August 2, 2010 - Digest

CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 2, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010

ALLIANCE OF NATIONALIST (ANGLO) V. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA G.R. No. 118562, July 5, 1996

participate. During the pre-election conference, PICOP questioned the inclusion of some supervisors in the list of voters and averred that they were classified as managerial employees.

In December 1993, SAMANA BAY (Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay Spinning Mills and J.P. Coats) decided to disaffiliate from ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization) due to the latter’s dereliction of duty to promote the welfare of SAMANA BAY and the alleged case of corruption. ANGLO overthrew all officers of the respondent, and appointed new set of officers, for non-remittance of federation dues. ANGLO contended that the disaffiliation was void since the freedom period has not yet set in.

MED ARBITER: Held the supervisors and section heads of the petitioner are managerial employees and therefore excluded from the list of voters for purposes of certification election; On appeal, the SECRETARY of Labor: declared them as supervisory employees eligible to vote in the certification election.

MED ARBITER: Declared the disaffiliation void but maintained that the dismissal of officers was illegal; ON APPEAL TO DOLE: Disaffiliation was VALID, Directed the Company (Manila Bay Spinning Mills) to remit the dues directly to SAMANA; MR of ANGLO was DENIED. SC: Dismissed the petition. Whether or not the disaffiliation of SAMANA was valid. Yes. As a rule, a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union only within the freedom period. (PD 1391 – “No petition for certification election, for intervention and disaffiliation shall be entertained or given due course except within the 60-day freedom period…”) However, under ARTICLE 239-A, disaffiliation may be carried out by a vote of 2/3 of its general membership in a meeting duly called for that purpose to dissolve the organization. In addition, with respect to the removal of the officers, a local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. Having its own personality, the mother federation has no license to act independently of the local union. Any act performed by ANGLO affecting the interest and affairs of SAMANA, including the ouster of herein individual private respondent, is rendered without force and effect.

PAPER INDUSTRIES V. LAGUESMA G. R. No.101738, April 12, 2000 On August 9, 1989, PBSTSEU [PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union] instituted a Petition for Certification Election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP [Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines]. The initial hearing of the petition was reset as per request of PICOP (15 days) in order to file its comment, but it failed to do so. Meanwhile, FFW and ALU intervened and as a result, the holding of the certification election was granted by the med-arbiter. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor upheld the med-arbiter with modifications, allowing the supervising staff in Cebu, Davao and Iligan to

Whether or not the employees are managerial employees. No. Under ARTICLE 212 (m) Managerial Employees, is one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to Hire, Transfer, Suspend, Layoff, Recall, Discharge, Assign or Discipline employees. The job description of the employees show that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since they do not lay down company policies. The authority of the subject employees is not supreme but merely advisory in character. “Thus, the mere fact that an employee is designated "manager" does not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of employment.” (United Pepsi-Cola Supevisory Union vs Laguesma)

SUGBUANON RURAL BANK V. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 116194, February 2, 2000 Sugbuanon Rural Bank employed 5 supervisory employees. APSOLTEU-TUCP, a legitimate labor organization, then filed a petition for certification election of the said supervisory employees. The bank opposed the petition on the ground that the supervisory employees were actually managerial/confidential employees. In addition, the union was represented in the petition by ALU-TUCP, and since according to the Bank the latter also sought to represent the rank and file members, granting the petition would violate the principle of separation of unions. Whether or not the members of the union are managerial or confidential employees, hence prohibited by law from joining labor organizations and engaging in union activities. No. As held in the case, while the nature of the employees’ work (evaluating borrowers’ capacity to pay, approving loans, scheduling terms of repayment of the latter, and endorsing delinquent accounts to legal counsel for collection) indeed constituted the core of the bank’s business, their functions did not fall within the definition of either a managerial employee or 1 of 4

CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 2, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010

a confidential employee (they did not act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate and execute management policies related to labor relations) As to the second issue whether the MedArbiter may validly order the holding of a certification election despite the petitioner’s appeal pending before the DOLE Secretary against the issuance of the union’s registration. ARTICLE 257 mandates that a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. Nothing is said therein that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification election if the management appeals on the issue of the validity of the union's registration.

SMC V. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 110399, August 15, 1997 Petitioner union filed a Petition for District Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants which was granted by med-arbiter. SMC filed a notice of appeal contesting that the MA allowed 3 separate plants into 1 bargaining unit and including supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential in nature. Undersecretary Laguesma granted the appeal. Upon motion of the petitioner, Laguesma directed to conduct separate certification elections of the 3 plants among the supervisors (ranked S1 to S4 levels) and exempt employees. SMC filed a MR and Motion to Suspend Proceedings and was granted. Whether or not S3 and S4 employees are confidential employees, hence ineligible from joining a union; and Whether the 3 plants constitutes an appropriate single bargaining unit. (1) No. The employees are not covered by ARTICLE 212 (m). Under ARTICLE 245, they are not allowed membership in a labor organization of the rank-andfile employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. Confidential employees are 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. An employee has access to confidential labor relations information but such is merely incidental to his duties and knowledge thereof is not necessary in the performance of such duties, said access does not render the employee a confidential employee. (2) An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as “a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.” The Solicitor General has opined that separate bargaining units in the three

different plants of the division will divide the employees of the said division, thus greatly diminishing their bargaining leverage. The fact that the three plants are located in three different places, is immaterial. Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed as demonstrated in UP v. Calleja-Ferrer where all nonacademic rank and file employees of the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, Padre Faura, Manila, Los Baños, Laguna and the Visayas were allowed to participate in a certification election.

MERALCO V. SEC. OF LABOR G.R. No. 91902, May 20, 1991 On November 22, 1988, the Staff and Technical Employees Association of MERALCO (hereafter "STEAM-PCWF") filed a petition for certification election to represent MERALCO non-managerial employees disqualified to join in the MEWA (MERALCO Employees and Worker's Association – Salary grade of employees here are I-VI). MERLACO moved to dismiss the petition contending that employees from pay grade VII are classified as managerial, the creation of union would violate Article 232, and Sec. 2 Rule V, Book V excludes security guards to join a bargaining unit. A year after, FLAMES (First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees) filed a similar petition to represent employees with salary grade VII to XIV for the supervisory union. MED ARBITER: Ordered a certification election; SECRETARY: Affirmed and also included FLAMES among the choices in the certification election. SC: Dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the SEC. Whether or not security guards are prohibited from joining a labor union and whether said employees with salary grade VII up are managerial employees. No. On Dec 24, 1986, EO 111 eliminated the disqualification of Security Guards and thus, they may now freely join a labor organization of the rank and file or that of the supervisory union, depending on their rank. RA 6715 Sec. 18, which amended Article 245 of the LC, “…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.”

BENGUET ELECTRIC V. FERRERCALLEJA G.R. No. 79025, December 29, 1989 BWLU-ADLO (Beneco Worker's Labor UnionAssociation of Democratic Labor Organizations) filed a petition for direct certification as sole bargaining 2 of 4

CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 2, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010

representative of all the rank and file employee of BENECO (Benguet Electric Cooperative) Thereafter, BELU (Beneco Employees Labor Union) opposed contending it was certified as sole bargaining representative of BENECO. On the other hand, the cooperative filed a motion to dismiss claiming that it is a non-profit electric coop. and the employees sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are members and joint owners of the cooperative. MA: Issued an order allowing the certification election; Respondent Director Ferrer-Calleja affirmed the med-arbiter's order and certified BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees of BENECO.

Whether or not member-consumers who are employees of BENECO could form, assist or join a labor union. No. The right to collective bargaining is not available to an employee of a cooperative who at the same time is a member and co-owner thereof. "Certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners." It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvement in the management thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. (Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Ferrer Calleja)

KAPATIRAN V. FERRER-CALLEJA G.R. No. 82914, June 20, 1988 The petitioner, Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division, (TUPAS) has been the sole collective bargaining representative of Universal Robina Corp. for 3 years. Thereafter, NEW ULO, composed mostly of Iglesia Ni Cristo members, registered as a labor union. The new union,claiming that it has "the majority of the daily wage rank and file employees, filed a petition for a certification election at the BLR. MA: Ordered the holding of the CE; On appeal to the BLR: Dismissed the appeal; SC: Denied the same. Whether or not the right to members of the INC not to join a labor union, for being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members from forming their own union. Yes. As held in the case of Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54, upholding the right of members of the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect not to join a labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from forming their own union. At the same time, NEW ULO was able to file a timely petition for CE within the 60 day freedom

period and was able to ascertain the majority of the workers who prefer their union.

BLISS V. FERRER-CALLEJA G.R. No. 80887, September 30, 1994 BDC (Bliss Devt. Corp.) filed a petition for CE but was dismissed by MED ARBITER; claiming that it is covered by the Civil Service Law for being a GOCC since HSDC (Human Settlement Development Corporation), a wholly owned government corporation, is the owner of the majority of its stocks. On appeal, the BLR dismissed the same. Whether or not BDC is a GOCC and therefore not allowed to file a petition for CE and is covered by Executive Order No. 180 and must register under Section 7 as a condition for filing a petition for certification election. No. BDC is a GOCC created under the Corporation Law (through incorporation under the general law). The Civil Service does not include GOCC which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCC under the general corporation law. The BDC is without a CHARTER, hence it is governed by the Labor Code and not the Civil Service Law. [1973 versus 1987 CONSTITUTION, In the 1973 (Article II-B, Sec. 1): The civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation; In the 1987 (Art. IX-B, Sec. 2): The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter.]

JACINTO V. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 124540, November 14, 1997 On September 1990, DECS Secretary issued a return to work order against Petitioners, who were public school teachers from different schools in Metro Manila, who incurred unauthorized absences, in connection with the strike against the government to grant their demands. [P680M Secondary Education Fund (SEF); Clothing Allowance; Increase in Minimum Wage and DMB Circular 904] The directive was ignored by petitioners hence, they were administratively charged and were all dismissed except for Jacinto and Agustin who were suspended for 6 months. On appeal, the MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board) dismissed the same. CSC found the petitioners (except Merlinda Jacinto) guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; Penalty (6) months suspension w/o pay; and reinstatement w/o back salaries; [CSC found them guilty for having absented 3 of 4

CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 2, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010

themselves without proper authority and violated the CSC Circular: prohibition against strikes by government workers causing disruption of public service]

In the case of Merlinda Jacinto, she was found guilty of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations; Penalty of reprimand; and reinstatement w/o back salaries. [She claimed that she left the school premises on the day in question, because she "was emotionally and mentally depressed but failed to observe the rules regarding the permission needed from the school authorities and did not file an application for sick leave] Whether or not the decision of CSC, in charging and suspending the petitioners, is convincing. Yes. However, with respect to Jacinto, she is granted with back wages by the SC from the time she was suspended until her actual reinstatement. RATIO: There was no proof that she joined the mass actions which caused prejudice to the school system. On the other hand, petitioners' demand for back wages cannot be granted, for they had given cause for their suspension — their unjustified abandonment of classes to the prejudice of their students.

ICMC V. FERRER-CALLEJA G.R. No. 85750, September 28, 1990 This is a case of an organization operating in the Philippines subjected to an attempt to organize a labor union among its employees. ICMC (International Catholic Immigration Commission) was one of those accredited by the government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the Holy See, as a non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. The Trade Union of the Philippines (TUPAS) made initial actions, a process called certification election, for recognition of a labor union. The ICMC claims that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and hence enjoys diplomatic privilege and immunity. MA: Dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction; BLR: Ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election.

executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations. [ARTICLE III SEC 4 and 5 of Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 November 1947 and concurred in by the Philippine Senate through Resolution No. 19 on 17 May 1949]

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS V. TAGAYTAY EMPLOYEES UNION G.R. No. 142000, January 22, 2003 Respondent (THEU-Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union) labor organization filed a petition for CE to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI (Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incorporated). The petitioner opposed, claiming that only 71 of 192 were actual rank and file employees the rest were supervisors, resigned, awol etc. MA: Ordered the holding of the CE; DOLE Secretary: Dismissed the CE due to clear absence of community or mutuality of interests; Motion for Reconsideration to DOLE Undersecretary by Union: Remanded the case to MA for the conduct of CE and simply removed the disqualified employees rather than disregard the legitimate status of the union. SC: Denied petition. Whether or not the disqualified employees could simply be removed from the roster instead of resolving the legitimacy of the union’s status. Yes. Under ARTICLE 239, the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated therein. Moreover, the legitimacy of herein union cannot be questioned since after a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation (BOOK V, Rule IV, Section 8)

“There is no delight in owning anything unshared.”

Whether or not the ICMC is subject to the Labor Laws of the Phils and therefore, can be compelled to recognize labor unions and proceed with the certification election. No. Similar with the case of IRRI, (The International Rice Research Institute) there can be no question that diplomatic immunity has, in fact, been granted ICMC and IRRI. Both enjoy immunities accorded to international organizations, hence, courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction as to avoid embarrassing the 4 of 4