a CBA with another union during suspended negotiations, surreptitiously transferring operations, and selectively terminating union members while retaining non-members.
• Invalidity of Quitclaims — Quitclaims and affidavits of desistance executed by employees who are in necessitous circumstances are invalid and ineffective to bar them from claiming the full measure of benefits flowing from their legal rights.

• "When the petitioner is a corporation, inasmuch as corporate powers are exercised by the board, the certification shall be executed by a natural person authorized by the corporation’s board of directors." — This establishes the mandatory rule for executing certifications of non-forum shopping on behalf of corporate entities.
• "The closure of the Sto. Tomas farm circumvented the labor organization’s right to collective bargaining and violated the members’ right to security of tenure." — This encapsulates the Court's finding that the farm closure was a union-busting tactic constituting unfair labor practice.
• "The releases and quitclaims, as well as the affidavits of desistance, signed by the concerned employees, who were then necessitous men at the time of execution of the documents, are declared invalid and ineffective." — This pronouncement protects vulnerable workers from waiving their rights under economic duress.

• Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 143088, January 24, 2006 — Cited to support the rule that a corporate officer signing a certification of non-forum shopping must be authorized by the board, and proof of such authority must be attached.
• St. John Colleges, Inc. vs. St. John Academy Faculty and Employees Union, G.R. No. 167892, October 27, 2006 — Cited as analogous precedent where the Court found a company acted in bad faith by suddenly closing a department during collective bargaining.
• Mindoro Lumber and Hardware vs. Bacay, G.R. No. 158753, June 8, 2005 — Cited to support the doctrine that quitclaims executed by necessitous employees are invalid and do not bar them from claiming their legal rights.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Mandates that a petition for certiorari must be accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. Applied to dismiss the petition due to the lack of proof of authority for the corporate signatory.

Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, Reyes, JJ., concur.