Lolita Lopez et.,al v. Quezon City Sports Club, Inc.

(QCSC)

G.R. No. 164032, January 19, 2009

Facts :

The Kasapiang Manggatgawa sa Quezon City Sports Club (Union) filed a compliant for Unfair Labor
Practice (ULP) against QCSC. On July 1997, the union wrote to the management for the release of the
members’ salaries and for the implementation of wage increase mandated by CBA.When the letter
was unanswered, the union filed a notice of strike. QCSC placed some of its employees under lay-off
status due to redundancy and likewise filed a petition for cancellation of registration against
union.QCSC contended that the union was not a legitimate labor union as it had a pending complaint
for cancellation of certificate of registration, that there was no valid CBA and staged an illegal
strike.The Labor Arbiter (LA) decides finding QCSC guilty of ULP. In turn, the union filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Appeal for non-perfection due to failure to post the appeal bond. The QCSCfiled a
Supplement to its appeal. The NLRC in its decision, granted the appeal and reversed the LA decision.

Issue:

Whether the simultaneous filing of the matter to reduce the appeal bond and posting of the reduced
amount of bond within the reglementary period for appeal constitute substantial compliance with
Article 223 of the Labor Code.

Ruling:

It should be stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, it is merely
a statue of privilege and may be exercise only if in manner and in accordance with the provisions of
law. The party when seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the
rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.

In case a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only
upon the posting of a cash or surety bond raised by a reputable bonding company and admitted by the
Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment applied for.

Appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory
requisites, namely: (1) payment of the appeal fees; (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal ;and (3)
payment of the required cash or surety bond. Thus, the posting of the bond is indispensable to the
perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter.
General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (General Santos
City) GR 178647

Facts:

In 1990, the Company experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian Economic
crisis. To curve the negative effect, it implemented three (3) waves of an Early Retirement Program
(ERP). Meanwhile, there was a memorandum issued mandating to put on hold all requests for hiring
to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions. Because several availed of the
ERP,vacancies were created.

This prompted the Union to negotiate with the Labor Management Committee(LMC) for filing up of
the vacancies. No resolution was reached on the matter. Faced with the freeze hiring, the company
engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation that provides manpower services.Union filed in
2002 with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike on the ground of
ULP for contracting-out services regularly performed by union members.Parties failed to file an
amicable settlement. The Company filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with DOLE. On
2003, the NLRC ruled that the Company is not guilty of ULP.

On appeal, CA affirmed the decision and found that contract out jobs was a valid exercise of
management prerogative to meet exigent circumstances. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor practices

Ruling:

Unfair Labor Practice refers to “acts that violate the workers’ right to organize.” The prohibited acts
are related to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA.Without that
element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practice.

Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was unable to prove its charge of unfair labor
practices. It was the Union that had the burden of adducing substantial evidence to support its
allegations of unfair labor practice, which burden it failed to discharge.

Wherefore, petition is denied.