labrel digests- set 1

L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 1

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

CASES:

1) La suerte v. director of BLR 123 scra 679; 2) Univ of pangasinan v. NLRC 218 scra 65; 3) UST v. Bitonio, 318 scra 185; 4) Victoriano v. Elizalde rope workers 59 scra 54; 5) BPI v. Bpi employees Aug 10, 2010; 6) Natu v. Torres 239 scra 546; 7) San Miguel v. Laguesma 277 scra 370; 8) Tunay na Pagkakaisa v. Asia brewery Aug 3, 2010 9) Pepsi v. Sec of labor Aug 10, 1999 10) Philips v. NLRC 210 scra 339; 11) Golden farms v. Calleja 175 scra 471; 12) National assoc v. Torres 239 scra 546; 13) Pier 8 v. Roldan-confesor 241 scra 294; 14) Metrolab v. Roldan-confesor 254 scra 182; 15) Arizala v. CA 189 scra 584; 16) Camporedondo v. NLRC, Aug 6, 1999. 17) Cooperative rural bank v Calleja Sept 26, 1988; 18) Republic v. Asiapro coop. Nov 23, 2007; 19) Int’l Catholic v. Calleja 190 scra 130; 20) German agency v. CA April 16, 2009; 21) Heritage hotel v. National union, Jan 12, 2011; 22) S.S. Ventures v. S.S. Ventures union 559 scra 435; 23) Toyota v. Toyota union 268 scra 571; 24) Tagaytay highlands v. Tagaytay union 395 scra 699; 25) Mariwasa v. Sec of labor g.r.no. 183317 dec 21, 2009; 26) Eagle ridge v. CA GR No. 178989 mar 18, 2010; 27) Heritage hotel v. Piglas GR No. 177024 Oct 30, 2009; 28) Liberty cotton v. Liberty cotton Mills 66 scra 512; 29) Associated labor v. NLRC 188 scra 123; 30) Benguet v. BCI union 3 scra 471

LADJIMAN

G.R. No. L-55674 July 25, 1983

LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE

FACTORY, vs. DIR. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,

THE LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE

FACTORY PROVINCIAL (Luzon) AND METRO MANILA SALES FORCE

ASSOCIATION-NATU, and THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS, .

ISSUE: Whether the employees of petitioner company in which case they should be

included in the 30% jurisdictional

requirement necessary to support the petition for certification election, or independent

contractors and hence, excluded therefrom

SUMMARY:

In the determination of the basic issue raised

in the "control test" earlier laid down in Investment Planning Corp. vs. Social Security System, 21 SCRA 924, and in Social Security System vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Shriro (Phils.) Inc., 37 SCRA 579 are

authoritative and controlling.

4 fold-test:

(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;

(2) the payment of wages;

(3) the power of dismissal; and

(4) the power to control the employees' conduct-although the latter is the most

important element.

Factors to determine existence of independent contract relationship.—

An independent contractor is one who exercises independent employment and

contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and without being subject to

control of his employer except as to the result

of the work. '

Among the factors to be considered are

whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business;

whether the work is part of the

employer's general business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill

required; the term and duration of the relationship;

the right to assign the performance of

the work to another; the power to

terminate the relationship;

the existence of a contract for the

performance of a specified piece of

work;

the control and supervision of the work;

the employer's powers and duties with

respect to the hiring, firing, and

payment of the contractor's servants;



the control of the premises; the duty to

supply the premises, tools, appliances,

material and labor, and the mode,

manner, and terms of payment.'

“whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to

the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.”

FACTS:

On 1979, the La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory Provincial (Luzon) and Metro Manila

Sales Force Association (union) for and was granted chapter status by the National

Association of Trade Unions (NATU). Thereafter, 31 local members signed a joined

letter withdrawing their membership from NATU.

On April 18, 1979, the local union and NATU

filed a petition for direct certification or certification election which alleged among

others, that forty-eight of the sixty sales personnel of the Company were members of

the local union; that the petition is supported by no less than 75% of the sales force; that

there is no existing recognized labor union in the Company representing the said sales

personnel; that there is likewise no existing

collecting bargaining agreement; and that there had been no certification election in the

last twelve months preceding the filing of the petition.

Company’s argument: No EE-ER relationship

Filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the

ground that it is not supported by at least

30% of the members of the proposed bargaining unit because (a) of the alleged

forty-eight (48) members of the local union, thirty-one (31) had withdrawn prior to the

filing of the petition; and (b) fourteen (14) of the alleged members of the union were not

employees of the Company but were

independent contractors.

NATU & union’s: argument:

NATU and the local union opposed the

Company's motion to dismiss alleging that the

fourteen dealers are actually employees of the Company because they are subject to its

control and supervision.

On August 29, 1979, the Med-Arbiter issued

an order dismissing the petition for lack of merit as the fourteen dealers who joined the

union should not be counted in determining

the 30% consent requirement because they are not employees but independent

contractors and the withdrawal of the 31 salesmen from the union prior to the filing of

the petition for certification election was uncontroverted by the parties.

ISSUES:

1. W/N the 14 dealers are employees or

independent contractors. Yes,

Independent Contractor. 2. W/N the withdrawal of 31 union

members from the NATU affected the petition for certification election insofar

as the thirty per cent requirement is concerned; Yes. While there might be

force or duress of withdrawal, this must be proven.

3. W/N the withdrawal of the petition for

certification election by the NATU, through its President and legal counsel,

was valid and effective.

RULING:

We hold and rule that the 14 members of respondent local union are dealers or

independent contractors. They are not

employees of petitioner company. With the withdrawal by 31 members of their support to

the petition prior to or before the filing thereof, making a total of 45, the remainder of 3 out of

the 48 alleged to have supported the petition can hardly be said to represent the union.

Hence, the dismissal of the petition by the Med-Arbiter was correct and justified.

Respondent Director committed grave abuse of

discretion in reversing the order of the Med- Arbiter.

Failure to establish this juridical relationship between the union members



and the employer affects the legality of the

union itself. It means the ineligibility of

the union members to present a petition for certification election as well as to vote

therein

It is important in the determination of who

shall be included in a proposed bargaining unit because it is the sine qua non, the

fundamental and essential condition that a

bargaining unit be composed of employees. Corollarily, when a petition for certification

election is supported by 48 signatories in a bargaining unit composed of 60 salesmen, but

14 of the 48 lacks employee status, the petition is vitiated thereby. Herein lies the

importance of resolving the status of the dealers in this case.

Status thereby created is one of

independent contractorship, pursuant to the first rule in the interpretation of the

signed Dealership contracts

It is likewise immediately noticeable that no

such words as "to hire and employ" are present. The Dealership Agreement uses the

words "the factory has accepted the

application of (name of applicant) and therefore has appointed him as one of its

dealers"; whereas the Dealership Supplementary Agreement is prefaced with the

statement: "For and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements made

herein, by one to the other, the COMPANY and the DEALER by these presents, enter into this

Supplementary Agreement whereby the

COMPANY will avail of the services of the DEALER to handle the sale and distribution of

the cigarette products". Nothing in the terms and conditions likewise reveals that the

dealers were engaged as employees.

No Mention of Wage payment- Indication of

non-existence of EE-ER relationship

'Wage' paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however

designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained

on a time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is

payable by an employer under a written or

unwritten contract of employment for work

done or to be done or for services rendered or

to be rendered, and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the

Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the

employer to the employee ...

Precisely, there was need to change the

contract of employment because of the change

of relationship, from an employee to that of an independent dealer or contractor. The

employees were free to enter into the new status, to sign or not to sign the new

agreement. As in the Mafinco case, the respondents therein as in the instant case,

were free to reject the terms of the dealership but having signed it, they were bound by its

stipulations and the consequences thereof

under existing labor laws. The fact that the 14 local union members voluntarily executed

with La Suerte formal dealership agreements which indicate the distribution and sale of La

Suerte cigarettes signifies that they were acting as independent businessmen.

It is not disputed that under the dealership

agreement, the dealer purchases and sells the cigarettes manufactured by the company

under and for his own account. The dealer places his order for the purchase of cigarettes

to be sold by him in a particular territory by filling up an Issuance Slip. The dealers do not

devote their full time in selling company products. They are likewise engaged in other

livelihood and businesses while selling

cigarettes manufactured by the company.

We agree with the petitioner. We hold further

that the terms and conditions for the termination of the contract are the usual and

common stipulations in independent contractorship agreements. In any event, the

contention that the totality of the powers

expressly reserved to the company establish company control over the manner and details

of performance is merely speculative and

conjectural.

G.R. Nos. 64821-23 January 29, 1993

UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY

UNION



vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION and UNIVERSITY OF

PANGASINAN

ISSUE: Locus standi of the union President as

the holder of “Registration Certificate”

FACTS:

In the instant petition for mandamus and certiorari, petitioner union

seeks to enjoin the respondent National Labor

Relations Commission (NLRC) to resolve, or direct the Labor Arbiter to hear and decide,

the merits of three of petitioner's unresolved complaints, and to annul and set aside the

resolution of the NLRC affirming the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter dismissing the

petitioner's complaints for violation of certain labor standards laws but requiring respondent

university to integrate the cost of living

allowance into the basic pay of the covered employees and reminding it to pay its

employees at intervals not exceeding sixteen (16) days.

The uncontroverted facts show that on various dates, petitioner union filed the following 7

complaints (which was later on limited by the

Labor Arbiter into 4) against the University before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in

Dagupan City of ECOLAS and salary differentials in certain dates from Oct- June

1890,

On the complaint regarding integration of

COLA, the LA ruled that because at the time P.D. No. 1123 took effect on May 1, 1977, the

University had not increased its tuition fees,

there was of "nothing to integrate." 4 However, from June 16, 1979 when the University

increased its tuition fees, it was obligated to cause the integration of the across-the-board

increase of P60.00 in emergency allowance into the basic pay as mandated by P.D. Nos.

1123 and 1751.

On the alleged nonpayment of extra loads handled by the employees on February 12 and

13, 1981 when classes were suspended, Tumang stated that Consuelo Abad, the

petitioner's president, had no cause to complain because her salary was fully paid

and that, since there were "no complainants

for the alleged nonpayment of extra loads for

two days," the issue had become academic.

ISSUES:

1. W/N the filing of mandamus is proper in this case. NO.

While the labor arbiter is duty bound to resolve all complaints referred to him for

arbitration and, therefore, he may be

compelled by mandamus to decide them (although not in any particular way or in

favor of anyone), 8 we find that the peculiar circumstances in this case do not merit the

issuance of the writ of mandamus. The facts on the verified petition was not “stated with

certainty”

It should be added that under Art. 217(b) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has "exclusive

appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Labor Arbiters." Needless to say, the NLRC

could not have acted on matters outside of the cases appealed to it.

2. W/N the cases filed by the union Pres Consuelo Abad should affect not only

herself but all the other union

members. W/N she has locus standi to file. YES. She holds a “Registration

Certificate”.

Petitioner's contention that the cases filed by

Consuelo Abad as its president should affect, not only herself, but all the other union

members similarly situated as she was, is well

taken. The uncontroverted allegation of the petitioner is that it is the holder of

Registration Certificate No. 9865-C, having been registered with the then Ministry of

Labor and Employment on February 16, 1978. As such, petitioner possessed the legal

personality to sue and be sued under its registered name. 16 Corollarily, its president,

Consuelo Abad, correctly filed the complaints

even if some of them involved rights and interest purely or exclusively appertaining to

individual employees, it appearing that she signed the complaints "for and in behalf of the

University of Pangasinan Faculty Union." 17



“interest of the individual worker can be

better protected on the whole by a strong

union aware of its moral and legal obligations to represent the rank and file

faithfully and secure for them the best wages and working terms and conditions.”

The University's contention that petitioner had no legal personality to institute and prosecute

money claims must, therefore, fail. To quote

then Associate Justice Teehankee in Heirs of Teodelo M. Cruz v. CIR, 18 "[w]hat should be

borne in mind is that the interest of the individual worker can be better protected on

the whole by a strong union aware of its moral and legal obligations to represent the rank

and file faithfully and secure for them the best

wages and working terms and conditions. . . . Although this was stated within the context of

collective bargaining, it applies equally well to cases, such as the present wherein the union,

through its president, presented its individual members' grievances through proper

proceedings. While the complaints might nothave disclosed the identities of the

individual employees claiming monetary

benefits, 19 such technical defect should not be taken against the claimants, especially

because the University appears to have failed to demand a bill of particulars during the

proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.

G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1999

UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU),etal vs. Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR.

of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Med-Arbiter TOMAS F. FALCONITIN of The

National Capital Region, Department of

Labor and Employment (DOLE), etal,respondents.

-On conducting Election of Union Members

outside its by-laws. - Union Election vs Certificate Election

ISSUE: W/N there is interference in the exercise by USTFU members of their right to

self-organization.

SUMMARY:

There is a right way to do the right thing at

the right time for the right reasons, 1 and in

the present case, in the right forum by the

right parties. While grievances against union

leaders constitute legitimate complaints deserving appropriate redress, action thereon

should be made in the proper forum at the proper time and after observance of proper

procedures. Similarly, the election of union officers should be conducted in accordance

with the provisions of the union's constitution and bylaws, as well as the Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code. Specifically,

while all legitimate faculty members of the University of Santo Tomas (UST) belonging to

a collective bargaining unit may take part in a duly convened certification election, only bona

fide members of the UST Faculty Union

(USTFU) may participate and vote in a legally called election for union officers. Mob hysteria,

however well-intentioned, is not a substitute for the rule of law.

FACTS:

Private respondents Marino et.al, are duly

elected officers of the UST Faculty Union (USTFU). The union has a subsisting five-year

Collective Bargaining Agreement with its

employer, the University of Santo Tomas (UST). The CBA was registered with the

Industrial Relations Division, DOLE-NCR, on 20 February 1995. It is set to expire on 31

May 1998.

On 21 September 1996, appellee Collantes, in

her capacity as Secretary General of USTFU,

posted a notice addressed to all USTFU members announcing a general assembly to

be held on 05 October 1996. Among others, the general assembly was called to elect

USTFU's next set of officers. Through the notice, the members were also informed of the

constitution of a Committee on Elections (COMELEC) to oversee the elections. (Annex

"B", petition)

On 01 October 1996, some of herein appellants filed a separate petition with the

Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, directed against herein appellees and the members of the

COMELEC. Petition alleged that the COMELEC was not constituted in accordance

with USTFU's constitution and by-laws (CBL)



and that no rules had been issued to govern

the conduct of the 05 October 1996 election.

The Assailed Ruling

Agreeing with the med-arbiter that the USTFU

officers' purported election held on October 4, 1994 was void for having been conducted in

violation of the union's Constitution and Bylaws (CBL), Public Respondent Bitonio

rejected petitioners' contention that it was a

legitimate exercise of their right to self-organization. He ruled that the CBL, which

constituted the covenant between the union and its members, could not be suspended

during the October 4, 1996 general assembly of all faculty members, since that assembly

had not been convened or authorized by the USTFU.

ISSUE:

1. W/N there is interference in the exercise by USTFU members of their

right to self-organization. YES!

The participation of non-union members in

the election aggravated its irregularity

2. Whether the Collective Bargaining Unit

of all the faculty members in that General Faculty Assembly had the right

in that General Faculty Assembly to

suspend the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws of the

USTFU regarding the elections of officers of the union[.]

3. Whether the suspension of the provisions of the Constitution and By-

Laws of the USTFU in that General

Faculty Assembly is valid pursuant to the constitutional right of the Collective

Bargaining Unit to engage in "peaceful concerted activities" for the purpose of

ousting the corrupt regime of the private respondents[.].

RULING: Right to Self-Organization

and Union Membership

Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution

and the Labor Code. Employees have the

right to form, join or assist labor organizations

for the purpose of collective bargaining or for their mutual aid and protection. 12 Whether

employed for a definite period or not, any employee shall be considered as such,

beginning on his first day of service, for purposes of membership in a labor union. 13

Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to

join, affiliate with or assist a labor union. 14 Therefore, to become a union

member, an employee must, as a rule, not only signify the intent to become one, but also

take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is

usually embodied in the union's constitution and bylaws. 15 An employee who becomes a

union member acquires the rights and the

concomitant obligations that go with this new status and becomes bound by the union's

rules and regulations.

When a man joins a labor union (or almost

any other democratically controlled group), necessarily a portion of his individual

freedom is surrendered for the benefit of all members. He accepts the will of the

majority of the members in order that he

may derive the advantages to be gained from the concerted action of all.

On joining a labor union, the constitution and by-laws become a part of the member's

contract of membership under which he agrees to become bound by the

constitution and governing rules of the

union so far as it is not inconsistent with controlling principles of law. The

constitution and by-laws of an unincorporated trade union express the terms of a contract,

which define the privileges and rights secured to, and duties assumed by, those who have

become members. The agreement of a member on joining a union to abide by its laws and

comply with the will of the lawfully constituted

majority does not require a member to submit to the determination of the union any question

involving his personal rights. 16

Petitioners' frustration over the

performance of private respondents, as well as their fears of a "fraudulent" election to



be held under the latter's supervision,

could not justify the method they chose to

impose their will on the union. Director Bitonio aptly elucidated: 17

The constitutional right to self-organization is better understood

in the context of ILO Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association

and Protection of Right to

Organize), to which the Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the Convention provides that workers' organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitution and rules and to elect

their representatives in full freedom, free from any

interference from public authorities. The freedom conferred by the provision is expansive; the responsibility imposed on union members to respect the constitution and rules they themselves draw up equally

so.

Union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-union activity.

Union Election vs.Certification Election

(included just in case asked.)

is held pursuant to

the union's

constitution and bylaws, and the right

to vote in it is enjoyed only by

union members. A union election should

be distinguished from

a

which is the process

of determining,

through secret ballot, the sole and exclusive

bargaining agent of the employees in the

appropriate bargaining unit, for

purposes of collective bargaining

PURPOSE: is to

ascertain whether or not a majority of the

employees wish to be represented by a labor

organization and, in the affirmative case,

by which particular

labor organization

all employees

belonging to the appropriate

bargaining unit can vote. 20 Therefore,

a unionmember who likewise belongs to

the appropriate

bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said

election. However, the reverse is not always

true; an employee belonging to the

appropriate bargaining unit but

who is not a member

of the union cannot vote in the union

election, unless otherwise authorized

by the constitution and bylaws of the

union.

Union affairs and elections cannot be

decided in a non-union activity.

October 4, 1996 election cannot properly

be called a union election, because the procedure laid down in the USTFU's CBL for

the election of officers was not followed. It

could not have been a certification election either, because representation was not the

issue, and the proper procedure for such election was not followed. The participation

of non-union members in the election aggravated its irregularity.

USTFU's Constitution and By Laws Violated

The importance of a union's constitution and

bylaws cannot be overemphasized. They embody a covenant between a union and its

members and constitute the fundamental law governing the members' rights and

obligations. 21 As such, the union's constitution and bylaws should be upheld, as

long as they are not contrary to law, good

morals or public policy.



BENJAMIN VICTORIANO vs ELIZALDE

ROPE WORKERS UNION, GR No. 25246,

September 12, 1974

FACTS:

Benjamin Victoriano, an Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) member, has been an employee of the Elizalde

Rope Factory (ERF) since 1958. He was also a member of the EPWU (Elizalde Rope Workers’

Union). Under the collective bargaining

agreement (CBA) between ERF and EPWU, a close shop agreement is being enforced which

means that employment in the factory relies on the membership in the EPWU; that in order

to retain employment in the said factory one must be a member of the said Union.

In 1962, Victoriano tendered his resignation from EPWU claiming that as

per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the close

shop agreement by virtue of his being a member of the INC because apparently in the

INC, one is forbidden from being a member of any labor union. It was only in 1974 that

his resignation from the Union was acted upon by EPWU which notified ERF about it.

ERF then moved to terminate Victoriano due to his non-membership from the EPWU.

EPWU and ERF reiterated that he is not

exempt from the close shop agreement because RA 3350, which provides that close

shop agreements shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of

their members in any such labor organization, is unconstitutional and that said law violates

the EPWU’s and ERF’s legal/contractual

rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is

unconstitutional.

HELD: No. Right to religion prevails over

contractual or legal rights. As such, an INC member may refuse to join a labor union and

despite the fact that there is a close shop agreement in the factory where he was

employed, his employment could not be validly

terminated for his non-membership in the majority therein. Further, the right to join a

union includes the right not to join a union. The law is not unconstitutional. It recognizes

both the rights of unions and employers to

enforce terms of contracts and at the same

time it recognizes the workers’ right to join or

not to join union. RA 3550 recognizes as well the primacy of a constitutional right over a

contractual right.

BPI vs BPI Employees Union Davao-

Chapter, August 10, 2010E CASTRO, J.]

FACTS:

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the Articles of Merger executed by and between

BPI, herein petitioner, and Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) and was approved by

the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Articles of Merger and Plan of Merger did not contain any specific stipulation with

respect to the employment contracts of existing personnel of the non-surviving entity

which is FEBTC. Pursuant to the said Article and Plan of Merger, all the assets and

liabilities of FEBTC were transferred to and absorbed by BPI as the surviving

corporation. FEBTC employees, including

those in its different branches across the country, were hired by petitioner as its own

employees, with their status and tenure recognized and salaries and benefits

maintained.

ISSUE

Whether or not employees are ipso jure absorbed in a merger of the two corporations.

RULING

NO. [H]uman beings are never embraced in

the term “assets and liabilities.”Moreover, BPI’s absorption of former FEBTC employees

was neither by operation of law nor by legal

consequence of contract. There was no government regulation or law that compelled

the merger of the two banks or the absorption of the employees of the dissolved corporation

by the surviving corporation. Had there been such law or regulation, the absorption of

employees of the non-surviving entities of the merger would have been mandatory on the

surviving corporation. In the present case, the

merger was voluntarily entered into by both



banks presumably for some mutually

acceptable consideration. In fact, the

Corporation Code does not also mandate the absorption of the employees of the non-

surviving corporation by the surviving corporation in the case of a merger.

[The] Court cannot uphold the reasoning that the general stipulation regarding transfer of

FEBTC assets and liabilities to BPI as set forth

in the Articles of Merger necessarily includes the transfer of all FEBTC employees into the

employ of BPI and neither BPI nor the FEBTC employees allegedly could do anything about

it. Even if it is so, it does not follow that the absorbed employees should not be

subject to the terms and conditions of employment obtaining in the surviving

corporation.

Furthermore, [the] Court believes that it is contrary to public policy to declare the former

FEBTC employees as forming part of the assets or liabilities of FEBTC that were

transferred and absorbed by BPI in the Articles of Merger. Assets and liabilities, in

this instance, should be deemed to refer only to property rights and obligations of FEBTC

and do not include the employment contracts

of its personnel. A corporation cannot unilaterally transfer its employees to another

employer like chattel. Certainly, if BPI as an employer had the right to choose who to retain

among FEBTC’s employees, FEBTC employees had the concomitant right to choose not to be

absorbed by BPI. Even though FEBTC

employees had no choice or control over the merger of their employer with BPI, they had a

choice whether or not they would allow themselves to be absorbed by BPI. Certainly

nothing prevented the FEBTC’s employees from resigning or retiring and seeking

employment elsewhere instead of going along with the proposed absorption.

Employment is a personal consensual

contract and absorption by BPI of a former FEBTC employee without the consent of

the employee is in violation of an individual’s freedom to contract.

It would have been a different matter if there was an express provision in the articles of

merger that as a condition for the merger, BPI

was being required to assume all the

employment contracts of all existing FEBTC employees with the conformity of the

employees. In the absence of such a provision in the articles of merger, then BPI clearly had

the business management decision as to whether or not employ FEBTC’s employees.

FEBTC employees likewise retained the

prerogative to allow themselves to be absorbed or not; otherwise, that would be tantamount

to involuntary servitude.

[Note: The decision as to absorption of

employees upon merger is reversed in the Resolution of MR dated October 19, 2011]

BALBOA

NATU VS TORRES, G.R. No. 93468 December 29, 1994

FACTS:

NATU filed a petition for certification election

to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of respondent Bank's

employees occupying supervisory positions. Bank moved to dismiss the petition on the

ground that the supposed supervisory

employees were actually managerial and/or confidential employees thus ineligible to join,

assist or form a union, and that the petition lacked the 20% signatory requirement under

the Labor Code.

ISSUE:

WON the Department Managers, Assistant Managers, Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers

and Controllers of respondent Bank are

managerial and/or confidential employees hence ineligible to join or assist the union of

petitioner.

RULING

YES, but only the Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent

Republic Planters Bank are ineligible to



join or assist petitioner National

Association of Trade Unions (NATU)-

Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter, or join, assist or form any other

labor organization.

Art 212 (m) of the Labor Code

explicitly stated that “A managerial employee is (a) one who is vested with

powers or prerogatives to lay down and

execute management policies, or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,

discharge, assign or discipline employees; or (b) one who is vested with

both powers or prerogatives. A supervisory employee is different from a

managerial employee in the sense that the supervisory employee, in the

interest of the employer, effectively recommends such managerial actions, if the exercise of such managerial

authority is not routinary in nature but requires the use of independent

judgment.”

It is the nature of the employee's

functions, and not the nomenclature or

title given to his job, which determines whether he has rank-and-file, supervisory

or managerial status.

Among the general duties and responsibilities

of a Branch Manager is "[t]o discharge his duties and authority with a high sense of

responsibility and integrity and shall at all

times be guided by prudence like a good father of the family, and sound judgment in accordance with and within the limitations of the policy/policies promulgated by the Board of Directors and implemented by the Management until suspended, superseded, revoked or

modified". Similarly, the job summary of a Controller states: "Supervises the Accounting

Unit of the branch; sees to the compliance by the Branch with established procedures, policies, rules and regulations of the Bank and external supervising authorities; sees to the strict implementation of control procedures.

The job description of a Cashier does not

mention any authority on his part to lay down policies, either.

Subject employees do not participate in policy-

making but are given approved and

established policies to execute and standard practices to observe, leaving little or no

discretion at all whether to implement said policies or not. Neither do the Branch

Managers, Cashiers and Controllers have the power to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,

discharge, assign or discipline employees. The

Senior Manager of the Human Resource Management Department of respondent Bank,

in her affidavit, stated that “…Mr. Renato A. Tuates, the Officer-in-Charge/Branch Cashier

of the Bank's Dumaguete Branch, placed under preventive suspension and thereafter

terminated the teller of the same branch . . . . Likewise, on February 22, 1989, Mr. Francis

D. Robite, Sr., the Officer-in-Charge of

International Department, assigned the cable assistant of the International Department as

the concurrent FCDU Accountable Forms Custodian."

While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out managerial employees as ineligible to join,

assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication,

confidential employees are similarly

disqualified.

RATIONALE of RULE:

In the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed to be on

the side of the employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that its

interests are well protected. The employer is

not assured of such protection if these employees themselves are union members.

Similarly, if confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for

themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of

the employers. Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of

collective bargaining would mean the

extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act "in the interest of"

the employers. It is not farfetched that in the course of collective bargaining, they might

jeopardize that interest which they are duty-

bound to protect.



SAN MIGUEL VS LAGUESMA, G.R. No.

100485 September 21, 1994

FACTS

The North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union

(respondent union for brevity) filed with the Department of Labor a petition for certification

election among all the regular sales personnel of Magnolia Dairy Products in the North Luzon

Sales Area. 1

Petitioner opposed the petition and questioned the appropriateness of the bargaining unit

sought to be represented by respondent union. It claimed that its bargaining history in

its sales offices, plants and warehouses is to have a separate bargaining unit for each sales office.

Petitioner was represented by Atty. Alvin Batalla who withdrew petitioner's opposition

to a certification election and agreed to consider all the sales offices in northern Luzon

as one bargaining unit. Mediator-Arbiter Benalfre J. Galang certified respondent union

as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for

all the regular sales personnel in all the sales offices of Magnolia Dairy Products in the

North Luzon Sales Area.

Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor.

It claimed that Atty. Batalla was only authorized to agree to

the holding of certification elections subject to

the following conditions: (1) there would only be one general election; (2) in this general

election, the individual sales offices shall still comprise separate bargaining units.

ISSUE:

WON respondent union represents an

appropriate bargaining unit

RULING: YES.

A bargaining unit is a "group of employees of

a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent

with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and

duties of the parties under the collective

bargaining provisions of the law." 5

Fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit:

(1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees'

interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and

working conditions (Substantial Mutual

Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and

(4) similarity of employment status.

Existence of a prior collective bargaining

history is neither decisive nor conclusive in the determination of what constitutes

an appropriate bargaining unit. 8

Test of grouping:

mutuality or commonality of interests.

The employees sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent must have

substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as

evinced by the type of work they perform.

In this case, commonality of interest among

the North Luzon Sales area cannot be gainsaid. There is similarity of employment

status for only the regular sales personnel in

the north Luzon area covered. They have the same duties and responsibilities and

substantially similar compensation and working conditions.

Furthermore, petitioner insists that each of the sales offices in northern Luzon should be

considered as a separate bargaining unit for

negotiations would be more expeditious. Petitioner obviously chooses to follow the path

of least resistance. It is not, however, the convenience of the employer that constitutes

the determinative factor in forming an appropriate bargaining unit. Equally, if not

more important, is the interest of the

employees.

TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA VS ASIA BREWERY, G.R. No. 162025, August 3,

2010



FACTS:

Respondent entered into a Collective Bargainig

Agreement with Bisig at

LakasngmgaManggagawasa Asia-Independent

(BLMA-INDEPENDENT). Subsequently, a

dispute arose when ABIs management

stopped deducting union dues from eighty-one

(81) employees, believing that their

membership in BLMA-INDEPENDENT violated

the CBA. Eighteen (18) of these affected

employees are QA Sampling

Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge

Technician who formed part of the Quality

Control Staff. Twenty (20) checkers are

assigned at the Materials Department of the

Administration Division, Full Goods

Department of the Brewery Division and

Packaging Division. The rest are

secretaries/clerks directly under their

respective division managers.

As the parties failed to amicably settle the

controversy, BLMA-INDEPENDENT lodged a

complaint before the National Conciliation and

Mediation Board (NCMB).

In the meantime, a certification election was

held on August 10, 2002 wherein petitioner

Tunayna Pagkakaisang Manggagawasa Asia

(TPMA) won. As the incumbent bargaining

representative of ABIs rank-and-file

employees, petitioner filed with the CA an

omnibus motion for reconsideration of the

decision and intervention.

ISSUE

(1) WON the 81 employees are excluded

from and are not eligible to for

inclusion in the bargaining unit as

defined in the CBA and that their

membership is violative of the CBA;

(2) WON respondent committed unfair

labor practice by violating the 81

employees right to self-organization

RULING:

Jurisprudence has extended prohibition of

joining unions to confidential employees or

those who by reason of their positions or

nature of work are required to assist or act in

a fiduciary manner to managerial employees

and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and

highly confidential records. Having access to

confidential information, confidential

employees may also become the source of

undue advantage. Said employees may act as

a spy or spies of either party to a collective

bargaining agreement.

In the present case, the CBA expressly

excluded Confidential and Executive

Secretaries from the rank-and-file bargaining

unit, for which reason ABI seeks their

disaffiliation from petitioner.However, perusal

of the job descriptions of these

secretaries/clerks reveals that their assigned

duties and responsibilities involve routine

activities of recording and monitoring, and

other paper works for their respective

departments while secretarial tasks such as

receiving telephone calls and filing of office

correspondence appear to have been

commonly imposed as additional

duties.Respondent failed to indicate who

among these numerous secretaries/clerks

have access to confidential data relating to

management policies that could give rise to

potential conflict of interest with their Union

membership.

With respect to the Sampling

Inspectors/Inspectresses and the Gauge

Machine Technician, there seems no dispute

that they form part of the Quality Control

Staff. But the same does not go with the 20

checkers. Again, the job descriptions of these

checkersshowed that they perform routine

and mechanical tasks preparatory to the

delivery of the finished products. No evidence

was presented by the respondent to prove that

these daily-paid checkers actually form part of

the company’s Quality Control Staff who as

such were exposed to sensitive, vital and



confidential information about the products or

have knowledge of mixtures of the products,

their defects, and even their formulas which

are considered trade secrets.

Confidential employees are defined as those

who

(1) assist or act in a confidential capacity,

(2) to persons who formulate, determine, and

effectuate management policies in the field of

labor relations.

The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both

must be met if an employee is to be considered

a confidential employee.

There is no showing in this case that the

secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or

acted in a confidential capacity to managerial

employees and obtained confidential

information relating to labor relations policies.

Anent the second issue, 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. For a charge of unfair

labor practice to prosper, it must be shown

that ABI was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or

fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a

manner contrary to morals, good customs, or

public policy.

Considering that the herein dispute arose

from a simple disagreement in the

interpretation of the CBA provision on

excluded employees from the bargaining unit,

respondent cannot be said to have committed

unfair labor practice that restrained its

employees in the exercise of their right to self-

organization, nor have thereby demonstrated

an anti-union stance.

PEPSI VS SECRETARY OF LABOR, G.R. No.

96663, August 10, 1999

FACTS

Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF

(PCEU) filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the

exclusive bargaining agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines (Pepsi). The petition

was granted, but with the explicit statement

that PCEU was affiliated with Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) and 2

other rank-and-file unions, the PCLU and the PEUP.

Pepsi then filed a petition for cancellation with

the BLR against PCEU, on the grounds that: (a) the members of PCEU were managers and

(b) a supervisors' union cannot affiliate with a

federation whose members include the rank and file union of the same company. It also

filed an urgent ex-parte motion to suspend the certification election.

PCEU argued that Art. 245 of the Labor Code,

as amended by RA 6715, did not prohibit a

local union composed of supervisory employees from being affiliated to a federation

which has local unions with rank-and-file members as affiliates. Furthermore, Book V,

Rule II, Section 7 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides the

grounds for cancellation of the registration certificate of a labor organization, and the

inclusion of managerial employees is not one

of the grounds.

However, on 1992, or before the SC decision, the PCEU issued a resolution withdrawing

from the UOEF.

ISSUE

WON a supervisors union can affiliate with the

same Federation of which two (2) rank and file

unions are likewise members, without

violating Article 245 of the Labor Code (PD

442), as amended, by Republic Act 6715.

RULING



The case is already moot and academic

because PCEU has already withdrawn from

the case. But for the guidance of others similarly situated, the Court ruled No.

If the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-

and-file or where the supervisor’s labor organization would represent conflicting

interests, then a local supervisors union

should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank-and-file

employees where that federation actively participates in union activity in the company.

The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting

to join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors local union applying

for membership in a national federation the

members of which include local unions of rank and file employees. The intent of the law

is clear especially where, as in this case, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those

employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.

The Court finds merit in the submission of the OSG that Route Managers, Chief Checkers

and Warehouse Operations Managers are

supervisors while Credit & Collection Managers and Accounting Managers are

highly confidential employees. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job

description of subject employees. A careful scrutiny of their job description indicates that

they don’t lay down company policies. Theirs

is not a final determination of the company policies since they have to report to their

respective superior. The mere fact that an employee is designated manager does not

necessarily make him one.

What is essential is the nature of the

employees function and not the nomenclature or title given to the job which determines

whether the employee has rank and file or

managerial status, or whether he is a

supervisory employee.

PHILIPS VS NLRC, G.R. No. 88957 June 25,

1992

FACTS

Petitioner Philips Industrial Development, Inc.

(PIDI) seeks to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the NLRC on the ground that it

committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding

that service engineers, sales representatives and confidential employees of PIDI are

qualified to be included in the existing

bargaining unit.

PIDI had a total of six (6) collective bargaining

agreements (CBAs) with private respondent Philips Employees Organization-FFW (PEO-

FFW), a registered labor union and the certified bargaining agent of all the rank and

file employees of PIDI. In the sixth CBA covering the years 1987 to 1989, it was agreed

upon, among others, that the subject of

inclusion or exclusion of service engineers, sales personnel and confidential employees in

the coverage of the bargaining unit would be submitted for arbitration. As the parties failed

to agree on a voluntary arbitrator, the BLR endorsed the petition to the Executive Labor

Arbiter of the National Capital Region for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Article

228 of the Labor Code. It ordered the

respondent to conduct a referendum to determine the will of the service engineers,

sales representatives as to their inclusion or exclusion in the bargaining unit. Furthermore,

it declared that the Division Secretaries and all Staff of general management, personnel

and industrial relations department,

secretaries of audit, EDP, financial system are confidential employees and as such are hereby

deemed excluded in the bargaining unit. PEO-FFW appealed from the decision to the NLRC

in which the NLRC set aside the Executive Labor Arbiter’s decision.

ISSUE

WON service engineers, sales engineers and

confidential employees are qualified to be part

of the existing bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees of PIDI.

RULING



In holding that they are included in the

bargaining unit for the rank and file

employees of PIDI, the NLRC practically forced them to become members of PEO-FFW or to

be subject to its sphere of influence, it being the certified bargaining agent for the subject

bargaining unit. This violates, obstructs, impairs and impedes the service engineers'

and the sales representatives' constitutional

right to form unions or associations and to self-organization.

The decision then of the Executive Labor Arbiter in merely directing the holding of a

referendum "to determine the will of the service engineers, sales representatives as to

their inclusion or exclusion in (sic) the bargaining unit" is the most appropriate

procedure that conforms with their right to

form, assist or join in labor union or organization. However, since this decision was

rendered before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6715, it must now be stressed that its future

application to the private parties in this case should, insofar as service engineers and sales

representatives holding supervisory positions or functions are concerned, take into account

the present Article 245 20 of the Labor Code

which, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, now reads:

ARTICLE 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization;

right of supervisory employees. — Managerial employees are not eligible to join,

assist or form any labor organization.

Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.

GARCIA

Golden Farms Inc. vs. Calleja

FACTS:

Petitioner is a corporation and its employees

represented by the private respondent union

(National Federation Labor) filed a petition for

Certification Election before the office of the

Ministry of Labor and Employment. The

petition declared that the employees belonged

to rank-and-file. The petition was opposed by

the petitioner on the grounds that some of the

employees supporting the said petition are

performing managerial functions or

confidential positions. The petition was

dismissed by a resolution establishing that a

collective bargaining unit between the

petitioner and private respondent was

inexistence at the time of the filing and the

present filing of the petition. Herein public

respondent released a decision in favor of the

private respondent union stating that the

employees are classified as rank and file

employees. Hence this petition seeks the

reversal of the resolution made by public

respondent.

ISSUE:

WON supervisors, cashiers, foremen, and

employees holding confidential/managerial

function are allowed to enter into a collective

bargaining agreement with the petitioner

corporation.

RULING:

NO. The SC stated in a case, if these

managerial employees would belong to or be

affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be

assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of

evident conflict of interests or that the Union

can be company- dominated with the presence

of managerial employees in Union

membership. A managerial employee is

defined under Art. 212 (k) of the new Labor

Code as "one who is vested with powers or

prerogatives to lay down and execute

management policies and/or to hire, transfer,

suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or

discipline employees, or to effectively

recommend such managerial actions. All

employees not falling within this definitions

are considered rank-and-file employees for

purposes of this Book." This rationale also

serves confidential employees. To allow the



confidential employees to join the existing

Union of the rank-and-file would be in

violation of the terms of the Collective

Bargaining Agreement wherein this kind of

employees by the nature of their

functions/positions are expressly excluded.

Hence, to the company foremen while in the

performance of their supervisory functions,

they may be the extension of the management,

and shall be prohibited to join. Petition

dismissed.

National Association of Trade Unions

vs.Hon. Torres

FACTS:

Petitioner NATU filed a petition for certification

election to determine the “exclusive bargaining

representative” of respondent’s bank

employees occupying supervisory positions.

The Bank moved to dismiss on the ground

thatsaid supervisory employees were

actuallymanagerial/confidential employees,

thus, they are ineligible to join, assist or form

a union. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition

and directed the holding of the certification

election. The Bank appealed to the Secretary

of Labor. Said court partially granted the

appeal ruling thatthe Department Managers,

Assistant Managers, Branch Managers,

Cashiers and Controllers are declared

managerial employees and cannot join the

union of the supervisors.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Department Managers,

Assistant Managers, Branch Managers/OICs,

Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Bank

are managerial or confidential employees are

ineligible to join the union.

RULING:

Petitioner concludes that subject employees

are not managerial employees but supervisors.

Even assumingthat they are confidential

employees, there is no legalprohibition against

confidential employees who are notperforming

managerial functions to form and join a

union.A confidential employee is one

entrusted with confidenceon delicate matters,

or with the custody, handling, or careand

protection of the employer's property. While

Art. 245of the Labor Code singles out

managerial employees asineligible to join,

assist or form any labor organization,under

thedoctrine of necessary

implication,confidential employees are

similarly disqualified

Pier 8 Arrastre v. Roldan-Confessor

FACTS: The corporation and private respondent union

enetered into a collective bargaining agreement. During the freedom period, NAFLU

questioned the majority status of the union by filing for a petition for certification election

(CE). The private respondent union won the CE and was certified as the sole and exclusive

bargaining agent of the rank and file

employees. However, the negotiations for the CBA collapsed. The Sec. of Labor took over the

dispute and resolved the bargaining deadlock and ordered that the position of foremen,

secretaries, and timekeepers were lumped together as part of the rank-and-file.

The petitioner contended that supervisors

(foremen) and the legal secretary should be

excluded from the bargaining unit.

ISSUE: WON the foremen and secretaries should be excluded from the rank and file

bargaining unit

RULING:

Yes.

Art. 245 of the Labor Code applies. The

foremen and are supervisory employees and therefore cannot be part of the rank and file.

Legal secretaries are neither managers or supervisors but confidential workers hence,

they cannot be part of the ran and file as well.

With respect to the timekeepers, they should



not be excluded from the bargaining unit of

the rank and file. The test of supervisory or

managerial status is whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of

his employer, and such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but

requires the use of independent judgment. What determines the nature of the

employment is not the title bu the job

description.

Metrolab Industries Inc. vs. Roldan

Confesor

FACTS:

Herein petitioner Metrolab Industries

represented by the private respondent Metro

Drug Corp. a labor organization representing

the petitioners’ employees. After the CBA

between the parties expired, negotiations for

new CBA ended into deadlock. Both parties

failed to settle their dispute hence the order

issued by the Secretary of Labor and

Employment that any strike or acts that might

exacerbate the situation is ceased and ordered

the parties to execute a new CBA. Later, the

petitioner moved two lay-off acts to its rank

and file employees and was opposed by the

union. Petitioner assailed that the move was

temporary and exercise of its management

prerogative. Herein public respondent

declared that the petitioner’s act illegal and

issued two resolution of cease and desist

stating that the move exacerbate and caused

conflict to the case at bar. Included on the last

resolution issued by the public respondent

which states that executive secretaries are

excluded from the closed-shop provision of the

CBA, not from the bargaining unit.

A petition for certiorari seeking the annulment

of the Resolution and Omnibus Resolution of

Roldan-Confesor on grounds that they were

issued with grave abuse of discretion and

excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

WON executive secretaries must be included

as part of the bargaining unit of rank and file

employees.

RULING:

NO. By recognizing the expanded scope of the

right to self-organization, the intent of the

court was to delimit the types of employees

excluded from the close shop provisions, not

from the bargaining unit.

The executive secretaries of General Manager

and the Management Committees should not

only be exempted from the closed-shop

provision but should not be permitted to join

in the bargaining unit of the rank and file

employees as well as on the grounds that the

executive secretaries are confidential

employees , having access to “vital labor

information”.

As stated in several cases, confidential

employees are prohibited and disqualified to

join any bargaining unit since the very nature

of the functions are to assist and act in a

confidential capacity, or to have access to

confidential matters of, persons who exercise

managerial functions in the field of labor

relations.

Finally, confidential employees cannot be

classified as rank and file from the very nature

of their work. Excluding confidential

employees from the rank and file of bargaining

unit, therefore, is not tantamount to

discrimination.

Therefore, executive secretaries of petitioners’

General Manager and its Management

Committee are permanently excluded from the

bargaining unit of petitioner’s rank and file

employees.

Arizala vs. CA

FACTS:



Under the Industrial Peace Act, government-

owned or controlled corporations has the duty

to bargain collectively and were otherwise

subject to the obligations and duties of

employers in the private sector. The Act also

prohibited supervisors to become or continue

to be members of labor organizations

composed of rank and file employees.

Under the regime of the said act that GSIS

became bound by a CBA executed between it

and the the labor organization representing

the majority of its employees, the GSIS

Employees Association.

The petitioner occupied supervisory positions

in the GSIS and demand were made on all the

petitioners to resign to the labor organizations

since they handle supervisory positions. The

petitioners declined to do so hence criminal

cases for violation of the Industrial Act were

filed against them resulting to their

conviction.

Petitioners argued that when the so called

“1973 Constitution” took effect their cases

were still pending on two different courts.

Since the provision of that constitution and of

the Labor Code subsequently promulgated,

repealing the Industrial Act- placed employees

of all categories in government-owned or

controlled corporations employment were to

be governed by the Civil Service Law and

hence, no longer subject of collective

bargaining. The appellants ceased to fall

within the coverage of the Industrial Peace Art

and should thus no longer be prosecuted.

They pointed that criminal sanction in the

said act is no longer found in the Labor Code.

ISSUE: WON the petitioners’ criminal liability

of the Industrial Peace Act may be deemed

obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation

and provision of the 1973 and 1987

Constitutions.

RULING: YES.

The right to self-organization and collective

bargaining had been withdrawn by the Labor

Code from government employees including

those government-owned or controlled

corporations chiefly for the reason that the

terms and conditions of government

employment, all embraced in the civil service,

may not be modified by collective bargaining

because set by law. It is therefore immaterial,

they say, whether supervisors are members of

rank-and-file union or not. After all, the

possibility of the employer’s control of the

members of the union thru supervisors thus

rendering collective bargaining illusory, which

is the main reason for the prohibition, is no

longer of any consequence.

AMISTAD

16. Camporedondo v. NLRC, Aug 6, 1999.

17. Cooperative rural bank v Calleja Sept 26,

1988; 18. Republic v. Asiapro coop. Nov 23, 2007;

19. Int’l Catholic v. Calleja 190 scra 130; 20. German agency v. CA April 16, 2009;

CEDENIO

HERITAGE HOTEL VS NATIONAL UNION

FACTS: Respondent’s petition for certification

election was granted and ordered the holding of a certification election. On appeal, the

DOLE Secretary affirmed the order and

remanded the holding of a pre-election conference.

Subsequently, petitioner discovered that respondent had failed to submit to the Bureau

of Labor Relations (BLR) its annual financial report for several years and the list of its

members since it filed its registration papers in 1995. Consequently, petitioner filed a



Petition for Cancellation of Registration of

respondent, on the ground of the non-

submission of the said documents. Petitioner prayed that respondent’s Certificate of

Creation of Local/Chapter be cancelled and its name be deleted from the list of legitimate

labor organizations. It further requested the suspension of the certification election

proceedings.

Petitioner also insists that respondent’s registration as a legitimate labor union should

be cancelled. Petitioner posits that once it is determined that a ground enumerated in

Article 239 of the Labor Code is present, cancellation of registration should follow; it

becomes the ministerial duty of the Regional Director to cancel the registration of the labor

organization. Petitioner points out that the

Regional Director has admitted in its decision that respondent failed to submit the required

documents for a number of years; therefore, cancellation of its registration should have

followed as a matter of course. The appellee/respondent however submitted its

financial statement for the years 1996-1999. The latter argued that the submission had

substantially complied with its duty to submit

its financial report for the said period.

ISSUE: W/N the noncompliance with the

requirements under Article 239 of the Code is a sufficient ground for the cancellation of the

union’s registration.

HELD: NO. It is undisputed that appellee

failed to submit its annual financial reports

and list of individual members in accordance with Article 239 of the Labor Code. However,

the existence of this ground should not necessarily lead to the cancellation of union

registration. Article 239 recognizes the regulatory authority of the State to exact

compliance with reporting requirements. Yet there is more at stake in this case than merely

monitoring union activities and requiring

periodic documentation thereof.

The more substantive considerations involve

the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association and right of workers to self-

organization. Also involved is the public policy to promote free trade unionism and collective

bargaining as instruments of industrial peace

and democracy. An overly stringent

interpretation of the statute governing

cancellation of union registration without regard to surrounding circumstances cannot

be allowed. Otherwise, it would lead to an unconstitutional application of the statute and

emasculation of public policy objectives. Worse, it can render nugatory the protection

to labor and social justice clauses that

pervades the Constitution and the Labor Code.

Moreover, submission of the required documents is the duty of the officers of the

union. It would be unreasonable for this Office to order the cancellation of the union and

penalize the entire union membership on the basis of the negligence of its officers. In

National Union of Bank Employees vs.

Minister of Labor, L-53406, 14 December 1981, 110 SCRA 296, the Supreme Court

ruled:

As aptly ruled by respondent Bureau of Labor

Relations Director Noriel: "The rights of workers to self-organization finds general and

specific constitutional guarantees. x x x Such constitutional guarantees should not be lightly

taken much less nullified. A healthy respect

for the freedom of association demands that acts imputable to officers or members be not

easily visited with capital punishments against the association itself."

At any rate, we note that appellee had submitted its financial statement. With this,

respondent has substantially complied with

its duty to submit its financial report for the said period. To rule differently would be to

preclude the union, after having failed to meet its periodic obligations promptly, from taking

appropriate measures to correct its omissions. For the record, we do not view with favor

appellee’s late submission. Punctuality on the part of the union and its officers could have

prevented this petition.

S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS.

S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION (SSVLU)

FACTS:

Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc.

(Ventures), a PEZA- registered export firm with



principal place of business at Phase I-PEZA-

Bataan Export Zone, Mariveles, Bataan, is in

the business of manufacturing sports shoes. Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union

(Union) is a labor organization registered with the DOLE.

March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLE-Region III a petition for certification election in

behalf of the rank-and-file employees

August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union’s certificate of registration

alleging that the Union deliberately and maliciously included the names of more or

less 82 former employees no longer connected with Ventures in its list of members who

attended the organizational meeting and in the adoption/ratification of its constitution

and by-laws; that No organizational meeting

and ratification actually took place; and the Union’s application for registration was not

supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file employees of Ventures.

Regional Director of DOLE- Region III favored Ventures and resolved to Cancel the

Certificate of the union. On appeal, the BLR Director granted the Union’s appeal and

reversing the decision of RD. Ventures went to

the CA. The CA dismissed Ventures’ petition as well as the MR. Hence, this petition for

review.

ISSUE: W/N the registration of the Union

must be cancelled.

RULING: NO. The right to form, join, or assist

a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII,

Section 3 of the Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution

and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a

union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with the right and

privileges granted by law to such organization. While a certificate of registration confers a

union with legitimacy with the concomitant

right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit, the registration

may be canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining unit, in which

case the union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization. Among the

grounds for cancellation is the commission of

any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a) of

the Labor Code, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the

adoption or ratification of the union’s constitution and like documents. The Court,

has in previous cases, said that to decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union

includes ineligible employees in its

membership. It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or

fraud in connection with the application for registration and the supporting documents,

such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments

thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws, among other

documents.

The evidence presented by Ventures consist mostly of separate hand-written statements of

82 employees who alleged that they were unwilling or harassed signatories to the

attendance sheet of the organizational meeting. However these evidence was

presented seven months after the union filed its petition for cancellation of registration.

Hence these statements partake of the nature

of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Union’s filing of a petition for

certification election on March 21, 2000. We have said that the employees’ withdrawal from

a labor union made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed

voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of

such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a

withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for certification election has been

filed does not vitiate such petition, it is but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot

work to nullify the registration of the union. The Court is inclined to agree with the CA that

the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor

gravely err when it concluded that the affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had

no evidentiary weight.

The registration or the recognition of a labor

union after it has submitted the corresponding papers is not ministerial on the

part of the BLR. It becomes mandatory for the

BLR to check if the requirements under Art. 234 of the Labor Code have been sedulously



complied with. If the union’s application is

infected by falsification and like serious

irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the application and its

attachments, a union should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization.

The issuance to the Union of Certificate of Registration, in the case at bar, necessarily

implies that its application for registration and

the supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities.

The relevance of the 82 individuals’ active participation in the Union’s organizational

meeting and the signing ceremonies thereafter comes in only for purposes of determining

whether or not the Union, even without the 82, would still meet what Art. 234(c) of the

Labor Code requires to be submitted,

requiring that the union applicant must file the names of all its members comprising at

least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to

operate.

In its union records on file with this Bureau,

respondent union submitted the names of 542 members. This number easily complied with

the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202

employees in the establishment. Even subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves

460 union members, still within 440 or 20% of the maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file

employees of the employer Venture.

Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have

with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is

better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during a pre-election conference.

The issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or

voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel union registration.

For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration

under Article 239, the nature of the fraud and

misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a

majority of union members

Toyota vs Toyota Union

FACTS:

Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor

Union (TMPCLU) filed a petition for

certification election with the Department of Labor, National Capital Region, for all rank-

and-file employees of the Toyota Motor Corporation. The Med-Arbiter dismissed

respondent union's petition for certification election for lack of merit. The latter found that

the labor organization's membership was

composed of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in violation of Article 245 of the

Labor Code.

On appeal, the Office of the Secretary of

Labor, set aside the Med-Arbiter's Order and directed the holding of a certification election

among the regular rank-and-file employees of Toyota Motor Corporation contending that the

Med-Arbiter should have not dismissed the

petition for certification election based on the ground that the proposed bargaining unit is a

mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. The petition and the other

documents submitted by respondent will readily show that what the former really seeks

to represent are the regular rank-and-file employees in the company numbering about

1,800 more or less, a unit which is obviously

appropriate for bargaining purposes. This being the case, CA believed that the mere

allegation of respondent-appellee that there are about 42 supervisory employees in the

proposed bargaining unit should have not caused the dismissal of the instant petition.

Petitioner filed this special civil action

contends that "the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing, contrary to law and

facts the findings of the Med-Arbiters to the effect that, the inclusion of the prohibited mix

of rank-and file and supervisory employees in the roster of members”

ISSUE: W/N the respondent’s inclusion of

supervisory Employees in the union violates the Labor Code requirements.

HELD: Inclusion of supervisory employees violates The Code. Art. 245 - Ineligibility of

managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. -

- Managerial Employees are not eligible to



join, assist or form any labor organization.

Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for

membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist

or form separate labor organizations of their own.

Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file

and supervisory employees is no labor

organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization.

Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory

employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the

right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It

becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the

granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any

labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis

of Article 245 of the Labor Code.

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL

GOLF CLUB INC VS TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO

FACTS:

October 16, 1997 Tagaytay Highlands

Employees Union(THEU), Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO),

Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor

organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a

petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional

Branch No. IV.

November 27, 1997, petitioner filed a petition

opposing the filing of certification election

because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it

included the names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent

without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a

corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to

the petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file

employees of THIGCI. Also, some of the signatures in the list of union members were

secured through fraudulent and deceitful

means, and submitted copies of the

handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the

petition.

The union asserted that it complied with all

the requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor

organizations pursuant to DOLE Department

Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account of which it was duly granted a Certification of

Affiliation by DOLE on October 10, 1997; and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department

Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to collateral

attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy the

rights accorded to a legitimate organization.

Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section

11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09, automatically order the conduct of a

certification election.

On January 28, 1998, DOLE Med-Arbiter

ordered the holding of a certification election. Further, DOLE set aside the Resolution

dismissing the petition for certification

election. MFR denied.

CA denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and

affirmed the DOLE Resolution of dismissal. It held that while a petition for certification

election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule, hence, the employer may pray

for the dismissal of such petition on the basis

of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well as lack of

employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to

support its allegations.

ISSUE: W/N the withdrawal of some union

members from the certification election will affect the result

HELD: NO. As for petitioner’ s allegation that

some of the signatures in the petition for certification election were obtained through

fraud, false statement and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for

it to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration, and not to intervene



in a petition for certification election.

Regarding the alleged withdrawal of union

members from participating in the certification election, this Court’s following ruling is

instructive:

“T]he best forum for determining whether

there were indeed retractions from some of the laborers is in the certification election itself

wherein the workers can freely express their

choice in a secret ballot. Suffice it to say that the will of the rank-and-file employees should

in every possible instance be determined by secret ballot rather than by administrative or

quasi-judicial inquiry. Such representation and certification election cases are not to be

taken as contentious litigations for suits but as mere investigations of a non-adversary,

fact-finding character as to which of the

competing unions represents the genuine choice of the workers to be their sole and

exclusive collective bargaining representative

with their employer.”

MARIWASA VS SEC. OF LABOR

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration against respondent,

claiming that the latter violated Article 2345 of the Labor Code and that it committed massive

fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Article 2396 of the same code. That

respondent failed to comply with the 20%

union membership requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization

because of the disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102 employees

who executed affidavits recanting their union membership. Regional Director of DOLE IV-A

issued an Order granting the petition,

revoking the registration of respondent, and delisting it from the roster of active labor

unions.

Respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor

Relations (BLR) and the latter granted the respondent’s appeal based on insufficiency of

evidence. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the BLR denied it.

Petitioner sought recourse from affirmation of

the Court of Appeals (CA) of the BLR decision

through a Petition for Certiorari contending

that; the CA seriously erred in ruling that the

affidavits of recantation cannot be given credence, seriously erred in ruling that private

respondent union complied with the 20% membership requirement and erred when it

ruled that private respondent union did not commit misrepresentation, fraud or false

statement. However, the CA denied it.

ISSUE: W/N the respondent violated the percentage requirement of union members

under Article 2345 of the Labor Code and committed massive fraud and

misrepresentation.

HELD: Evidently, these affidavits were written

and prepared in advance, and the pro forma affidavits were ready to be filled out with the

employees’ names and signatures.

The first common allegation in the affidavits is a declaration that, in spite of his hesitation,

the affiant was forced and deceived into joining the respondent union. The affidavit

does not mention the identity of the people who allegedly forced and deceived the affiant

into joining the union, circumstances constituted such force and deceit. Indeed, not

only was this allegation couched in very

general terms and sweeping in nature, but more importantly, it was not supported by any

evidence whatsoever.

Second allegation ostensibly bares the affiant’s

regret for joining respondent union and expresses the desire to abandon or renege

from whatever agreement he may have signed

regarding his membership with respondent. Simply put, through these affidavits, it is

made to appear that the affiants recanted their support of respondent’s application for

registration.

In the case of La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette

Factory v. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, “The presumption would arise that

the withdrawal was procured through duress,

coercion or for valuable consideration. In other words, the distinction must be that

withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed voluntary unless there

is convincing proof to the contrary, whereas



withdrawals made after the filing of the

petition are deemed involuntary”.

The reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawal or retraction is made before the

filing of the petition, the names of employees supporting the petition are supposed to be

held secret to the opposite party. Logically, any such withdrawal or retraction shows

voluntariness in the absence of proof to the

contrary. Moreover, it becomes apparent that such employees had not given consent to the

filing of the petition, hence the subscription requirement has not been met.

When the withdrawal or retraction is made after the petition is filed, the employees who

are supporting the petition become known to the opposite party since their names are

attached to the petition at the time of filing.

Therefore, it would not be unexpected that the opposite party would use foul means for the

subject employees to withdraw their support.

In the instant case, the affidavits of

recantation were executed after the identities of the union members became public, i.e.,

after the union filed a petition for certification election on May 23, 2005, since the names of

the members were attached to the petition.

The purported withdrawal of support for the registration of the union was made after the

documents were submitted to the DOLE, Region IV-A. The logical conclusion, therefore,

following jurisprudence, is that the employees were not totally free from the employer’s

pressure, and so the voluntariness of the

employees’ execution of the affidavits becomes suspect.

It is likewise notable that the first batch of 25 pro forma affidavits shows that the affidavits

were executed by the individual affiants on different dates from May 26, 2005 until June

3, 2005, but they were all sworn before a notary public on June 8, 2005.

There was also a second set of standardized

affidavits executed on different dates from May 26, 2005 until July 6, 2005. While these 77

affidavits were notarized on different dates, 56 of these were notarized on June 8, 2005, the

very same date when the first set of 25 was notarized.

Considering that the first set of 25 affidavits

was submitted to the DOLE on June 14, 2005,

it is surprising why petitioner was able to submit the second set of affidavits only on

July 12, 2005.

Accordingly, we cannot give full credence to

these affidavits, which were executed under suspicious circumstances, and which contain

allegations unsupported by evidence. At best,

these affidavits are self-serving. They possess no probative value.

Nevertheless, even assuming the veracity of the affidavits of recantation, the legitimacy of

respondent as a labor organization must be affirmed. While it is true that the withdrawal

of support may be considered as a resignation from the union, the fact remains that at the

time of the union’s application for registration,

the affiants were members of respondent and they comprised more than the required 20%

membership for purposes of registration as a labor union. Article 234 of the Labor Code

merely requires a 20% minimum membership during the application for union registration.

It does not mandate that a union must maintain the 20% minimum membership

requirement all throughout its existence.

For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent, it must be shown that there

was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or

ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto; the minutes of

ratification; or, in connection with the election

of officers, the minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit

these documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their

postal addresses to the BLR.

The bare fact that two signatures appeared

twice on the list of those who participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our

mind, provide a valid reason to cancel

respondent’s certificate of registration. The cancellation of a union’s registration doubtless

has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-organization. For fraud and

misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under the

Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and



misrepresentation must be grave and

compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a

majority of union members.

In this case, we agree with the BLR and the

CA that respondent could not have possibly committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false

statements. The alleged failure of respondent to indicate with mathematical precision the

total number of employees in the bargaining

unit is of no moment, especially as it was able to comply with the 20% minimum

membership requirement.

COSEP

G.R. No. 178989 March 18, 2010

EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB,

vs. CA and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES

UNION (EREU)

FACTS:

On December 6, 2005, at least 20% of Eagle

Ridge’s rank-and-file employees (with 26

employees of Eagle Ridge attending) had a

meeting where they organized themselves into

an independent labor union, named "Eagle

Ridge Employees Union" (EREU or

Union), elected a set of officers, and ratified

their constitution and by-laws.

On December 19, 2005, the Union formally

filed its formal application for registration

before the DOLE Regional Office IV, indicating

a total of 30 union members with the

inclusion of four additional members. In time,

DOLE RO IV granted the application and

issued EREU Registration Certificate (Reg.

Cert.) No. RO400-200512-UR-003. The EREU,

on January 10, 20016, then filed a petition for

certification election in Eagle Ridge Golf &

Country Club.

On February 13, 2006, Eagle Ridge opposed

this petition, followed by its filing of a petition

for the cancellation of the said Reg. Cert.

Eagle Ridge’s petition ascribed

misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud to

EREU in connection with the adoption of its

constitution and by-laws, the numerical

composition of the Union, and the election of

its officers.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Union

possesses bona fide compliance of the

registration requirements under Art. 234 of

the Code, explaining the seeming

discrepancies between the number of

employees who participated in the

organizational meeting and the total number

of union members at the time it filed its

registration, as well as the typographical error

in its certification which understated by one

the number of union members who ratified

the union’s constitution and by-laws.

RULING: Yes, it does.

Before their amendment by Republic Act No.

948140 on June 15, 2007, the then governing

Art. 234 (on the requirements of registration of

a labor union) and Art. 239 (on the grounds

for cancellation of union registration) of the

Labor Code respectively provided as follows:

Article 234, REQUIREMENTS OF

REGISTRATION states that “Any applicant

labor organization, association or group of

unions or workers shall acquire legal

personality and shall be entitled to the rights

and privileges granted by law to legitimate

labor organizations upon issuance of the

certificate of registration based on the

following requirements:

(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses,

the principal address of the labor

organization, the minutes of the organizational

meetings and the list of workers who

participated in such meetings;



(c) The names of all its members comprising at

least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees

in the bargaining unit where it seeks to

operate;

(e) Four copies (4) of the constitution and by-

laws of the applicant union, minutes of its

adoption or ratification and the list of the

members who participated in it.”

The Union submitted the required documents

attesting to the facts of the organizational

meeting on December 6, 2005, the election of

its officers, and the adoption of the Union’s

constitution and by-laws. It submitted before

the DOLE Regional Office with its Application

for Registration and the duly filled out BLR

Reg. Form No. I-LO, s. 1998.

Evidently, as the Union persuasively argues,

the withdrawal of six member-employees from

the Union will affect neither the Union’s

registration nor its petition for certification

election, as their affidavits of retraction were

executed after the Union’s petition for

certification election had been filed. The initial

five affidavits of retraction were executed on

February 15, 2006; the sixth, on March 15,

2006. Indisputably, all six were executed way

after the filing of the petition for certification

election on January 10, 2006.

Additionally, Article 239, GROUNDS FOR

CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION

provides that “the following shall constitute

grounds for cancellation of union registration:

(a) Misrepresentation, false statements or

fraud in connection with the adoption or

ratification of the constitution and by-laws or

amendments thereto, the minutes of

ratification, and the list of members who took

part in the ratification;

x x x x

(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or

fraud in connection with the election of

officers, minutes of the election of officers,

the list of voters, or failure to submit these

documents together with the list of the newly

elected/appointed officers and their postal

addresses within thirty (30) days from

election. (Emphasis supplied.)”

A scrutiny of the records fails to show any

misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud

committed by EREU to merit cancellation of

its registration. Twenty percent (20%) of 112

rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge would

require a union membership of at least 22

employees (112 x 205 = 22.4). When the EREU

filed its application for registration on

December 19, 2005, there were clearly 30

union members. Thus, when the certificate of

registration was granted, there is no dispute

that the Union complied with the mandatory

20% membership requirement.

Besides, it cannot be argued that the six

affidavits of retraction retroact to the time of

the application of registration or even way

back to the organizational meeting. Prior to

their withdrawal, the six employees in

question were bona fide union members. More

so, they never disputed affixing their

signatures beside their handwritten names

during the organizational meetings. While they

alleged that they did not know what they were

signing, it bears stressing that their affidavits

of retraction were not re-affirmed during the

hearings of the instant case rendering them of

little, if any, evidentiary value.

With the withdrawal of six union members,

there is still compliance with the mandatory

membership requirement under Art. 234(c),

for the remaining 24 union members

constitute more than the 20% membership

requirement of 22 employees.

G.R. No. 177024 October 30, 2009

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED

AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL

CORPORATION) Petitioner,

vs. PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG



MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA

(PIGLAS-HERITAGE), Respondent.

FACTS:

Sometime in 2000, certain rank and file

employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila

formed and was later issued a certificate of

registration for the "Heritage Hotel Employees

Union". Subsequently, the HHE union filed a

petition for certification election that the

petitioner company opposed even though the

Med-Arbiter granted the HHE union’s petition

for certification election. The company alleged

that the HHE union misrepresented itself to

be an independent union, when it was, in

truth, a local chapter of the National Union of

Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied

Industries (NUWHRAIN). Thus, the company

also filed a petition for the cancellation of the

HHE union’s registration certificate.

On October 12, 2001, the Court of Appeals

issued a writ of injunction against the holding

of the HHE union’s certification election. The

decision of the Court of Appeals became final

when the HHE union withdrew the petition for

review that it filed with this Court. On

December 10, 2003, certain rank and file

employees of the company formed another

union, the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at

Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila

(the PIGLAS union). This union applied for

and was granted the registration on February

9, 2004. Two months later, the members of

the first union, the HHE union, adopted a

resolution for its dissolution. The HHE union

then filed a petition for cancellation of its

union registration. On September 4, 2004,

respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for

certification election that petitioner company

also opposed, alleging that the new union’s

officers and members were also those who

comprised the old union.

On December 6, 2004 petitioner company filed

a petition to cancel the union registration of

respondent PIGLAS union. The company

claimed that the documents submitted with

the union’s application for registration bore

many false information.

ISSUE: Whether or not "dual unionism" is a

ground for cancelling a union’s registration.

RULING: No, it is not.

The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS

union’s members were also members of the

old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not

a ground for cancelling the new union’s

registration. The right of any person to join an

organization also includes the right to leave

that organization and join another one.

Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to

exist and its certificate of registration had

already been cancelled. Thus, petitioner’s

arguments on this point may also be now

regarded as moot and academic.

G.R. No. L-33987 September 4, 1975

LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS

UNION, RAFAEL NEPOMUCENO, MARIANO

CASTILLO, NELLY ACEVEDO, RIZALINO

CASTILLO and RAFAEL

COMBALICER, petitioners,

vs. LIBERTY COTTON MILLS, INC.,

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR

UNION (PAFLU) and the COURT OF

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS:

The Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union

adopted its Constitution and By-laws on

January 1, 1959. On October 1, 1959, a

Collective Bargaining Agreement 2 was

entered into by and between the Company and

the Union represented by PAFLU. On March

13, 1964, while the Collective Bargaining

Agreement was in full force, Marciano Castillo

and Rafael Nepomuceno, President and Vice-

President, respectively, of the local union,

wrote PAFLU, its mother federation,



complaining about the legal counsel assigned

by the PAFLU to assist them in a ULP case

(Case No. 4001) they filed against the

Company. In said letter, the local union

expressed its dissatisfaction and loss of

confidence in the PAFLU lawyers, claiming

that PAFLU never lifted a finger regarding this

particular complaint.

On May 17, 1964, thirty two (32) out of the 36

members of the local union disaffiliated

themselves from respondent PAFLU pursuant

to their local union's Constitution and By-

Laws. A copy of the signed resolution of

disaffiliation was furnished the Company as

well as the Bureau of Labor Relations. The

following day, the local union wrote the

Company and required the turn-over of the

checked-off dues directly to its Treasurer.

On May 29,1964, PAFLU wrote the Company

for the second time, this time quoting en

toto Article III of the Collective Bargaining

Agreement on "Union Security" and requesting

the termination of the employment of Rafael

Nepomuceno, Marciano Castillo, Nelly

Acevedo, Enrique Managan, Rizalino Castillo

and Rafael Combalicer, all petitioners herein.

PAFLU at the same time expelled the

aforementioned workers from their' union

membership in the mother federation for

allegedly "instigating union disaffiliation."

On May 30,1964, the Company terminated the

employment of the members expelled by the

PAFLU. On the last day of May, 1964, counsel

for the ousted workers wrote the Company

requesting their reinstatement. This was

denied by the Company; hence the complaint

for unfair labor practice filed with the Court of

Industrial Relations.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the

complaining employees was justified or not.

RULING: It is claimed by PAFLU that the local

union could not have validly disaffiliated from

it as the Union Security Clause so provided.

The courts cannot agree with both the stand

of PAFLU and the respondent court. For while

it is correct to say that a union security clause

did exist, this clause was limited by the

provision in the Unions' Constitution and By-

Laws, which states:

“That the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-

PAFLU shall be affiliated with the PAFLU, and

shall remain an affiliate as long as ten (10) or

more of its members evidence their desire to

continue the said local unions affiliation.”

Record shows that only four (4) out of its

members remained for 32 out of the 36

members of the Union signed the resolution of

disaffiliation on May 17, 1964, triggered by

the alleged negligence of PAFLU in attending

to the needs of its local union, particularly its

failure to assign a conscientious lawyer to the

local to attend to the ULP case they filed

against the Company. The disaffiliation was,

therefore, valid under the local's Constitution

and By-Laws which, taken together with the

Collective Bargaining Agreement, is

controlling.

Considering that the dispute revolved around

the mother federation and its local, with the

company dismissing the workers at the

instance of the mother federation, it is

believed that the company's liability should be

limited to the immediate reinstatement of the

workers.

G.R. No. 74841 December 20, 1991

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS-VIMCONTU,

THE CEBU OIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,

represented by its Acting President,

MIGUEL C. ALIVIADO, and THE MOBIL

DAVAO/ COTABATO CHAPTER-ALU,

represented by its President, DAVID C.

ONDEVILLA, petitioners,

vs.

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (NLRC), MOBIL OIL

PHILIPPINES, INC., JEAN PIERRE



BAILLEUX, CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC.,

and MOBIL PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS:

A collective bargaining agreement was entered

into between the complainants and the

respondent Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. for a

period of three years starting from April 1,

1982 to March 31, 1985. On August 5, 1983,

respondent J.P. Bailiux, President of Mobil Oil

Philippines, Inc. sent letters to the employees,

notifying of the termination of their services

effective August 31, 1983 because of the sale

of the respondent firm. On September 13,

1983, complainant employee accepted their

checks for separation pay and signed quit-

claims under protest and subject to the

outcome of this case.

Caltex Philippines, Inc. was impleaded as

additional respondent because of its

acquisition of the entire marketing and

distribution assets of Mobil Oil Philippines.

Mobil Philippines, Inc. was also made a

respondent in view of a metropolitan daily

newspaper announcement that Mobil Oil

Philippines, Inc. will continue to do business

under the corporate name of Mobil

Philippines, Inc. and that this newly formed

company will market chemicals and special

products such as solvents, process products,

waxes and industrial asphalt, fuels and

lubricants for the international marine and

aviation industries.

Complainants charge respondent Mobil Oil

Philippines, Inc. and J.P. Bailiux with unfair

labor practice for violating their collective

bargaining agreement which, among others,

states that "this Agreement shall be binding

upon the parties hereto and their successors

and assigns, and may be assigned by the

company without the previous approval of the

Union. However, the latter will be notified of

such assignment when it occurs." In this case,

the complainant unions were not notified

officially of such assignment to Caltex

Philippines and respondent Mobil Oil

Philippines made announcement in major

dailies that the company shall continue to

operate its business.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents Caltex

and MOPI bound by the provisions of the CBA.

RULING:

Yes, the Commission finds that although

Caltex is bound by the said agreement under

Section I thereof, the rights and interests or

benefits that may have been earned during the

remaining term of the CBA have been satisfied

by MOPI when herein complainants accepted

their respective checks and executed quitclaim

from and in favor of the firm.

In G.R. No. 74841, petitioners assail the above

decision and contend that the NLRC

committed serious errors of law and grave

abuse of discretion when it ruled to justify the

termination that : (a) petitioners had

knowledge of the impending sale to Caltex and

closure of the company in a series of

negotiations/meetings by considering it as a

sufficient notice of termination; (b) the

situation was one of closure and not

redundancy; (c) the rights and interests or

benefits that may have been earned during the

remaining term of the CBA have been satisfied

by MOPI when complainants accepted their

respective checks and executed quitclaim from

and in favor of the firm; (d) the benefits

granted by respondent MOPI were far above

the benefits provided by law; and (e) as

regards the liability of Mobil Philippines, Inc.,

there is no concrete evidence to establish or

prove complainants' allegation that MOPI will

continue its business.

G.R. No. L-24711,; Apr 30, 1968

BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. vs. BCI

EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU,



PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR

UNIONS, CIPRIANO CID and JUANITO

GARCIA

FACTS:

On June 23, 1959, the Benguet-Balatoc

Workers Union (“BBWU”), for and in behalf of

all Benguet Consolidated, Inc (Benguet)

employees in its mines and milling

establishment located at Balatoc, Antamok

and Acupan, Mt. Province, entered into a

Collective Bargaining Contract with Benguet.

The contract was stipulated to be effective for

a period of 4-1/2 years, or from June 23,

1959 to December 23, 1963. It likewise

embodied a No-Strike, No-Lockout clause.

Three years later, a certification election was

conducted by the Department of Labor among

all the rank and file employees of Benguet in

the same collective bargaining units. BCI

EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION (Union)

obtained more than 50% of the total number

of votes, defeating BBWU. The Court of

Industrial Relations certified the UNION as the

sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent

of all BENGUET employees as regards rates of

pay, wages, hours of work and such other

terms and conditions of employment allowed

them by law or contract.

Later on, the UNION filed a notice of strike

against BENGUET. UNION members who were

BENGUET employees in the mining camps at

Acupan, Antamok and Balatoc, went on strike.

The strike was attended by violence, some of

the workers and executives of the BENGUET

were prevented from entering the premises

and some of the properties of the BENGUET

were damaged as a result of the strike.

Eventually, the parties agreed to end the

dispute. BENGUET and UNION executed the

AGREEMENT. PAFLU placed its conformity

thereto. About a year later or on January 29,

1964, a collective bargaining contract was

finally executed between UNION-PAFLU and

BENGUET.

Meanwhile, BENGUET sued UNION, PAFLU

and their Presidents to recover the amount the

former incurred for the repair of the damaged

properties resulting from the strike. BENGUET

also argued that the UNION violated the

CONTRACT which has a stipulation not to

strike during the effectivity thereof.

Defendants unions and their presidents

defended that: (1) they were not bound by the

CONTRACT which BBWU, the defeated union,

had executed with BENGUET; (2) the strike

was due, among others, to unfair labor

practices of BENGUET; and (3) the strike was

lawful and in the exercise of the legitimate

rights of UNION-PAFLU under Republic Act

875.

The trial court dismissed the complaint on the

ground that the CONTRACT, particularly the

No-Strike clause, did not bind defendants.

BENGUET interposed the present appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Collective Bargaining

Contract executed between Benguet and

BBWU on June 23, 1959 and effective until

December 23, 1963 automatically bound

UNION-PAFLU upon its certification, on

August 18, 1962, as sole bargaining

representative of all Benguet employees.

RULING: No.

Benguet erroneously invokes the so-called

“Doctrine of Substitution” referred to in

General Maritime Stevedore’s Union v. South

Sea Shipping Lines where it was ruled that:

“We also hold that where the bargaining

contract is to run for more than two years, the

principle of substitution may well be adopted

and enforced by the CIR to the effect that after

two years of the life of a bargaining agreement,

a certification election may be allowed by the

CIR, that if a bargaining agent other than the

union or organization that executed the

contract, is elected, said new agent would



have to respect said contract, but that it may

bargain with the management for the

shortening of the life of the contract if it

considers it too long, or refuse to renew the

contract pursuant to an automatic renewal

clause.”

Benguet’s reliance upon the Principle of

Substitution is totally misplaced. This

principle, formulated by the NLRB as its initial

compromise solution to the problem facing it

when there occurs a shift in employees’ union

allegiance after the execution of a bargaining

contract with their employer, merely states

that even during the effectivity of a collective

bargaining agreement executed between

employer and employees thru their agent, the

employees can change said agent but the

contract continues to bind them up to its

expiration date. They may bargain however for

the shortening of said expiration date.

In formulating the “substitutionary” doctrine,

the only consideration involved was

the employees’ (principal) interest in the

existing bargaining agreement. The agent’s

(union) interest never entered the picture. The

majority of the employees, as an entity under

the statute, is the true party in interest to the

contract, holding rights through the agency of

the union representative. Thus, any exclusive

interest claimed by the agent is defeasible at

the will of the principal. The “substitutionary”

doctrine only provides that the employees

cannot revoke the validly executed collective

bargaining contract with their employer by the

simple expedient of changing their bargaining

agent. And it is in the light of this that the

phrase “said new agent would have to respect

said contract” must be understood. It only

means that the employees, thru their new

bargaining agent, cannot renege on their

collective bargaining contract, except of course

to negotiate with management for the

shortening thereof.

Since defendants were not contractually

bound by the no-strike clause in the

CONTRACT, for the simple reason that they

were not parties thereto, they could not be

liable for breach of contract to plaintiff.

labrel digests- set 1

Documents

piece of work

national union

tagaytay union

toyota union

ventures union

independent business

bci union

sec of labor