UST Faculty Union vs. University of Santo Tomas

An employer does not commit unfair labor practice by dealing with and entering into a collective bargaining agreement with a union faction claiming legitimate leadership, where the employer has no duty to inquire into the validity of the intra-union election and the faction presents sufficient evidence of its legitimacy pending final resolution of the dispute.

The incumbent USTFU leadership (Mariño Group) scheduled a general assembly for October 5, 1996. Two days prior, UST Secretary General Fr. Rodel Aligan issued a memorandum allowing faculty clubs to hold a convocation. During this convocation, a rival faction (Gamilla Group) conducted an election and assumed union leadership. The Mariño Group filed a complaint for ULP against UST and a petition to nullify the election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Pending resolution of the intra-union dispute, UST and the Gamilla Group executed a new CBA. The intra-union dispute was eventually resolved in favor of the Mariño Group.

• The Convocation and Rival Election: On September 21, 1996, the USTFU (Mariño Group) scheduled a general assembly for October 5, 1996. On October 2, 1996, UST Secretary General Fr. Rodel Aligan issued a memorandum allowing faculty clubs to hold a convocation on October 4, 1996. During the convocation, the Reformist Alliance conducted an election for USTFU officers. The Mariño Group walked out upon learning of the election, while the Gamilla Group was declared elected. The Gamilla Group informed the UST administration of their election on the same day.
• Execution of a New CBA: On December 3, 1996, UST and the Gamilla Group entered into a new CBA, superseding the existing CBA (1993-1998) previously negotiated with the Mariño Group. UST processed educational and hospitalization benefits and deducted union dues, relying on the Gamilla Group's representation of legitimacy.
• The Padlocking Incident: On January 27, 1997, the USTFU office was padlocked by the Gamilla Group, accompanied by the Barangay Captain and UST Chief Security Officer Justino Cardenas. An armed security guard was subsequently posted at the office.
• The Intra-Union Dispute: The Mariño Group filed a petition with the DOLE Med-Arbiter to nullify the Gamilla Group's election. The Med-Arbiter nullified the election on February 11, 1997, a ruling affirmed by the BLR Director on August 15, 1997, and ultimately by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 131235 on November 16, 1999.

• Interference via Convocation: Petitioner argued that UST committed ULP by providing facilities and a forum for the Gamilla Group to conduct an ambush election under the guise of a faculty convocation, suspending classes to ensure attendance.
• Domination and Assistance: Petitioner maintained that UST interfered with union administration by dealing with the Gamilla Group—processing benefits, deducting dues without turning them over to the Mariño Group, and executing a new CBA—despite knowledge of the intra-union dispute.
• Padlocking and Security Detail: Petitioner argued that UST assisted the Gamilla Group in padlocking the union office and posted an armed guard to prevent the Mariño Group from performing its duties.
• Derogatory Remarks: Petitioner alleged that UST legal counsel Atty. Domingo Legaspi conducted a faculty meeting supplying derogatory information about the Mariño Group.
• Overlooked Evidence: Petitioner contended that the lower courts overlooked vital evidence, namely the Affidavit of Edgar Yu, the Certification of Alexander Sibug, and a photograph of the security guard.

• No Coercion in Convocation: Respondent countered that the October 2, 1996 Memorandum merely allowed the convocation and did not compel attendance, as evidenced by the phrase "we are allowing them," and no UST official participated in the election.
• Duty to Bargain: Respondent maintained that it was obligated under the duty to bargain collectively to deal with the Gamilla Group, which presented itself and sufficient evidence as the legitimate leadership pending final resolution of the intra-union dispute.
• No Active Assistance in Padlocking: Respondent argued that the presence of the security officer during the padlocking did not constitute active assistance, and the guard was merely posted for security.

• Unfair Labor Practice: Whether respondent UST committed unfair labor practice under Art. 248(a) and (d) of the Labor Code by interfering with, restraining, coercing employees, or dominating/assisting the formation/administration of the labor organization.
• Substantial Evidence: Whether the Court of Appeals overlooked relevant facts that, if properly considered, would establish ULP.

• Unfair Labor Practice: No unfair labor practice was committed. The employer's duty to bargain collectively mandates dealing with the union's representatives; absent a final ruling nullifying the Gamilla Group's election, UST was justified in recognizing them based on their representation and supporting documents.
• Interference via Convocation: The October 2, 1996 Memorandum contained no coercive terms requiring attendance; the phrase "we are allowing them" negates employer participation. No UST official attended the convocation.
• Derogatory Remarks: The affidavit alleging that "derogatory" information was supplied by UST counsel was a conclusion of law, not of fact, and failed to establish ULP.
• Padlocking and Security Detail: The security officer's mere presence at the padlocking did not equate to active assistance. The photograph of the guard posted at the office did not prove that the Mariño Group was prevented from performing duties.
• Duty to Bargain vs. Intra-Union Dispute: It is not the employer's duty to inquire into the validity of an intra-union election. UST was obligated to bargain with the Gamilla Group until the Supreme Court nullified their election in G.R. No. 131235. Refusal to negotiate would have constituted ULP.
• Substantial Evidence: Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving ULP with substantial evidence.

• Burden of Proof in Unfair Labor Practice — The party alleging unfair labor practice bears the burden of proving it with substantial evidence, defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Because ULP is punishable by civil and/or criminal sanctions, the alleging party must substantiate its claims with the requisite quantum of evidence.
• Employer's Duty to Bargain vs. Intra-Union Dispute — An employer is not expected to stop dealing with a union faction on the mere accusation of illegitimacy; the employer has no duty to inquire into the validity of an intra-union election and is obligated to bargain with the group presenting itself as legitimate pending final resolution of the dispute.
• Totality of Conduct Doctrine (Dissent) — Employer acts must be evaluated vis-a-vis preceding and subsequent attending circumstances to determine if they constitute interference with self-organization. Under this doctrine, an employer's series of acts—allowing a convocation that created a "captive audience" for a rival faction, executing a new CBA during a pending intra-union dispute and while an existing CBA was subsisting, and authorizing security presence during a padlocking—can collectively amount to ULP even if individual acts appear innocuous.

• "In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
• "It is not the duty or obligation of respondents to inquire into the validity of the election of the Gamilla Group. Such issue is properly an intra-union controversy subject to the jurisdiction of the med-arbiter of the DOLE."
• "Whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’ rights; and ... it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining." (Citing Insular Life)

• De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129824, March 10, 1999 — Followed. Cited for the rule that a party alleging a critical fact must support the allegation with substantial evidence; any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation offends due process.
• Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) v. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004 — Followed. Cited for the definition of substantial evidence required to support a claim of unfair labor practice.
• Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., G.R. No. L-25291, January 30, 1971 — Relied upon by the dissent. Cited for the test of whether an employer has interfered with or coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.

• Article 247, Labor Code — Defines the concept of unfair labor practice as violating the constitutional right of workers to self-organization and disrupting industrial peace.
• Article 248(a), Labor Code — Makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
• Article 248(d), Labor Code — Makes it unlawful for an employer to initiate, dominate, assist, or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization.
• Article 248(g), Labor Code — Makes it unlawful for an employer to violate the duty to bargain collectively.
• Article 250(a), Labor Code — Prescribes the procedure in collective bargaining, requiring a written notice to negotiate.
• Article 252, Labor Code — Defines the duty to bargain collectively as the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith.
• Article 253, Labor Code — Mandates that when a CBA exists, neither party shall terminate or modify it during its lifetime (cited by the dissent to argue that executing a new CBA while the old one subsisted was a violation).

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Dante O. Tinga, Arturo D. Brion.

• Conchita Carpio Morales — Argued that applying the "totality of conduct doctrine," UST's acts constituted ULP under Art. 248(a). The issuance of the memorandum suspending classes provided a "captive audience" for the Gamilla Group's ambush election. The execution of a new CBA while the old CBA was still subsisting and during the pendency of an intra-union dispute violated Art. 253 of the Labor Code. Furthermore, UST was required by DOLE rules to be furnished a copy of the intra-union dispute complaint, thus it had knowledge of the leadership controversy before executing the CBA. The presence of the Chief Security Officer during the padlocking lent a color of authority to the Gamilla Group's actions.