G.R. No. 178647 ; February 13, 2009
General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union-Tupas, Petitioner, vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (General Santos City), The Court of Appeals and The National Labor Relations Commission, Respondents.

FACTS

Sometime in the late 1990s, respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc. (CCBPI) experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian economic crisis, decreased sales, and tougher competition. To address this, CCBPI implemented an Early Retirement Program and issued a “freeze hiring” directive for all plants, including its General Santos Plant (CCBPI Gen San). Due to the early retirements, vacancies were created in the production department where members of petitioner Union worked. Negotiations within the Labor Management Committee to fill the vacancies with permanent employees reached no resolution. Due to the hiring freeze, CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation, a company providing labor and manpower services. On January 21, 2002, petitioner Union filed a Notice of Strike for unfair labor practice (“union busting”) due to the contracting-out of services regularly performed by union members. After failed conciliation, the Secretary of Labor certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The NLRC ruled that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA found JLBP to be an independent contractor and held the contracting-out was a valid exercise of management prerogative to meet business exigencies, with no evidence it interfered with the right to self-organization.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s finding that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice for contracting-out jobs to JLBP Services Corporation.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The issues raised by petitioner (whether JLBP is an independent contractor, whether the contracting-out amounted to unfair labor practice, and whether it was a valid management prerogative) are questions of fact requiring a re-examination of evidence, which is not permissible in a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law. Factual findings of the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded finality. The Court found no reversible error. While the NLRC erroneously linked the contracting-out to a different company program (the “Going-to-the-Market” system), this did not negate its core finding, sustained by the CA, that JLBP was a legitimate independent contractor and the contracting was due to business exigencies from the hiring freeze. The CA correctly examined the evidence and found no labor-only contracting. For an act to constitute unfair labor practice under Article 248(c) of the Labor Code, it must interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in their right to self-organization. Both the NLRC and CA found that petitioner Union failed to discharge its burden of proving by substantial evidence that the contracting-out was directed at the members’ right to self-organization.