Labor Rounds 1and2

Labor Law 2

A2010

BACKGROUND MATERIAL FROM COMPULSORY ARBITRATION TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE PHILIPPINES Cicero Calderon

2 Contrasting Approaches to the Regulation of Labor Relations 1. System System of of Compul Compulsor sory y Arbitr Arbitrati ation on (193 (1936) 6) 2. Coll Collec ecti tive ve Barg Bargai aini ning ng COMPULSORY ARBITRATION Factors that Contributed to its Adoption - On the basis of Art. 2, sec. 5 and Art. 14, sec. 6 of the 1935 Constitution, the National Assembly of the Philippines in 1936, adopt adopted ed compu compulso lsory ry arbitr arbitrati ation on by provid providing ing for a Court Court of  Industrial Relation under C.A. No. 103 - The adopt adoption ion of compu compulso lsory ry arbitr arbitrati ation on was was a delib delibera erate te response of the policy-makers to the social scene characterized by acute agrarian and industrial unrest of disturbing proportions. Other factors contributing to the adoption were: 1. the poor state state of organ organiza izatio tion n of the workers workers and farm workers and the resultant 2. lack of effective collective bargaining bargaining 3. the customary reliance of the Filipino upon courts of justice in the adjudication of controversies of whatever nature 3. the desire to experiment with compulsory arbitration which had been rejected at least 3 times under American Rule 4. the the appa pparent rent inad nadequa equac cy or effect fectiivene eness of the the Governmen Government’s t’s policy policy of non-inte non-intervent rvention ion in the area of labor labor management management relations 5. the strong influence of the then President, Manuel L. Quezon who advocated its adoption before the National Assembly Court of Industrial Relation - The CIR was organized at the close of 1936 but started to function only in 1937. - The Court’s docket started to clog in 1947. This number rose very rapidly on the succeeding 6 years, from 137 in 1948 to over 1, 500 in 1953. - The adjudication of labor disputes was being delayed and that the main main machin machinery ery to enforc enforce e the system system of compul compulsor sory y arbi arbitr trat atio ion n was was unab unable le,, or was was no long longer er able able,, to cope cope adequately adequately and effectively effectively with h responsibilities placed upon it. - Major factors responsible for the accumulation of cases: 1. Lack of adequate support from the Government itself  2. Consequent inefficiency inefficiency of the Court 3. The extremely generous generous discretionary discretionary powers vested vested in the Court to grant continuances, modify its orders and hear motions for reconsideration (sitting as full court) and to other aspects of  its procedure. Weaknesses of the System of Compulsory Arbitration 1. There were varied concepts of what constituted “fair and just wage,” wage,” “just “just or unjust unjust cause cause for dismissal dismissal,” ,” public public interest, interest,” ” “social “social justice” justice” and other technical technical abstracti abstractions. ons. Under Under such cond condit itio ions ns inst instab abil ilit ity y and and conf confus usio ion n char charac acte teri rize zed d labo laborr management management relations. 2. A judicial approach was adopted to the settlement of labor disputes, with the result that policy considerations and economic factors played a less important role than technicalities of law. 3. Excessive dependence on the CIR. 4. The system of compulsory arbitration and the law failed to provide adequate protection for the exercise of the right of selforganization by the workers. 5. The Supreme Court and the CIR failed to perceive that the best means of protecting the workers was to help them build strong unions free from company domination. domination. 6. The legal provisions on strikes and the wide latitude given to the CIR in exercising powers to issue injunctions made it difficult to use strikes and other concerted activities, or the threat of  them, as a means of improving the bargaining bargaining position position of labor.

-1-

Disini

7. The CIR found that not all differences between workers and and employ employers ers could could be proper proper subje subjects cts of compul compulsor sory y arbitration. 8. The failure of the CIR to resolve conflicting demands for recognition of unions for collective bargaining purposes did not lead to stability in labor management relations. relations. An Evaluation of the System of Compulsory Arbitration - The basic objectives underlying the adoption of compulsory arbitration 1. To affo afford rd prot protec ecti tion on to labo laborr beca becaus use e of the the grea greatt disparity in bargaining power - On the whole, terms and conditions of employment were impro improved ved for those those worker workers s who who had had the courage courage and staying staying power power to fight their their case before before the CIR. But its effective effectiveness ness in affording affording protection protection to labor labor was greatly redu reduce ced d when when disp disput utes es drag dragge ged d out out in inte interm rmin inab able le litigation and the Government failed to meet the increased demand for the Court’s services. 2. Stability in L abor Management Relations - Labor Labor manag manageme ement nt greatl greatly y impro improved ved for a while while.. The effectiveness of the system in promoting stability of labormanag managem ement ent relati relations ons was was greatl greatly y reduce reduced, d, howeve however, r, during the post-war years. - Under compulsory arbitration an interesting phenomenon developed: the emergence of a labor movement under the leadership of lawyers. 3. Stability of Society in General - The Cir appeared appeared effective effective in playing playing the role from its organi organizat zation ion until until the Philip Philippin pines es were were engulf engulfed ed in the Second World War in 1941. - It was unable to play the role ineffectively during the postwar years. This failure contributed to no small measure to the resurgence of agrarian unrest and strikes in the country.  THE ADOPTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - Collective bargaining was adopted as the labor relations policy of the Philippines on June 17, 1953, when R.A. No. 875 was approved. - Its adoption can be attributed to several factors the most significant of which were: 1. The rising discontent of labor groups with the operation of  the CIR because because of protracte protracted d delays delays in the adjudicatio adjudication n cases. 2. The exposur exposure e of Filip Filipino ino labor leade leaders rs to conce concepts pts of  collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng resultin resulting g either either from contacts contacts with foreign labor leaders visiting the Philippines or from visits made made to other other count countrie ries s by severa severall of the Filipi Filipino no labor labor leaders 3. The participation by the Philippines in the adoption of 2 impo import rtan antt Conv Conven enti tion ons s by the the Inte Intern rnat atio iona nall .Lab .Labor or Conf Confer eren ence ce name namely ly the the Free Freedo dom m of Asso Associ ciat atio ion n and and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948, and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949. 4. The influence of experience in the United States under the National National Labor Relation Relations s Act of 1953 ( Wagner Wagner Act), Act), which greatly encouraged the development of trade unions and collective bargaining in that country and the enactment of the Labor Labor Manage Managemen mentt Relati Relations ons Act of 1947 1947 (Taft(TaftHartley). Basic Features of the Act of 1953 1. Registration of Labor Organizations - to obtain the status of a legitimate labor organization and to avail itself of the right to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative in an appropriate bargaining unit and act as such – a labor organization, association or union must register with the Department of Labor by filing with the Office of the Secretary of Labor notice of its organization and existence. 2. Certification Election

Labor Law 2

A2010

- When a number of union seeks to bargain for a particular group of workers or when the employer doubts the claim of a particular union to be representative of the majority of the workers in his factory or establishment, the CIR shall order the Department of  Labor to conduct a certification election by secret ballot, either on its own initiative or when it is petitioned to do so by the employer or by at least 10% of the employees in the appropriate unit. 3. Collective Bargaining Process - In recognition “the real industrial peace cannot be achieved by compulsi compulsion on of law” and that sound stable stable industri industrial al relation relations s must rest, in keeping with the spirit of… democratic institutions, on an essentially voluntary basis” the Act provides that “no court of the Philippines shall have the power to set wages, rates of  pay, hours of employment or conditions of employment except as in this Act is otherwise provided.” 4. Unfair Labor Practice - The Act prohibits certain practices on the part of employers and trade unions which it characterizes characterizes as “unfair labor practices.” 5. Procedure for the Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices - The Act gives the CIR, following a special procedure, the power to prevent unfair labor practices, with exclusive jurisdiction to hear all complaints relating thereto. 6. Labor Labor Disputes Disputes in Industri Industries es Indispen Indispensabl sable e to the National National Interest - In cases of labor disputes in industries indispensable to the national interest and certified as such by the President of the Philippines to the CIR, the Court is empowered by the Act to issue restraining orders enjoining an employer from locking out his employees and employees from striking. 7. The Labor Injunction - The Act provides that, except in labor disputes affecting the natio nationa nal, l, no restra restrain ining ing order order or tempor temporary ary or perma permanen nentt injunction shall be issued in any case involving or growing out of  a labor dispute except to restrain the commission of violence, fraud and other illegal acts committed in the course of the labor dispute. 8. Role of State Agencies - Though the Industrial Peace Act was designed to reduce the role of the State in the field of labor-management relations to a minim minimum, um, it also also recogn recognize izes s that that the State State canno cannott merel merely y perform a passive role. 2 state state agen agencie cies s play play an impor importan tantt part part in the collec collectiv tive e bargaining process, namely the Court of Industrial Relations and the Department of Labor and are charged with various functions under the Act. Effects of the New Policy - Increase in the number of trade unions - Development of a more cohesive labor movement - Emergence of union leadership from the rank and file - Collective bargaining agreements - Labor disputes Difficulties Difficulties Encountered - Ease of registering unions - Delay in determination of unfair labor practice cases - Delay in hearing petitions for certification elections - Excessive use of injunctions in labor disputes - Failure to adopt voluntary arbitration as a method of settling disputes. Possible Avenues of Improvement - Requiring the officers of a union applying for registration to make a sworn statement that the union is free from employer support, control or influence. - The The CIR CIR shou should ld be give given n excl exclus usiv ive e powe powerr to issu issue e labo laborr injunctions and conduct certification elections. The appeals to the Supreme Court should not be allowed in certification election election cases. - The CIR should not be limited to granting of relief in the form of  “cease and desist” orders or reinstatement with or without back

-2-

Disini

pay in cases where workers have been dismissed for trade union membership or activity; it should be empowered to award damages in proper cases. - The The Labo Laborr Mana Manage geme ment nt Advi Adviso sory ry Coun Counci cill of the the Department of Labor should bring the various Chambers of  Commerce Commerce and the major labor labor \federati \federations ons together together to discuss the question of voluntary arbitration as a final step in the grievance machinery and a substitute for direct action in the enforceme enforcement nt of collecti collective ve bargainin bargaining g and assume assume responsibility for the adoption of appropriate measures for its general introduction. - The Conciliation Service should be provided with enough trained conciliators to ensure that the process of collective bargaining bargaining will operate smoothly. - Back Backin ing g thes these e meas measur ures es is the the prog progra ram m of work worker ers’ s’ education. Conclusion - 3 important stages of development of the labor relations policy of the Philippines Philippines Government: 1. Before 1936 – pattern of non-interference on the part of  the Government 2. As early as 1933 – when the world found itself in the throes of economic depression, Frank Murphy, stated before the the Legi Legisl slat atur ure e that that “ a resp respon onsi sibi bili lity ty rest rests s upon upon governmen governmentt for control control and guidance guidance in a field field that was formerly left to the automatic regulation of self-interest and individual ambition” and the policy of non-interference was complete completely ly abandone abandoned d when when compulsor compulsory y arbitrati arbitration on was adopted under C.A. 103. 3. Re-examination of policy and the adoption of collective bargaining under the Industrial Peace Act of 1953 reflected as new and new objectives.

I. INTRODUCTORY INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS 1.1 STAT STATUTO UTORY RY BASIS BASIS

B.F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. B.F. GOODRICH (MARIKINA FACTORY) CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL & SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU, B.F. GOODRICH (MAKATI OFFICE) CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL & SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU, and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 49 SCRA 532 FERNANDO; February 28, 1973

Facts:  The Goodrich Unions were were seeking to be recognized as the bargaining bargaining agent of BF Goodrich Phils’ employees so that there could negotiations for a collective contract. BF Goodrich countered this by filing for two petitions for certification election election with the CIR. Strike notices were sent to the company by the union demanding recognition and soon after a strike was actually held. The company then filed a case of illegal strike and unfair labor practice against the unions. ISSUE: WON the determination of an unfair labor practice case, brought against unions, must precede the holding of a certification election

HELD: No.

REASONING : - If under under the circumsta circumstances nces disclosed, disclosed, manageme management nt is

allowed to have its way, the result might be to dilute or

Labor Law 2

A2010

fritter away the strength of an organization bent on a more zealous defense of labor's prerogatives. -  This is not to say that management is to be precluded from filing an unfair labor practice case. It is merely to stress that such a suit should not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not, to prevent a truly free expression of  the will of the labor labor group group as to the organiza organizatio tion n that that will will represent it.

-  There is no valid reason then for the postponement sought.  This is one instance that calls for the application of the maxim, lex dilationes semper exhorret . (The law abhors delays.) -  The law clearly contemplates all the employees, not only some of them, to take part in the certification election. (Some of the employ employee ees s could could possib possibly ly lose lose such such status status,, by virtue virtue of a pendin pending g unfair unfair labor practic practice e case, case, if such such case case is to be resolved first before the election.) - Anothe Anotherr reason reason (re: no point point in the postpone postponemen mentt of said said election) is that even if the company wins in the pending case, it does not mean that the employees involved automatically would lose their jobs making them ineligible to participate in the cert. election. (Ergo the respondent court decided in the negative.)

-

Besides, it was said in General Maritime Stevedores' Union v. South South Sea Shipping Shipping Line: the question of whether or not a certification election shall be held "may well be left to the soun sound d disc discre reti tion on of the the Cour Courtt of Indu Indust stri rial al Rela Relati tion ons, s, considering the conditions involved in the case…."

FN 25 under page 542

-

As a matte matterr of fact, fact, the only Americ American an Suprem Supreme e Court Court decision cited in the petition, National Labor Relations Board  v. A.J. Tower Co. , 25 likewise, sustains the same principle (under (under Gen. Gen. Mariti Maritime me case). case). It was was there there held held that that the discretion of the labor tribunal, in this case, the National Labor Relations Board of the United States, is not lightly to be interfered with. (The issue in that case, concerns the proced procedure ure used used in elect election ions s under under the Natio National nal Labor Labor Relati Relations ons Act Act in which which employ employees ees choose choose a statut statutory ory represent representativ ative e for purposes purposes of collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining. ng. The propriety of the National Labor Relations Board's refusal to acce accept pt an empl employ oyer ers s post post-e -ele lect ctio ion n chal challe leng nge e to the the eligibility of a voter who participated in a consent election must be determined. The First Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the Board's order and so the matter was then taken to the US SC on certiorari .)

-

In reversing the Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Murphy made clear the acceptance of such a doctrine in the light of  the National Labor Relations Act thus: "As we have noted  befor before, e, Congr Congress ess has entru entruste sted d the Boar Board d with with a wide wide degree degree of discret discretion ion in establis establishing hing the procedu procedure re and  safeguards necessary to insure the fair and free choice of  bargaining representatives by employees."

-

25

In the United States as in the Philippines, the decision in such such matt matter ers s by the the admi admini nist stra rati tive ve agen agency cy is accorded the utmost respect. CJ Concepcion: “in such proc procee eedi ding ngs, s, the the dete determ rmin inat atio ion n of what what is an approp appropriat riate e bargai bargainin ning g unit unit is "entit "entitled led to almost almost complete finality."

329 US 324 (1946). Reference was made in the earlier portion of this opinion that the petition contains "copious references to National Labor Relations Board cases." While not to be discouraged as the Industrial Peace Act owes much to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, commonly known as the Warner Act, as well as to the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932, still their persuasive force would depend on the fuller discussion of  the facts in each of the cases cited and the rulings arrived at. Such feature is conspicuously lacking in the petition.

Disini

-3-

  The The prev prevai aili ling ng prin princi cipl ple e then then on ques questi tion ons s as to certification, as well as in other labor cases, is that only where there is a showing of clear abuse of discretion would would this this Tribun Tribunal al be warra warrante nted d in revers reversing ing the actuation of respondent Court. There is no showing of  such a failing in this case.

DISPOSITIVE: The petition for certiorari is dismissed.

1.2 DEFINI DEFINITIO TIONS NS 1.2. 1.2.1 1

Empl Employ oyer er and and empl employ oyee ee

FEATI UNIVERSITY V BAUTISTA 18 SCRA 1191 ZALDIVAR; December 27, 1966 NATURE Consolidated Consolidated cases/petitions cases/petitions for certiorari, prohibiti prohibition on w/ writ of preliminary injunction

FACTS -Jan 14, 1963: the President of the Faculty Club wrote to the President of the University a letter informing the latter of the organi organizat zation ion of the Faculty Faculty Club Club as a labor labor union, union, duly duly registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations -Jan -Jan 22, 22, 1963 1963:: anot anothe herr lett letter er was was sent sent,, to whic which h was was attac attached hed a list list of deman demands ds consi consisti sting ng of 26 items, items, and and asking the President of the University to answer within ten days from date of receipt thereof. -The University questioned the right of the Faculty Club to be the exclu exclusiv sive e repres represen entat tative ive of the major majority ity of the employees and asked proof that the Faculty Club had been designated or selected as exclusive representative by the vote of the majority of said employees. -Feb 1, 1963: the Faculty Club filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a notice of strike alleging as reason therefore the refusal refusal of the Universi University ty to bargain bargain collecti collectively vely with the representative of the faculty members. -Feb 18, 1963: the members of the Faculty Club went on strike and established picket lines in the premises of the University, thereby disrupting the schedule of classes. -March 1, 1963: the Faculty Club filed Case No. 3666-ULP for unfair labor practice against the University, but which was later later dismis dismissed sed (on April April 2, 1963 1963 after after Case Case 41-IP 41-IPA A was was certified to the CIR). -March 7, 1963: a petition for certification certification election, Case No. 1183-MC, was filed by the Faculty Club in the CIR

ISSUES 1. WON WON the definit definition ion of employ employer er in RA875 RA875 covers covers an educational institution like Feati University 2. WON the members of the Faculty Club are independent contractors (If they are, then they are not employees within the purview of the said Act.)

HELD 1. YES. YES. It is true true that that the the SC has has rule ruled d that that cert certai ain n educa educatio tional nal insti institut tution ions s and other other jurid juridica icall entit entities ies are beyond the purview of RA875 in the sense that the CIR has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of ULP charges against them, but the principal reason in ruling in those cases is that those entities are not organized, maintained and operated for profit and do not declare dividends to stockholders. -In the decisio decisions ns in the cases cases of the Boy Scouts Scouts of the Philippi Philippines, nes, the Universi University ty of San Agustin, Agustin, the UST, and LaConsolacion College, this Court was not unanimous in the view that the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875) is not applicab applicable le to charitab charitable, le, or non-profit non-profit organizat organizations ions which which inclu include de educa educatio tional nal insti institut tution ions s not operat operated ed for profit. There are members of this Court who hold the view

Labor Law 2

A2010

that the Industri Industrial al Peace Peace Act would would apply apply also to non-profi non-profitt orga organi niza zati tion ons s or enti entiti ties es,, the the only only exce except ptio ion n bein being g the the Gove overnme rnmen nt, incl ncluding ding any pol politi itical subdi ubdivi visi sion on or instrumentality thereof, in so far as governmental functions are concerne concerned. d. However, However, in the Far Eastern University University case this Court is unanimous in supporting the view that an educational institution that is operated for profit comes within the scope of  the Industrial Peace Act. We consider it a settled doctrine of this Court, therefore, that the Industrial Peace Act is applicable to any organization or entity whatever may be its purpose when it was created. -TEST: Does the University University operate as an educational educational institution for profit? Does it declare dividends for its stockholders? If it  does not, it must be declared beyond the purview of Republic  Act No. 875; but if it does, Republic Act No. 875 must apply to it. In this case, Feati University itself admits that it has declared dividends. CIR also found that the University is not for strictly educational purposes and that "It realizes profits and parts of  such earning is distributed as dividends to private stockholders or individuals. Under this circumstance, and in consonance with the rulings rulings in the decisio decisions ns of this this Court Court,, above above cited cited,, it is obviou obvious s that that Republ Republic ic Act No. 875 is applic applicabl able e to herein herein petitioner Feati University. -RA 875, Sec 2(c): The term employer includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include any labor organization (otherwise than when acting as an employer) or any one acting in the capacity or agent of such labor organization. -It will be noted that in defining the term "employer" the Act uses the word "includes" and not the word "means". In using the word "includes" and not "means", Congress did not intend to give a complete definition of "employer", but rather that such defin definit itio ion n should should be compl complem ement entar ary y to what what is commo commonl nly  y  understo understood od as employer employer.. Congress Congress intended intended the term to be understood in a broad meaning because, firstly, the statutory definiti definition on includes includes not only "a principa principall employe employerr but also a person acting in the interest of the employer"; and, secondly, the Act itself specifically enumerated those who are not included

in the term "employer", namely: (1) a labor organization (otherwise than when acting as an employer), (2) anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization [Sec. [Sec. 2(c)], 2(c)], and (3) the Govern Governmen mentt and and any

politica politicall subdivis subdivision ion or instrumen instrumentali tality ty thereof thereof insofar insofar as the righ rightt to stri strike ke for for the the purp purpos ose e of secu securi ring ng chan change ges s or modifica modifications tions in the terms and conditions conditions of employme employment nt is concerne concerned d (Section (Section 11). Among Among these these statutory statutory exemptio exemptions, ns, education educational al instituti institutions ons are not included included;; hence, hence, they can be included in the term "employer". This Court, however, has ruled that those educatio educational nal institutions institutions that are not operated for profit are not within the purview of Republic Act No. 875. -RA 875 875 does oes not giv give a compr ompre ehens hensiive but onl only a compleme complementary ntary definition definition of the term "employer". "employer". The term encompasses those that are in ordinary parlance "employers." What is commonly meant by "employer"? The term "employer" has been given several acceptations. The lexical definition is "one who employs; one who uses; one who engages or keeps in service;" and "to employ" is "to provide work and pay for; to engage one's service; to hire." [see full case for other definitions of the the word word empl employ oyer er as prov provid ided ed for for by the the Workmen's

Compensation Act, the Minimum Wage Law, the Social Security Act, etc]  Jurisprudence - Jurisprudence: An employer is one who employs the services

of others; one for whom employees work and who pays their wages or salaries (Black Law Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 618). -Under none of these definitions may the University be excluded.  The University engaged the services of the professors, provided them them work, work, and paid paid them them compen compensat sation ion or salary salary for their their services. Even if the University may be considered as a lessee of  services under a contract between it and the members of its Faculty, Faculty, still it is included included in the term "employer". "employer". "Running "Running through the word `employ' is the thought that there has been an agree agreemen mentt on the part of one person person to perform perform a certa certain in

-4-

Disini

serv servic ice e in retu return rn for for comp compen ensa sati tion on to be paid paid by an employer. 2. NO. -RA 875, Section 2 (d): The term "employee" "employee" shall include include any employee and shall not be limited to the “ employee” of a particula particularr employer employer unless the act explicitly explicitly states states otherwise and shall include any individual whose work 

has ceased as a conseq consequen uence ce of, or in connec connectio tion n with, with, any current current labor labor disput dispute e or becaus because e of any unfair labor practice and who has not obtained any other ther sub substan stanti tial allly equi equiv valen alentt and and reg regula ular employment.

-This definition, by the use of the term “include” is again comp comple leme ment ntar ary. y. This This Cour Courtt has defi define ned d the the term term "employer" as "one who employs the services of others; one for whom employees work and who pays their wages or  salaries. Correlatively, an employee must be one who is engaged in the service of another; who performs services for another; who works for salary or wages. -It is admitted by the University that the striking professors and/or and/or instructor instructors s are under under contract contract to teach teach particul particular ar courses and that they are paid for their services. They are, therefore, employees of the University. -The contention of the University that the professors and/or instru instructo ctors rs are indep independ endent ent contra contracto ctors, rs, becau because se the Univer Universit sity y does does not exerci exercise se control control over their their work, work, is likewise untenable. This Court takes judicial notice that a university controls the work of the members of its faculty; that a universit university y prescrib prescribes es the courses or subjects subjects that professors teach, and when and where to teach; that the prof profes esso sors rs'' work work is char charac acte teri rize zed d by regu regula lari rity ty and and cont contin inui uity ty for for a fixe fixed d dura durati tion on;; that that prof profes esso sors rs are are compe compensa nsated ted for their their servi services ces by wages wages and and salari salaries, es, rather than by profits; that the professors and/or instructors canno cannott substi substitut tute e others others to do their their work work witho without ut the consent of the university; and that the professors can be laid off if their work is found not satisfactory. All these indicate that that the the univ univer ersi sity ty has has cont control rol over over thei theirr work work;; and and professors are, therefore, employees and not independent contractors. -Moreover, -Moreover, even if university university professors professors are considere considered d independent contractors, still they would be covered by RA 875. This law modelled after the Wagner Act, or the National Labor Relations Act, of the United States, did not exclude "independent contractors" from the orbit of "employees". It was in the subseque subsequent nt legislat legislation ion the Labor Labor Manageme Management nt Relation Act (Taft-Harley Act) that "independent "independent contractors" together with agricultural laborers, individuals in domestic service of the home, supervisors, and others were excluded. Petition on for certiorari & prohib prohibiti ition on with with Disposition Petiti prelimin preliminary ary injunctio injunction n dismisse dismissed. d. Writs Writs prayed prayed for therein therein denie denied. d. Writ Writ of prelim prelimina inary ry injunc injunctio tion n dissol dissolve ved. d. Costs Costs against Feati University.

NYK INTERNATIONAL KNITWEAR CORP. PHILS. V NLRC (PUBLICO) 397 SCRA 607 QUISUMBING; February 17, 2003 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari

FACTS - Petiti Petitione onerr NYK hired hired respon responden dentt Virgi Virgini nia a Public Publico o as a

Labor Law 2

A2010

sewer. She was paid on a piece-rate basis, and was required to work from 8 AM to 12 midnight. - May 7, 1997 Publico left the work place early as she was not feeling well due to flu. Publico did not come to work the next day. Due to this absence, Publico was informed by Stephen Ng (owner of NYK) that she was dismissed.

ISSUE/S 1. WON there was illegal dismissal; 2. WON petitioners are solidarily liable to pay backwages

and separation pay as there was no malice or bad faith.

HELD 1. YES Ratio  The petitioners’ allegations of abandonment cannot stand the unswerving conclusion by the NLRC and Labor Arbiter. Reasoning Petiti Petitione oners rs raised raised factua factuall quest question ions s which which are improper in a petition for review on certiorari. Finding of facts of  the NLRC, particularly in a case where the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are in agreement, are deemed binding and conclusive upon this Court. 2. YES Ratio Cathy Ng falls within the meaning of an “employer” as contemplated by the Labor Code, who may be held jointly and severa severall lly y liable liable for the obliga obligatio tions ns of the corpor corporati ation on to its dismissed employees. Reasoning Since a corporation is an artificial person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be the employer, being the “person acting in the interest of the employer.” 1 In this case, Cathy Ng, in her capacity as manager, is deemed the employer, and is thus solidarily liable regardless of absence malice. She cannot be exonerated from her liability in the payment to private respondent. Disposition Instant petition is denied.

1.2. 1.2.2 2

LABO LABOR R ORG ORGAN ANIZ IZAT ATIO IONNLEGITIMATE LABOR  ORGANIZATION

AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CIR 76 SCRA 274 CASTRO; April 15, 1977

Definition of Legitimate Labor Organization: Section Section 2(e) of R.A. 875 defines defines "labor "labor organiza organization" tion" as any union or association of employees which exist, in whole or in part, for the purpose of the collective bargaining or dealing with employers employers concerning concerning terms and condition conditions s of employme employment." nt."  The emphasis of Industrial Peace Act is clearly on the pourposes for which a union or association of employees established rather than that membership membership therein should be limited only to the employees of a particular employer. Under Section 2(h) of R.A 875 "representative" is define as including "a legitimate labor organ organiza izatio tion n or any any office officerr or agent agent of such such organi organizat zation ion,, whether or not employed by the employer or employee whom he represents represents." ." It cannot cannot be overempha overemphasize sized d likewise likewise that labor labor dispute can exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.”

DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ) 300 SCRA 120 PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998 NATURE Petition for certiorari 1

A.C. Ransom Labor union-CCLU v NLRC

-5-

Disini

FACTS - Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election among the supervisory, office and technical employees of  the petitioner company before the DOLE, R egional Office No. III. - Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-file rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rankand-file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts. - Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization. - The mediator mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said said that that the the cont conten enti tion on of the the resp respon onde dent nt that that the the petitioning union is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the exclusion-inclusion exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.

ISSUE/S WON the union can be composed of supervisory and rank and file employees

HELD NO. Ratio Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file rank-and-file employees.” Reasoning Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the intere terest st of rank rank-a -and nd--fil file empl mploye oyees. es. There here is a irreconcil irreconcilabil ability ity of their their interests interests which cannot cannot be cured even in the exclusion-inclusion exclusion-inclusion proceedings. -Appropriate bargaining unit: Group of employees of a giver employer, composed of all or less than the entire body of  empl employ oyee ees, s, whic which h the the coll collec ecti tive ve inte intere rest sts s of all all the the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties. Disposition Petition is granted.

Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Sec. of Labor (and NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP) and COMMERCIAL AND AGROINDUSTRIAL LABOR ORGANIZATION (CAILO)) Vitug ; August 1995 247 SCRA 1 Facts -The Med-Arbiter, sustained by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, has ruled that Art. 257 is mandatory and give him no other choice than to conduct a certification election upon the receipt of the corresponding petition. "Art "Art.. 257. 257. Peti Petiti tion ons s in unor unorga gani nize zed d establishments. - In any establishment where there is no certifie certified d bargaini bargaining ng agent, agent, a certifica certification tion election election shall shall automati automaticall cally y be conducte conducted d by the Med-Arbi Med-Arbiter ter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization." -National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Phil Philip ippi pine ness-TU TUCP CP ("NA ("NACU CUSI SIPP-TU TUCP CP") ") file filed d with ith the the Department of Labor and Employment ("DOLE") a petition for for dire direct ct cert certif ific icat atio ion n or for for cert certif ific icat atio ion n elec electi tion on to

Labor Law 2

A2010

dete determ rmin ine e the the sole sole and and excl exclus usiv ive e coll collec ecti tive ve barg bargai aini ning ng representative of the supervisory employees of herein petitioner, Lopez Sugar Corporation ("LSC"). NACUSIP-TUCP averred that it was was a legiti legitima mate te nation national al labor labor organ organiza izatio tion; n; that that LSC was was employing employing 55 supervisor supervisory y employee employees, s, the majority of whom were members of the union; that no other labor or ganization was claimin claiming g membershi membership p over the supervisor supervisory y employee employees; s; that there was no existing collective bargaining agreement covering said employees; and that there was no legal impediment either to a direct certification of NACUSIP-TUCP or to the holding of a certification election. -LSC contended it. NACUSIP-TUCP submitted Charter Certificate No. 003-89, dated 20 July 1989, of the NACUSIP-TU NACUSIP-TUCP CP Lopez Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter. -LSC appealed appealed to the DOLE and asseverated that the order was a patent nullity and that the Med-Arbiter acted with grave abuse of  discreti discretion, on, Sec. of Labor denied denied it. Petition for certiorari certiorari was filed.

Issue

Disini

-6-

Moreover, there is greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestation requirements because, as previousl previously y mentione mentioned, d, several several requireme requirements nts applicab applicable le to independent independent union registration are no longer required in the case of the formation a local or chapter. The policy of the law law in confe conferri rring ng greate greaterr bargai bargainin ning g power power upon upon labor labor unions unions must must be balanc balanced ed with with the polic policy y of provid providing ing preventive measures against the commission of fraud.

"A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labo laborr orga organi niza zati tion on only only upon upon subm submiss issio ion n of the the following to the BLR:

"1) A charter certificate, certificate, within 30 days from its issuance issuance by the labor federation or national union, and "2) The constitution and by-laws, by-laws, a statement statement on the set of  officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president. "Absent "Absent complianc compliance e with these mandatory mandatory requireme requirements, nts, the local local or chapte chapterr does does not become become legitima legitimate te labor labor organization."

WON the certification election should push through

Held No, because the labor organization is not legitimate. It was was held held in Prog Progre ress ssiv ive e Deve Develo lopm pmen entt Corp Corpora orati tion on vs. vs. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment: "But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires that the petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. Article 212(h) 212(h) defines defines a legitima legitimate te labor labor organiza organization tion as 'any labor organizati organization on duly registered registered with the DOLE and includes includes any branch branch or local thereof thereof.' .' Rule 1, Section Section 1(j), 1(j), Book V of the Impl Implem emen enti ting ng Rule Rules s like likewi wise se defi define nes s a legi legiti tima mate te labo laborr organization as 'any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch, local or affiliate thereof .' "

Indeed,, the law did not reduce Indeed reduce the Med-Arb Med-Arbiter iter to an automaton which can instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of a petition for certification election. He is still tasked to satisfy himself that all the conditions of  the law are met, and among the legal requirements is that that the petiti petitioni oning ng union union must must be a legitim legitimate ate labor labor organization in good standing.  The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was filed by the NACUSIP-TUCP, a national labor organization duly registere registered d with the DOLE. DOLE. The legitima legitimate te status status of NACUSIP NACUSIP- TUCP might be conceded; being merely, however, an agent for the local organization (the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), the federa federatio tion's n's bona bona fide fide status status

alon alone e woul would d not not suff suffic ice. e. The The loca locall chap chapte ter, r, as its its principal, should also be a legitimate labor organization in good standing. Accordingly, in Progressive Development,

we elucidated: "In "In the the case case of unio union n affi affili liat atio ion n with with a fede federa rati tion on,, the the document documentary ary requireme requirements nts are found in Rule II, Section Section 3(e), 3(e), Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again quote as follows: "'(c ) The local or chapter of a labor federation federation or national union union shall shall have have and and mainta maintain in a consti constitut tution ion and by laws, laws, set of  office officers rs and and books books of accou accounts nts.. For report reporting ing purpos purposes es,, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.' "Since "Since the 'procedure 'procedure governing governing the reporting reporting independ independentl ently y registere registered d unions' unions' refers refers to the certifica certification tion and attestati attestation on requirements contained in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that the constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of  accou accounts nts submi submitte tted d by the local local and chapte chapterr must must likew likewise ise comp comply ly with with thes these e requ requir irem emen ents ts.. The The same same rati ration onal ale e for for requiring requiring the submissi submission on of duly subscribed subscribed documents documents upon unio union n regi regist stra rati tion on exis exists ts in the the case case of unio union n affi affili liat atio ion. n.

  The The only only docu docume ment nt exta extant nt on reco record rd to esta establ blis ish h the the legit legitim imacy acy of the NACU NACUSIP SIP-TU -TUCP CP Lopez Lopez Sugar Sugar Centra Centrall Supervisory Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else.

Disposition WHERE WHEREFOR FORE, E, the assai assaile led d Decis Decision ion of the Secret Secretary ary of  Labor, Labor, dated dated 06 March 1990, affirming affirming that of the MedArbite Arbiter, r, is ANNU ANNULLE LLED D and and SET ASIDE ASIDE.. The petiti petition on for certification election is dismissed.

1.2. 1.2.3 3 LABO LABOR R DISP DISPUT UTE E FEATI UNIVERSITY V BAUTISTA 18 SCRA 1191 ZALDIVAR; December 27, 1966 NATURE Consolidated Consolidated cases/petitions cases/petitions for certiorari, prohibiti prohibition on w/ writ of preliminary injunction

FACTS -Jan 14, 1963: the President of the Faculty Club wrote to the President of the University a letter informing the latter of the organi organizat zation ion of the Faculty Faculty Club Club as a labor labor union, union, duly duly registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations -Jan -Jan 22, 22, 1963 1963:: anot anothe herr lett letter er was was sent sent,, to whic which h was was attac attached hed a list list of deman demands ds consi consisti sting ng of 26 items, items, and and asking the President of the University to answer within ten days from date of receipt thereof. -The University questioned the right of the Faculty Club to be the exclu exclusiv sive e repres represen entat tative ive of the major majority ity of the employees and asked proof that the Faculty Club had been designated or selected as exclusive representative by the vote of the majority of said employees. -Feb 1, 1963: the Faculty Club filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a notice of strike alleging as reason therefor the refusal refusal of the Universi University ty to bargain bargain collecti collectively vely with the representative of the faculty members. -Feb 18, 1963: the members of the Faculty Club went on strike and established picket lines in the premises of the University, thereby disrupting the schedule of classes. -March 1, 1963: the Faculty Club filed Case No. 3666-ULP for unfair labor practice against the University, but which was later later dismis dismissed sed (on April April 2, 1963 1963 after after Case Case 41-IP 41-IPA A was was certified to the CIR). -March 7, 1963: a petition for certification certification election, Case No. 1183-MC, was filed by the Faculty Club in the CIR.

ISSUES WON there is a labor dispute between the University and the Faculty Club

Labor Law 2

A2010

HELD  YES. -RA 875 provides provides that the term "labor "labor dispute" dispute" includes includes any cont contro rove vers rsy y conc concer erni ning ng term terms, s, tenu tenure re or cond condit itio ions ns of  employment, or concerning the association or representation of  persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange arrange terms or conditio conditions ns of employmen employmentt regardle regardless ss of  whether the disputants stand in proximate relation of employer and employees. -The test of whethe whetherr a contro controver versy sy comes comes within within the

defin definitio ition n of "labor "labor disput dispute" e" depen depends ds on whethe whetherr the cont contro rove vers rsy y invo involv lves es or conc concer erns ns "ter "terms ms,, tenu tenure re or condition of employment" or "representation."

-All the admitted facts show that the controversy between the University and the Faculty Club involved terms and conditions of  employment, and the question of representation. Hence, there was a labor dispute between the University and the Faculty Club, as contemplated by Republic Act No. 875. -Recall: RA 875, sec10: When in the opinion of the President of  the Phili Philippi ppine nes s there there exists exists a labor labor dispu dispute te in an indus industry try indis indispen pensab sable le to the nation national al inter interest est and and when when such such labor labor dispute is certified by the President to the Court of Industrial Relations, said Court may cause to be issued a restraining order forbidding the employees to strike or the employer to lockout the employees, and if no other solution to the dispute is found, the Court may issue an order fixing the terms and conditions of  employment. -To certify a labor dispute to the CIR is the prerogative of the Presiden Presidentt under under the law, and this Court will not interfere interfere in, much less curtail, the exercise exercise of that prerogative prerogative.. Once the  jurisdiction is acquired pursuant to the presidential certification, the the CIR CIR may may exer exerci cise se its its broa broad d powe powers rs as prov provid ided ed in Commonwealth Act 103. All phases of the labor dispute and the employer-employee employer-employee relationship may be threshed out before the CIR, and the CIR may issue such order or orders as may be necessary to make effective the exercise of its jurisdiction. The parties involved in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court from the order or orders thus issued by the CIR. Disposition Petition for certiorari & prohibition with preliminary injuncti injunction on dismisse dismissed. d. Writs Writs prayed prayed for therein therein denied. denied. Writ of  preliminary injunction dissolved. Costs against Feati University.

SAN MIGUEL EMPLOYEES UNION V BERSAMIRA 186 SCRA 496 MELENCIO-HERRERA; MELENCIO-HERRERA; June 13, 1990 NATURE Special civil action for certiorari

FACTS - SMC entered into contracts contracts for merchand merchandisin ising g services services with Liperc Lipercon on and and D'Rite D'Rite (L&D), (L&D), indepe independe ndent nt contra contracto ctors rs duly duly licensed by DOLE. In said contracts, it was expressly understood and agreed that the EEs employed by the contractors were to be paid by the latter and that none of them were to be deemed EEs or agents of SanMig. There was to be no employer-employee relation between the contractors and/or its workers, on the one hand, and SMC on the other. - Peti Petiti tion oner er SMCE SMCEUU-PT PTWG WGO O (Uni (Union on)) is duly duly auth author oriz ized ed representa representative tive of the monthly monthly paid paid rank-and rank-and-fil -file e EEs of SMC.  Their CBA provides that temporary, probationary, or contract EEs

-7-

Disini

are excluded from the bargaining unit and outside scope of  CBA. - Union advised SMC that some L&D workers had signed up for union membership and sought the regularization of their employment with SMC. Union alleged that this group of EEs, while while appearin appearing g to be contractu contractual al workers workers of supposedl supposedly y independent independent contractors, have been continuously working for SMC for a period of 6 months to 15 years and that their work is neither casual nor seasonal as they are performing work work or activ activiti ities es necess necessary ary or desira desirable ble in the usual usual business or trade of SMC, and that there exists a "laboronly" contracting situation. It was then demanded that the employmen employmentt status status of these these workers workers be regulari regularized. zed. This was not acted upon by SMC, and so Union filed a notice of  strike, and then a second notice. - Series of pickets were staged by L&D workers in various SMC plants and offices. SMC RTC to enjoin the Union from: repr repres esen enti ting ng and and or acti acting ng for for and and in beha behalf lf of the the employees of L&D for the purposes of collective bargaining; calling for and holding a strike vote to compel plaintiff to hire the employees or workers of L&D, among others. - Union filed a Motion to Dismiss SMC's Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the case/nature of the actio action, n, which which motion motion was was oppose opposed d by SMC, SMC, which which was was denied denied by responden respondentt Judge. Judge. And after several several hearings, hearings, issued Injunction. RTC reasoned that the absence of ER-EE relationship negates the existence of labor dispute, so court has has juris jurisdic dictio tion n to take take cogniz cognizanc ance e of SMC's SMC's grieva grievance nce.. Hence, this action.

ISSUE 1. WON WON RTC RTC corre correct ctly ly assu assume med d juri jurisd sdic icti tion on over over the the controvers controversy y and properly issued the Writ of Prelimin Preliminary ary Injunction.

HELD 1. NO Re: Definition of Labor Dispute (p4 of Outline) Ratio A labor dispute can nevertheless exist “regardless of  whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employ employer er and and employ employee, ee, provid provided ed the contro controver versy sy conce concerns rns,, among among others others,, the terms terms and condit condition ions s of  employment or a "change" or "arrangement" thereof” The existence of a labor dispute is not negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. (A212 LC) Reasoning Crucia Cruciall to the resoluti resolution on of the question question on  jurisdiction, is the matter of whether or not the case at bar invol involve ves, s, or is in connec connectio tion n with, with, or relate relates s to a labor labor dispute. An affirmative answer would bring the case within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor tribunals to the exclusion of the regular Courts. In this case, the matter re terms, tenure and conditions of EE’s employment and the arra arrang ngem emen entt of thos those e term terms s as well well as the the matt matter er of  representation bring these issues within the scope of a labor dispute. Hence it is the labor tribunals that have jurisdiction and not the regular courts Re: ER Functions and ULP (p30 of Outline) - As the case is indisputably linked with a labor dispute,  jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals. So, Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all workers including: [a] unfair labo laborr prac practi tice ce case cases; s; [b] [b] thos those e that that work worker ers s may may file file invo involv lvin ing g wage wages, s, hour hours s of work work and and othe otherr term terms s and and conditions of employment; and [c] cases arising from any viola violatio tion n of A265 A265 LC, includ including ing questi questions ons invol involvin ving g the legality of striker and lockouts. - SMC’s claim that the action is for damages under A19, 20 and 21 of CC is not enough to keep the case within the  jurisdic  jurisdictiona tionall boundari boundaries es of regular regular Courts. Courts. That claim for damages is interwoven with a labor dispute. To allow the

Labor Law 2

A2010

acti action on file filed d belo below w to pros prospe perr woul would d brin bring g abou aboutt "spl "split it  jurisdiction" which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of   justice. - SC recogn recognize izes s the proprie proprietar tary y right right of SMC to exerc exercise ise an inher inheren entt manage managemen mentt prerog prerogati ative ve and its best best busine business ss   judgm judgment ent to determ determine ine whethe whetherr it should should contra contract ct out the performance of some of its work to independent contractors. However, the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law (S3, A13, equally call for recogniti recognition on and protection protection.. 1987 Constitution) equally  Those contending interests must be placed in proper perspective and equilibrium. Disposition Petition is GRANTED.

NESTLE PHILS., INC. V NLRC (NUÑEZ) 195 SCRA 340 GRIÑO-AQUINO; March 18, 1991 NATURE

Disini

-8-

Reasoning Whether or not the private respondents remain as employees of the petitioner, there is no escape from their obligati obligation on to pay their their outstandi outstanding ng accounta accountabili bilities ties to the petitioner; and if they cannot afford it, to return the cars assi assign gned ed to them them.. The The opti option ons s give given n to the the priv privat ate e responden respondents ts are civil in nature nature arising arising from contractual contractual obli obliga gati tion ons. s. Ther There e is no labo laborr aspe aspect ct invo involv lved ed in the the enforcement of those obligations. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the writ of injunction to stop the company from enforcing the civil obligation of the private respondents under the car loan agree agreemen ments ts and and from from protec protectin ting g its intere interest st in the cars cars which, by the terms of those agreements, belong to it (the company) until their purchase price shall have been fully paid by the employee. The terms of the car loan agreements agreements are not in issue in the labor case. The rights and obligations of the parties under those contracts may be enforced by a separate civil action in the regular courts, not in the NLRC. Disposition Petition is granted.

Petition for certiorari

FACTS - The private respondents, who were employed by Nestlé either as sales representatives or medical representatives, availed of  the petitioner's car loan policy. Under that policy, the company advances the purchase price of a car to be paid back by the emplo employee yee throug through h monthl monthly y deduct deduction ions s from from his salary salary,, the company retaining the ownership of the motor vehicle until it shall have been fully paid for. - After After having having partic particip ipate ated d in an illega illegall strike strike,, the priva private te respondents were dismissed from service. Nestlé directed the private respondents to either settle the remaining balance of the cost of their respective cars, or return them to the company for proper disposition. - Private respondents failed and refused to avail of either option, so the company filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati a civil suit to recover possession of the cars. The private respondents sought a temporary restraining order in the NLRC to stop the company company from cancell cancelling ing their their car loans and collecting collecting their monthly amortizations. The NLRC, en banc, granted their petition for injunction. - The company company filed a motion motion for reconside reconsiderati ration, on, but it was denied for tardiness. Hence, this petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it issued a labor injunction without legal basis and in the absence of any labor dispute related to the same.

ISSUE WON there is a labor labor dispute dispute between between the petitioner petitioner and the private respondents

HELD NO Ratio Paragraph (1) of Article 212 of the Labor Code defines a labor dispute as follows: "(1) "(1) 'Labor 'Labor disput dispute' e' include includes s any controve controversy rsy or matters concerning terms or conditions of employment or the associ associati ation on or repre represen sentat tation ion of person persons s in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of  whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee." Nestl Nestlé’s é’s deman demand d for payme payment nt of the privat private e respon responde dents nts'' amortizations on their car loans, or, in the alternative, the return of the cars to the company, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. It invol involves ves debto debtor-c r-cred redito itorr relati relations ons,, rathe ratherr than than emplo employee yee-employer relations.

1.3 LABOR LABOR RELA RELATIO TIONS NS POLI POLICY CY 1.3.1 1.3.1 Meth Method od Disp Disput utee Set Settl tlem emen entt KIOK LOY VS NLRC (PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA) 141 SCRA 179 CUEVAS: January 22, 1986 NATURE: -

FACTS:

Peti Petiti tion on for for certi certiora orari ri to ann annul ul the the deci decisi sion on of the the National Labor Relations Commission

- In a certi certifi ficat cation ion electi election on held on October October 3, 1978, 1978, the Pambansa Pambansang ng Kilusang Kilusang Paggawa Paggawa (Union (Union for short) short) was subsequently certified certified in a resolution dated November 29, 1978 by the Bureau of Labor Relations as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file rank-and-file employees of Swede Sweden n Ice Cream Plant Plant (Comp (Company any for short) short).. The Comp Compan any' y's s moti motion on for for reco recons nsid ider erat atio ion n of the the said said resolution was denied on January 25, 1978. - December December 7, 1978, 1978, the Union Union furnished furnished the Compa Company ny with two two copi copies es of its its prop propos osed ed coll collec ecti tive ve barg bargai aini ning ng agreement. It also requested the Company for its counter propos proposal als. s. Both Both reque requests sts were were ignore ignored d and remai remained ned unacted upon by the Company. - The Union, Union, on February February 14, 1979, filed filed a "Notice of Strike", with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of  unresolved economic issues in collective bargaining. - Concilia Conciliation tion proceeding proceedings s then followed followed during the thirtyday statutory cooling-off period. - The Burea Bureau u of Labor Labor Relatio Relations ns to certify certify the case to the Natio Nationa nall Labor Labor Relati Relations ons Commis Commissio sion n for compul compulsor sory y arbitration. - The labor labor arbiter arbiter set the initial initial hearin hearing g for April 29, 29, 1979. For For fail failur ure e howe howeve ver, r, of the the part partie ies s to subm submit it thei theirr respective position papers as required, the said hearing was cancelled and reset to another date. - The Union Union submit submitted ted its its position position paper. paper. - On July uly 20, 1979 979, the Nati Nation ona al Lab Labor Rela Relati tion ons s Comm Commis issi sion on rend render ered ed its its deci decisi sion on decl declar arin ing g the the respondent guilty of unjustified refusal to bargain - Petiti Petitione onerr conte contends nds that the Nationa Nationall Labor Labor Relati Relations ons Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of   jurisdiction in rendering the challenged decision.

Labor Law 2

A2010

- Petition Petitioner er further contends contends that the National National Labor Labor Relations Relations Commissi Commission's on's finding of unfair unfair labor labor practice practice for refusal refusal to bargain is not supported by law

ISSUE/S: WON the respondent is guilty of unjustified unjustified refusal to bargain

HELD:  YES unfair unfair labor practice practice is committed committed when it is shown shown that the respondent employer, after having been served with a written barga bargaini ining ng propos proposal al by the petit petition ioning ing Union, Union, did did not even even bother to submit an answer or reply to the said proposal Ratio Unfair Unfair labor practice is committed committed when it is shown shown that the respondent employer, after having been served with a written barga bargaini ining ng propos proposal al by the petit petition ioning ing Union, Union, did did not even even bother to submit an answer or reply to the said proposal Reaspmomg Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a collec collectiv tive e agree agreeme ment, nt, is one of the democr democrati atic c frame framewor works ks under the New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between between labor and management management and to create create a climate climate of  sound and stable industrial peace. It is a mutual responsibility responsibility of  the employer employer and the Union and is characterize characterized d as a legal legal obligation. So much so that Article 249, par. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse "to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose purpose of negotiat negotiating ing an agreemen agreementt with respect respect to wage wages, s, hours hours of work, work, and all other other terms terms and conditi conditions ons of  employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or question question arising arising under under such an agreemen agreementt and executing executing a contract incorporating such agreement, if requested by either party. While While it is a mutual mutual obligation obligation of the parties to bargain bargain,, the emplo employer yer,, howeve however, r, is not under under any any legal legal duty duty to initia initiate te contract negotiation.  The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion only when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present, present, namely, namely, (1) possessio possession n of the status of majority majority representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority majority representat representation; ion; and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251, par. (a) of the New Labor Code . - From the over-all conduct conduct of petitioner company company in relation to the task of negotiation, there can be no doubt that the Union has a valid cause to complain against its (Company's) attitude, the totality of which is indicative of the latter's disregard of, and failure to live up to, what is enjoined by the Labor Code to bargain in good faith.

DISPOSITION:

Disini

-9-

employee’s bargaining agent as their petition for cetification election was denied. -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hote Hotel’ l’ refu refusa sall to barg bargai ain n and and for for acts acts of unfa unfair ir labo laborr practices. NCMB summoned both parties and held series of  dialogues. Union however suddenly went on strike -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union Union membe members rs were were direct directed ed to return return to work work and and for Hotel Hotel to accept accept them back. back. Hotel Hotel refuse refused d to accept accept the employees return. The order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll. -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll reinstatement” reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE WON the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the validity of “payroll reinstatement”

HELD  Yes -CA based its decision on the UST v NLRC case which affirms validity of payroll reinstatement. However, the UST case was made in light of a very important fact- the teachers could not be given back their academic assignments because the semester was already halfway. In the present case, there is no showing that the facts called for payroll reinstatement as an ALTERNATIVE remedy.

-as to the nature of art.263(g), the State encourages an environme environment nt wherein wherein employers employers and employees employees them themse selv lves es mu must st deal deal with with thei theirr prob proble lems ms in a manner that mutually suits them best (as embodied in Art 3, Sec 3 of the Constitution). Hence a voluntary instead of compulsory mode of dispute settlement is the general rule. -Art. 263 (g) is an exception to this rule by allowing the Secretary of the DOLE to assume jurisdiction over a dispute involving an industry indispensable to the national interest. And under this rule, the law uses the phrase “under the same same terms terms and and condit condition ions” s” which which contem contempla plates tes only only ACTUAL REINSTATEMENT. REINSTATEMENT.

1.3. 1.3.2 2

TRAD TRADE E UNI UNIONIS ONISM M

ART. 211. Declaration of Policy . - A. It is the polic policy y of the State: (b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancem enhancement ent of democracy democracy and the promotion promotion of social social  justice and development; (c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement;

- Petition dismissed

1.3. 1.3.3 3

MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION V CA (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL) 447 SCRA 97 AZCUNA; December 16, 2004 Nature Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of  Appeals

Facts -Union filed a petition for certification election election to be declared the exclusive bargaining representative representative of the Hotel’s employees.   Thi This s peti petiti tion on was was dism dismis isse sed d by DOLE DOLE for for lack lack of lega legall requirements. -after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of  its desire desire to negotiat negotiate e for a collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng agreeme agreement. nt.  This was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the

WORK WORKER ER ENL ENLIG IGHT HTEN ENME MENT NT VICTORIA V INCIONG

157 SCRA 339 FERNAN; January 26, 1988 NATURE Review of Order of Labor Secretary reversing decision of  NLRC

FACTS - Complain Complainant ant Saturno Victoria Victoria is the president president of the Far East East Broa Broadc dca astin sting g Comp Compan any y Empl Employ oyee ees s Unio Union. n. On September 8, 1972, the said union declared a strike against respon responde dent nt compan company y for refusa refusall to recogn recognize ize them. them. On September 11, 1972, respondent filed with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Civil Case No. 750-V, for the issuance of  an injunction and a prayer that the strike be declared illegal. - Stri Strike kers rs file filed d case case with with NLRC LRC for for rein reinst stat atem emen ent. t.

Labor Law 2

A2010

Reinstate Reinstatement ment granted granted without without prejudic prejudice e to outcome outcome of Civil Civil Case 750-V. - Strike was declared illegal because company was a non-profit organization. Company dismissed complainant. - Complain Complainant ant filed filed for illegal illegal dismissa dismissal. l. NLRC granted. granted. Sec. Inciong reversed.

ISSUE/S 1. WON company should obtain clearance under Art. 267 before dismissing complainant.

HELD 1. NO  The purpose in requiring a prior clearance from the Secretary of  Labor Labor in cases of shutdown shutdown or dismissa dismissall of employees, employees, is to affo afford rd the the Secr Secret etar ary y ampl ample e oppo opport rtun unit ity y to exam examin ine e and and determine determine the reasonab reasonablene leness ss of the request. request. Consequen Consequently, tly, private respondent acted in good faith when it terminated the employment of petitioner upon a declaration of illegality of the strike. Ratio   This This is a matter matter of responsib responsibilit ility y and of answerab answerabili ility. ty. Petitioner as a union leader, must see to it that the policies and activities of the union in the conduct of labor relations are within the precepts of law and any deviation from the legal boundaries shall be imputable to the leader. He bears the responsibility of  guiding the union along the path of law and to cause the union to deman demand d what what is not legal legally ly deman demandab dable, le, would would fomen fomentt anarchy which is a prelude to chaos. Reasoning As a strike is an economic weapon at war with the polic policy y of the Constit Constituti ution on and and the law at that that time, time, a resort resort thereto by laborers shall be deemed to be a choice of remedy peculiarly their own and outside of the statute, and as such, the strikers must accept all the risks attendant upon their choice. If  they succeed and the employer succumbs, the law will not stand in their way in the enjoyment of the lawful fruits of their victory. But if they fail, they cannot thereafter thereafter invoke the protection protection of  the law for the consequences of their conduct unless the right they wished vindicated is one which the law will, by all means, protect and enforce. Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The decision of the acting Secretary of Labor is AFFIRMED in toto.

1.3. 1.3.4 4

MACH MACHIN INER ERY Y DISP DISPUT UTE E SETTLEMENT ST MARTIN FUNERAL HOME V NLRC (ARICAYOS) 495 SCRA 295 REGALADO; September 16, 1998 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari

FACTS - stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal - Labor Arbiter in that case declared that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. - the private-respondent “employee” appealed to the NLRC, and the NLRC set aside the questioned decision and remanded the case to the labor arbiter - petitione petitionerr then filed a motion motion for reconside reconsiderati ration on which which the NLRC denied. Hence this present petition.

ISSUES 1. Where Where should should appea appeals ls from from the NLRC NLRC be initia initiall lly y filed filed,, considering that Section 9 of BP 129 seems to say that there are cases which fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the SC in accordance with the labor code, and not the CA

- 10 -

Disini

HELD 1. The CA Reasoning All references in the amended Section 9 of BP No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.  Therefore, all such petitions should be initially filed in the the CA in stri strict ct obse observ rvan ance ce of the the doct doctri rine ne on the the hierarchy of courts. Disposition The instant petition for certiorari is REMANDED, and all pert pertiinent nent rec recorsd orsd the thereof reof orde ordere red d to be FORW FORWAR ARDE DED, D, to the the CA for for appr approp opor oria iate te acti action on and and disposition.

DELTA VENTURES V. CABATO 327 SCRA 521

QUISUMBING; MARCH 9, 2000 NATURE Special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the Order   Judge Cabato of the RTC, dismissing petitioner's amended third-party complaint, as well as the Order denying motion for reconsideration. reconsideration.

FACTS A Deci Decisi sion on was rend render ered ed by LA decl declar arin ing g the the Gree Green n Mountain Mountain Farm, Roberto Roberto Ongpin Ongpin and Almus Almus Alabe Alabe guilty guilty of  Illegal Illegal Dismissal Dismissal and Unfair Unfair Labor Practice Practice and ordering them to pay the complainants, in solidum plus attorney's fees fees in the amoun amountt of P10,00 P10,000.0 0.00. 0. Almus Almus Alabe Alabe is also also ordered to answer in exemplary damages in the amount of  P5,000.00 each to all the complainants. LA issued a writ of execution directing NLRC Deputy Sheriff  Adam Ventura to execute execute the judgment. judgment. Sheriff Sheriff Ventura Ventura then proceeded to enforce the writ by garnishing certain perso personal nal proper propertie ties s of respon responden dents. ts. Findin Finding g that that said said  judgment debtors do not have sufficient personal properties to satisfy the monetary award, Sheriff Ventura proceeded to levy upon a real property property registered in the name name of Roberto Ongpin, one of the respondents in the labor case. Before Before the schedule scheduled d auction auction sale, sale, herein herein petitione petitionerr filed filed befo before re the the Comm Commis issi sion on a thir thirdd-pa part rty y clai claim m asse asserti rting ng ownership over the property levied upon and subject of the Sheriff’s notice of sale. Labor Arbiter Rivera thus issued an order directing the suspension of the auction sale until the merits of petitioner's claim has been resolved. Howeve However, r, petiti petitione onerr filed filed with with the RTC a compl complai aint nt for injunction and damages, with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against Sheriff Ventura. Judge Cabat Cabato o issue issued d a tempor temporary ary restra restraini ining ng order, order, enjoi enjoinin ning g respondents in the civil case before him to hold in abeyance any action relative to the enforcement of the decision in the labor case. Further, petitioner filed with the Commission a manifestation questi questioni oning ng the latte latter's r's author authority ity to hear hear the case, case, the matter matter being being within within the jurisdiction jurisdiction of the regular regular courts. courts.  The manifestation, however, was dismissed by Labor Arbiter Rivera.

ISSUE WON the trial court may take cognizance of the complaint filed by petitioner and consequently provide the injunctive relief sought.

HELD

NO. Basic as a hornbook principle,  jurisdiction over the subjec subjectt matter matter of a case case is confer conferred red by law and

Labor Law 2

A2010

determ determine ined d by the alleg allegati ations ons in the compla complaint int which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the petitioner's cause of action. Ostensibly the complaint before the trial court was for the recovery of possession and injunction, but in essen essence ce it was was an actio action n chall challeng enging ing the legal legality ity or propri propriety ety of the levy levy vis-a vis-a-vi -vis s the alias alias writ writ of execut execution ion,, inclu includi ding ng the acts acts perfor performed med by the Labor Arbite Arbiterr and and the Deputy Deputy Sheriff Sheriff implementin implementing g the writ. writ. The complaint complaint was in effec effectt a motion motion to quash quash the writ of execut execution ion of a decisi decision on rendered on a case properly within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbite Arbiter, r, to wit: wit: Illega Illegall Dismis Dismissal sal and and Unfai Unfairr Labor Labor Practi Practice. ce. Considering the factual setting, it is then logical to conclude that the subject matter of the third party claim is but an incident of  the labor case, a matter beyond the jurisdiction of regional trial courts. Precedent abound confirming the rule that said courts have no   jurisdic jurisdiction tion to act on labor labor cases cases or various various incidents incidents arising arising theref therefrom rom,, includ including ing the execut execution ion of decisi decisions ons,, award awards s or orders. orders. Jurisdic Jurisdiction tion to try and adjudicate adjudicate such cases pertains pertains exclusiv exclusively ely to the proper proper labor labor official official concerned concerned under under the Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to sancti sanction on split split jurisd jurisdict iction ion which which is obnoxi obnoxious ous to the orderl orderly y administration administration of justice.   The The broad broad powers powers grante granted d to the Labor Labor Arbite Arbiterr and and to the National Labor Relations Commission by Articles 217, 218 and 224 of the Labor Code can only be interpreted as vesting in them   jurisdic jurisdiction tion over incidents incidents arising from, in connecti connection on with or rela relati ting ng to labo laborr disp disput utes es,, as the the cont contro rove vers rsy y unde underr consideration, to the exclusion of the regular courts. Having established that jurisdiction over the case rests with the Commission, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of  respondent Judge Cabato in denying petitioner's motion for the issuance of an injunction against the execution of the decision of  the National Labor Relations Commission.

1.3. 1.3.5 5

IND INDUST USTRIAL RIAL PEA PEACE CE

ART. 211. Declaration of Policy . - A. It is the policy of the State: (f) To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; ART. 273. Study of labor-management labor-management relations. - The Secretary of Labor shall have the power and it shall be his duty to inquire into: (a) the existing relations between employers and employees in the Philippines; (b) the growth of associations of employees and the effect of such associations upon employer-employee employer-employee relations; (c) the extent and r esults of the methods of collective bargaining in the determination of terms and conditions of employment; (d) the methods which have been tried by employers and associations of employees for maintaining maintaining mutually satisfactory relations; (e) desirable industrial practices which have been developed through collective bargaining and other voluntary arrangements; (f) the possible ways of increasing the usefulness usefulness and efficiency efficiency of collective bargaining bargaining for settling differences; (g) the possibilities for the adoption of practical and effective methods of labor-management labor-management cooperation; (h) any other aspects of employer-employee relations concerning the promotion of harmony and understanding understanding between the parties; (i) the relevance of labor laws and labor relations to national development.  The Secretary of Labor shall also inquire into the causes of  industrial unrest and take all the necessary steps within his

Disini

- 11 -

power as may be prescribed by law to alleviate the same, and shall from time to time recommend the enactment of  such remedial legislation as in his judgment may be desirable for the maintenance maintenance and promotion of industrial peace.

1.3. 1.3.6 6

WORK WORKER ER PAR PARTI TICI CIP PATIO ATION N

1987 CONSTI, ART XIII, Sec 3. The State shall afford full protec protectio tion n to labor labor,, local local and overse overseas, as, organi organized zed and and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of  employment opportunities for all. It shal shalll guara uarant ntee ee the the rig rights hts of all all work worker ers s to self self-organizat organization, ion, collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng and negotiati negotiations, ons, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of  tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shal shalll also also part partic icip ipat ate e in poli policy cy and and deci decisi sion on-m -mak akin ing g proce processe sses s affect affecting ing their their rights rights and and benef benefits its as may be provided by law.   Th The Stat State e shal hall prom romote ote the the princ rinciiple ple of sha shared red respon responsib sibili ility ty betwe between en worker workers s and and employ employers ers and the preferent preferential ial use of voluntary voluntary modes in settling settling disputes, disputes, inclu includin ding g concil conciliat iation ion,, and shall shall enforc enforce e their their mutua mutuall comp compli lian ance ce ther therew ewit ith h to fost foster er indu indust stri rial al peac peace. e.  The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits fruits of produc productio tion n and the right right of enterp enterpris rises es to reasonab reasonable le returns returns to investme investments, nts, and to expansio expansion n and growth. ART. 211. Declaration of Policy . - A. It is the policy of the State: (g) To ensure the participation participation of workers in decision and policy-making policy-making processes affecting their r ights, duties and welfare. ART. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’  The labo laborr   partic participat ipation ion in policy policy and decision decision-mak -making. ing. - The organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. Any provis provision ion of law to the contra contrary ry notwit notwithst hstand anding ing,, worker workers s shall shall have have the right, right, subje subject ct to such such rules rules and and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgat promulgate, e, to particip participate ate in policy policy and decision decision-mak -making ing processes processes of the establis establishmen hmentt where where they are employed employed insofar insofar as said processes processes will will directly directly affect their their rights, rights, bene benefi fits ts and and welf welfar are. e. For For this this purp purpos ose, e, work worker ers s and and employers may form labor-management councils: Provided,   That That the repres represent entati atives ves of the worker workers s in such such labor labor-manag managem ement ent counci councils ls shall shall be electe elected d by at least least the major majority ity of all all emplo employee yees s in said said establ establish ishmen ment. t. (As amended by Section 22, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). ART. 277. Miscellaneous provisions. - (a) All unions are authorized to collect r easonable membership membership fees, union dues, assessments and fines and other contributions for labor education and research, mutual death and hospitalization hospitalization benefits, welfare fund, strike fund and credit and cooperative undertakings. (As amended by Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). (g) The Ministry shall help promote and gradually develop, with the agreement of labor organizations and employers, labor-management labor-management cooperation programs at appropriate levels of the enterprise based on the shared responsibility responsibility and mutual respect in order to ensure industrial peace and

Labor Law 2

A2010

improvement in productivity, working conditions and the quality of working life. (Incorporated by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981).

PHIL. AIRLINES V NLRC (PALEA) 225 SCRA 301 MELO; August 13, 1993 NATURE Petition for certiorari

FACTS - On March 15, 1985, PAL completely revised its 1966 Code of  Discipline. The Code was circulated among the employees and was was immed immediat iatel ely y implem implement ented ed,, and and some some emplo employee yees s were were subjected to the disciplinary disciplinary measures. - The Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) filed a complaint before the NLRC contending that PAL, by its unilateral implementation of the Code, was guilty of unfair labor practice, specifically Paragraphs E and G of Art 249 and Art 253 of the Labor Code. PALEA alleged that copies of the Code had been circulated in limited numbers; that being penal in nature the Code Code must must conf conform orm with with the the requ requir irem emen ents ts of suff suffic icie ient nt publicat publication, ion, and that the Code was arbitrary arbitrary,, oppressiv oppressive, e, and prejud prejudici icial al to the rights rights of the emplo employee yees. s. It prayed prayed that that imple implemen mentat tation ion of the Code Code be held held in abeyan abeyance; ce; that that PAL shoul should d discu discuss ss the substanc substance e of the Code Code with with PALEA; PALEA; that that employees dismissed under the Code reinstated and their cases subjected to further hearing; and that PAL be declared guilty of  unfair labor practice and be ordered ordered to pay damages. - PAL filed a MTD, asserting its prerogative as an employer to prescribe rules and regulations regarding employees' conduct in carrying out their duties and functions, and alleging that it had not violated the CBA or any provision of the Labor Code.

- 12 -

which which affect the rights rights of the employee employees. s. In treating treating the latter, management should see to it that its employees are at least least properly properly informed informed of its decisio decisions ns or modes modes of  acti action on.. PAL PAL asse assert rts s that that all all its its empl employ oyee ees s have have been been furnished copies of the Code, the LA and the NLRC found to the contrary, which finding, is entitled to great respect. - PALEA recognizes the right of the Company to determine matters of management policy and Company operations and to direc directt its manpo manpowe wer. r. Manag Manageme ement nt of the Compan Company y inclu includes des the right right to organi organize, ze, plan, plan, direct direct and and control control operat operation ions, s, to hire, hire, assign assign emplo employee yees s to work, work, trans transfer fer employee employees s from one departmen departmentt to another, another, to promote, promote, demote, discipline, suspend or discharge employees for just cause; to lay-off employees for valid and legal causes, to introd introduce uce new or improve improved d method methods s or facil faciliti ities es or to change existing methods or facilities and the right to make and enforce Company rules and regulations to carry out the functions of management. The exercise by management of  its prerogative shall be done in a just, reasonable, humane and/or lawful manner. - Such Such provis provision ion in the CBA may not be interpre interpreted ted as cess cessio ion n of empl employ oyee ees' s' righ rights ts to part partic icip ipat ate e in the the deliberation deliberation of matters which may affect their rights and the formulation of policies relative thereto. And one such matter is the formulation of a code of discipline. Industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just participa participation tion in the discussio discussion n of matters matters affectin affecting g their their rights. Disposition Petition is DISMISSED.

MANILA ELECTRIC CO.. V QUISUMBING (MEWA). 326 SCRA 172  YNARES-SANTIAGO; February 22, 2000 NATURE

ISSUE

Motion for Reconsideration

1. WON WON the the form formul ulat atio ion n of a Code Code of Disc Discip ipli line ne amon among g employee employees s is a shared shared responsib responsibilit ility y of the employer employer and the employees

FACTS

HELD 1. YES. Ratio Employees have a right to participate in the deliberation of matters which may affect their rights and the formulation of  policies relative thereto and one such matter is the formulation of a code of discipline. Reasoning It was only on March 2, 1989, with the approval of  RA 6715, amending Art 211 of the Labor Code, that the law explicitly considered considered it a State policy "to ensure the participation of workers workers in decision decision and policy-m policy-makin aking g processes processes affectin affecting g their rights, duties and welfare." However, even in the absence of said said clear clear provisi provision on of law, law, the exerci exercise se of manag managem ement ent prerogatives was never considered boundless. Thus, in Cruz vs. Medina, it was held that management's prerogatives must be without abuse of discretion. - In San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union vs. Ople, we upheld the company's right to implement a new system of distributing its its prod produc ucts ts,, but but gave gave the the foll follow owin ing g cave caveat at:: So long long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement the employer's interest and not for the purp purpos ose e of defe defeat atin ing g or circ circum umve vent ntin ing g the the righ rights ts of the the employee, under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them. - All this points to the conclusion that the exercise of managerial prerogatives is not unlimited. It is circumscribed by limitations found in law, a CBA, or the general principles of fair play and   jus justi tice ce.. More Moreov over er,, it must must be duly duly esta establ blis ishe hed d that that the the prerogative being invoked is clearly a managerial one. - Veri Verily ly,, a line line must must be draw drawn n betw betwee een n mana manage geme ment nt prerogati prerogatives ves regardin regarding g business business operations operations per se and those

Disini

- Memb Member ers s of the the Mera Meralc lco o Empl Employ oyee ees s and and Work Worker ers s Association (MEWA) filed a motion for reconsideration of an earlier decision of this Court directing the parties to execute a CBA incorporating the terms and conditions contained in the unaffected portions of the Secretary of Labor's orders, and prayed for certain modifications. modifications.

ISSUE/S 1. WON the decision should be modified

HELD 1. YES Ratio (On the requirement of consultation imposed by the Secretary in cases of contracting out for 6 months or more) A line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which affect the rights rights of emplo employee yees, s, and and in treati treating ng the latter, latter, the employer should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decision or modes of action in order to attain a harmonious labor-management relationship and enlig enlighte hten n the worker workers s concer concernin ning g their their rights rights.. Hirin Hiring g of  worker workers s is withi within n the emplo employer yer's 's inhere inherent nt freedo freedom m to regu regula late te and and is a vali valid d exer exerci cise se of its its mana manage geme ment nt prerogative subject only to special laws and agreements on the matter and the fair standards of justice. Reasoning  The management cannot be denied the faculty of promoting efficiency and attaining economy by a study of  what units are essential for its operation. It has the ultimate determination of whether services should be performed by its personnel personnel or contracte contracted d to outside outside agencie agencies. s. Absent Absent proof that manageme management nt acted acted in a maliciou malicious s or arbitrary arbitrary manner, manner, the Court will not interfere interfere with the exercise exercise of 

Labor Law 2

A2010

 judgment by an employer. Obiter  - On increasin increasing g the wage awards: awards: The Court does "not seek to enumerate in this decision the factors that should affect wage dete determ rmin inat atio ion" n" beca becaus use e coll collec ecti tive ve barg bargai aini ning ng disp disput utes es particula particularly rly those those affectin affecting g the national national interest interest and public public service "requires due consideration and proper balancing of the interests of the parties to the dispute and of those who might be affected by the dispute.” - On the retroactivity retroactivity of the arbitral awards: awards: The law is silent silent as to the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or that granted not by virtue of the mutual agreement of the parties but by intervention of the government. Despite the silence of the law, the Court rules herein that CBA arbitral awards granted after six months from the expiration of the last CBA shall retroact to such time agree agreed d upon upon by both both emplo employer yer and and the emplo employee yees s or their their union. Absent such an agreement as to retroactivity, the award shall retroact to the first day after the six-month period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA should there be one. In the absence of a CBA, the Secretary's determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control - On the grant of a housing loan but not a cooperative loan: The award of loans for housing is justified because it pertains to a basic necessity of life. It is part of a privilege recognized by the employer and allowed by law. In contrast, providing seed money for the establishment of the employee's cooperative is a matter in whic which h the the empl employ oyer er has has no busi busine ness ss inte intere rest st or lega legall obligation. Disposition Petition Petition PARTIALLY PARTIALLY GRANTED. The arbitral arbitral award award was made to retroact and the award of wages was increased from P1,900 to P2,000 for the years 1995 and 1996, subject to the monetary advances granted by petitioner to its rank-and-file employee employees s during during the pendency pendency of this case assuming such advances had

1.3.7

WAGE AGE FIXING

ART. 211. Declaration of Policy . - A. It is the policy of the State: B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers and employees by means of  agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining, bargaining, no court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise provided under this Code. (As amended by Section 3, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a) It is the policy of  the State to encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining. (g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoi enjoinin ning g the intend intended ed or impen impendin ding g strike strike or lockou lockoutt as specifie specified d in the assumpti assumption on or certifica certification tion order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking striking or locked locked out employee employees s shall shall immediat immediately ely return-toreturn-towork and the employer shall immediately immediately resume o perations and readmi readmitt all all worker workers s under under the same same terms terms and and condit condition ions s prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of  law law enforc enforceme ement nt agenci agencies es to ensure ensure compli complianc ance e with with this this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same. In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts lockouts in hospital hospitals, s, clinics clinics and similar similar medical medical institutio institutions ns shall, shall, to every every extent extent possib possible, le, be avoide avoided, d, and and all all serio serious us

Disini

- 13 -

efforts, not only by labor and management but government as well well,, be exhau exhauste sted d to substa substanti ntial ally ly minimi minimize, ze, if not preven prevent, t, their their advers adverse e effec effects ts on such such life life and and healt health, h, through through the exercise, exercise, however however legitima legitimate, te, by labor labor of its right right to strike strike and by manag manageme ement nt to lockou lockout. t. In labor labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide and maintain maintain an effectiv effective e skeletal skeletal workforce of medical medical and other health personnel, whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of  its patie patients nts,, most most espec especial ially ly emerg emergen ency cy cases, cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may immediately assume, within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of  the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitrati arbitration. on. For this purpose, the contendi contending ng parties parties are strictly strictly enjoined enjoined to comply comply with such orders, orders, prohibiti prohibitions ons and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and and Empl Employ oyme ment nt or the the Comm Commis issi sion on,, unde underr pain pain of  immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of  employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against against either or both of them.   The The fore forego goin ing g notw notwit iths hsta tand ndin ing, g, the the Pres Presid iden entt of the the Philippi Philippines nes shall shall not be preclude precluded d from determini determining ng the indus industri tries es that, that, in his his opinio opinion, n, are indisp indispen ensab sable le to the national national interest, interest, and from intervening intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same RA 6727 “WAGE RATIONALIZATION ACT” Sec. 2. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to rationalize the fixing of  minimum wages and to promote productivity-improvement productivity-improvement and gain-sharing measures measures to ensure a decent standard of  living for the workers and their families; to guarantee the rights of labor to its just share in the fruits of production; to enhance employment employment generation in the countryside through industry dispersal; and to allow business and industry reasonable returns on investment, expansion and growth.

1.3. 1.3.8 8

LABO LABOR R INJU INJUNC NCTI TION ON

ART. ART. 254. 254. Inju Injunc ncti tion on proh prohib ibit ited ed.. - No temp tempor orar ary y or perma permanen nentt injunc injunctio tion n or restra restrain inin ing g order order in any any case case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1, 1982). ART. 218. Powers of the Commissi Commission. on. - The Commission Commission shall have the power and authority: (e) (e) To enjo enjoin in or rest restra rain in any any actu actual al or thre threat aten ened ed commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require require the performan performance ce of a particular particular act in any labor labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffect ineffectual ual any decision decision in favor of such party: Provided, Provided,   That no temporary temporary or permanen permanentt injuncti injunction on in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued except after hearing the testimony of  witne witnesse sses, s, with with opport opportuni unity ty for crosscross-exa examin minati ation, on, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony testimony in oppositio opposition n thereto, thereto, if offered, offered, and only after a finding of fact by the Commission, to the effect: (1) That That prohi prohibit bited ed or unlaw unlawful ful acts acts have have been been threa threaten tened ed and and will will be commi committe tted d and and will will be continued continued unless restrained, restrained, but no injuncti injunction on or tempora temporary ry restra restraini ining ng order order shall shall be issued issued on

Labor Law 2

A2010

accou account nt of any any threa threat, t, prohib prohibite ited d or unlaw unlawful ful act, act, except except against against the person or persons, persons, association association or organi organizat zation ion making making the threat threat or commi committi tting ng the prohibite prohibited d or unlawful unlawful act or actually actually authorizing authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof; (2) (2) That That subs substa tant ntia iall and and irre irrepa para rabl ble e inju injury ry to complainant’s complainant’s property will follow; (3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of  relief relief than will be inflicte inflicted d upon defendant defendants s by the granting of relief; (4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and (5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof  has been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful unlawful acts have been threatened threatened or committe committed, d, charged charged with the duty to protect protect complai complainant’ nant’s s property: property: Provided, Provided, however, however, that if a complain complainant ant shall also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued with withou outt noti notice ce,, a subs substa tant ntia iall and and irre irrepa para rabl ble e inju injury ry to complainant’s property will be unavoidable, such a temporary restraini restraining ng order may be issued issued upon testimony testimony under oath, sufficie sufficient, nt, if sustained sustained,, to justify justify the Commissi Commission on in issuing issuing a temp tempor orar ary y inju injunc ncti tion on upon upon hear hearin ing g afte afterr noti notice ce.. Such Such a temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall become void at the expiration of said twent twenty y (20) (20) days. days. No such such tempor temporary ary restra restrain inin ing g order order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on condition that complainant complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in an amoun amountt to be fixed fixed by the Commiss Commission ion sufficie sufficient nt to recompens recompense e those enjoined enjoined for any loss, expense expense or damage damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injuncti injunction, on, includin including g all reasonable reasonable costs, together together with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the the same same proc procee eedi ding ng and and subs subseq eque uent ntly ly deni denied ed by the the Commission.   The The undert undertaki aking ng herei herein n menti mentione oned d shall shall be under understo stood od to constitute an agreement entered into by the complainant and the surety upon which an order may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding against said complainant and surety, upon a hearing to assess damages, of which hearing, complainant and surety shall have reasonable notice, the said complainant and sure surety ty subm submit itti ting ng them themse selv lves es to the the juri jurisd sdic icti tion on of the the Commission for that purpose. But nothing herein contained shall deprive any party having a claim or cause of action under or upon such undertaki undertaking ng from electing electing to pursue pursue his ordinary ordinary remedy by suit at law or in equity: Provided, further, That the reception of evidence for the application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who who shall shall conduc conductt such such hearin hearings gs in such such places places as he may determine to be accessible to the parties and their witnesses and and shal shalll subm submit it ther therea eaft fter er his his reco recomm mmen enda dati tion on to the the Commission. (As amended by Section 10, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). RA 8791 8791 , Section Section 22. 22. Strikes Strikes and and Lockouts Lockouts.. — The banki banking ng industry industry is hereby hereby declared declared as indispen indispensabl sable e to the national national interest and, not withstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, any strike or lockout involving banks, if unsettled after seven (7) calendar days shall be reported by the Bangko Sentral to the Secretary of Labor who may assume jurisdiction over the dispute or decide it or certify the same to the National Labor

Disini

- 14 -

Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration. However, the President of the Philippines may at any time intervene and assume jurisdiction over such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same. (6-E)

1.3.9 3.9

TRIPARTISM

ART. ART. 275. 275. Tripar Tripartis tism m and and tripar tripartit tite e confer conferen ences ces.. - (a)   Tripa Triparti rtism sm in labor labor relati relations ons is hereb hereby y decla declared red a State State policy. Towards this end, workers and employers shall, as far as practicable, be represented in decision and policy-making policy-making bodies of the government. (b) The Secret Secretary ary of Labor Labor and Employm Employment ent or his his duly duly authorized representatives may, from time to time, call a natio nationa nal, l, region regional al,, or indust industria riall tripa triparti rtite te confer conferenc ence e of  representatives of government, workers and employers for the consid considera eratio tion n and and adopti adoption on of volunt voluntary ary codes codes of  principl principles es designe designed d to promote promote industria industriall peace peace based based on social social justice or to align align labor movement movement relations relations with established priorities in economic and social development. In calli calling ng such such confer conferenc ence, e, the Secret Secretary ary of Labor Labor and and Employment may consult with accredited representatives representatives of  work worker ers s and and empl employ oyer ers. s. (As (As amen amende ded d by Sect Sectio ion n 32, 32, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

II. RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION 2.1 BASIS OF OF RI RIGHT 1. CON CONSTI STITUTI TUTION ON 1987, Art III Sec 8.- The right of the people, including including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. 1987 CONSTI, ART XIII, Sec 3. The State shall afford full protec protectio tion n to labor labor,, local local and overse overseas, as, organi organized zed and and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of  employment opportunities for all. It shal shalll guara uarant ntee ee the the rig rights hts of all all work worker ers s to self self-organizat organization, ion, collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng and negotiati negotiations, ons, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of  tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shal shalll also also part partic icip ipat ate e in poli policy cy and and deci decisi sion on-m -mak akin ing g proce processe sses s affect affecting ing their their rights rights and and benef benefits its as may be provided by law.   Th The Stat State e shal hall prom romote ote the the princ rinciiple ple of sha shared red respon responsib sibili ility ty betwe between en worker workers s and and employ employers ers and the preferent preferential ial use of voluntary voluntary modes in settling settling disputes, disputes, inclu includin ding g concil conciliat iation ion,, and shall shall enforc enforce e their their mutua mutuall comp compli lian ance ce ther therew ewit ith h to fost foster er indu indust stri rial al peac peace. e.  The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits fruits of produc productio tion n and the right right of enterp enterpris rises es to reasonab reasonable le returns returns to investme investments, nts, and to expansio expansion n and growth. 1935 , Art III Sec 6- The right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. 1973, Art IV, Sec 7- Section 7. The right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to the law shall not be abridged.

2. STATUTORY ART. ART. 243. 243. Cove Covera rage ge and empl employ oyee ees’ s’ rig right to self self-orga organi niza zati tion on.. - All All pers person ons s empl employ oyed ed in comm commer erci cial al,, indus industri trial al and and agric agricult ultura urall enter enterpri prises ses and and in religi religious ous,,

Labor Law 2

A2010

charit charitabl able, e, medic medical al,, or educa educatio tional nal insti institut tution ions, s, wheth whether er oper operat atin ing g for for prof profit it or not, not, shal shalll have have the the righ rightt to self self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of  their their own choosi choosing ng for purpos purposes es of colle collecti ctive ve bargai bargainin ning. g. Ambulan Ambulant, t, intermitt intermittent ent and itineran itinerantt workers, workers, self-emp self-employe loyed d people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor o rganizations for their mutual aid and protection. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980). ART. 244. Right of employees in the public service. - Employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contra contrary ry to law. law. (As amende amended d by Execut Executive ive Order No. 111, 111, December 24, 1986). ART. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organ organiza izatio tion; n; right right of superv superviso isory ry employ employees ees.. - Manag Manageri erial al emplo employee yees s are not eligib eligible le to join, join, assis assistt or form form any labor organizati organization. on. Superviso Supervisory ry employee employees s shall shall not be eligible eligible for memb member ersh ship ip in a labo laborr organ organiz izat atio ion n of the the rank rank-a -and nd-f -fil ile e empl employ oyee ees s but but may may join join,, assi assist st or form form sepa separa rate te labo laborr organizations of their own. (As amended by Section 18, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

UST FACULTY UNION V. BITONIO, JR. 318 SCRA 185 PANGANIBAN; November 16, 1999 NATURE Special civil civil action in the Supreme Court. Court. Certiorari.

FACTS

- Union announced a general assembly to elect next union officers. - TRO was issued by med-arbiter enjoining them from conducting election. - UST held a general general faculty faculty assembly assembly, attend attended ed by both both union union members members and non-memb non-members. ers. Here, Here, appellant appellants s were elected as new union officers by acclamation and clapping of  hands. - Appellees filed instant petition to seek injunctive relief and to nullify results of election. - Bitonio upheld upheld med-arbi med-arbiter ter and said election election was void. He rejected contention that it was a legitimate exercise of right to self organization

ISSUE/S Basis of right to self-organization (p5 of outline) / Workers with right of self-organization self-organization

HELD Ratio Self-organization is a fundamental right to form, join or assist labor organizations for collective bargaining, mutual aid and protection protection. Whether Whether employed employed for a definite definite

perio period d or not, not, employ employee ee shall shall be consid considere ered d as such, such, begi beginn nnin ing g on 1st day day of serv servic ice, e, for for purp purpos oses es of  membership in a labor union. Corollary Corollary to this right right is the the

prerogative not to join. Reasoning The election can’t be considered as exercise of right to self-organization because the petitioners’ frustration over the performance of the respondents could not justify the method they chose to impose their will on the union.

NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES v MINISTER OF LABOR, PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES 110 SCRA 275 MAKASIAR; December 14, 1981

- 15 -

Disini

NATURE: MANDAMUS FACTS:  The Union filed this action to compel the public respondents - The to hold hold a certif certific icati ation on electi election on among among the rank rank and file employees of Producers Bank. -The Bank agreed to r ecognize and negotiate with the Union as soon as the latter obtained its registration certificate as local union. -However, even if said certificate had already been secured, the Bank failed to submit its payroll of employees (which was was requ requir ired ed prev previo ious usly ly at the the hear hearin ing g for for dire direct ct certification. ) - The Med- Arbiter Arbiter issued issued an order for the holding holding of a certification election, a proceeding which was sought to be suspended by the Bank on the grounds that a prejudicial questi question on was was pendi pending ng re: cance cancella llatio tion n of the Union’ Union’s s regist registrat ration ion for alleg allegedl edly y engag engaging ing in prohi prohibit bited ed and and unlawful activities.

ISSUE: WON a certifica certification tion election election should should be held held despite despite the pend pendin ing g peti petiti tion on to canc cancel el the the Unio Union’ n’s s cert certif ific icat ate e of  Registration

HELD: YES. The pendency of the petition for cancellation of  the registration certificate of herein petitioner union is not a bar to the holding of a certification election.

Reasoning: -The -The pend penden ency cy of the the peti petiti tion on for for canc cancel ella lati tion on of the the registrat registration ion certific certificate ate of petitione petitionerr union union founded founded on the alleged illegal illegal strikes staged by the leaders and members of  the inter interven venor or union union and petit petition ioner er union union should should not suspend suspend the holding holding of a certifica certification tion election election,, because because there is no order directing such cancellation. - Aside from the fact that the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of petitioner union has not yet been finally resolved, there is another fact that militates against the stand of the Bank, the liberal approach observed by this Court as to matters of certification election. -  Atlas Free Workers Union (AFWU)-PSSLU Local vs. Hon. Carmelo Carmelo C. Noriel, Noriel, et al. : "[T]he "[T]he Court resolves resolves to grant the petition (for mandamus) in line with the liberal approach consistently consistently adhered to by this Court in matters of  certi certific ficati ation on elect election ion.. The whole whole democr democrati atic c proces process s is geared geared towards towards the determin determination ation of representa representation, tion, not only in government but in other sectors as well, by election.  Thus, the Court has declared its commitment to the view that a certification election is crucial to the institution of  collective bargaining, for it gives substance to the principle of majo majori rity ty rule rule as one one ' of the the basi basic c conc concep epts ts of a democratic policy" (National Mines and Allied Workers Union vs. Luna, 83 SCRA 610). - Scout Ramon V. Albano Memorial College vs. Noriel, et al.: ... The institution of collective bargaining is, to recall Cox, a prime manifestation of industrial democracy at work. The two parties parties to the relations relationship, hip, labor and management management,, make their own rules by coming to terms. That is to govern themselves in matters that really count. As labor, however, is composed of a number of individuals, it is indispensable that they be represented by a labor organization of their choice. Thus may be discerned how crucial is a certification election election.. So our decisions decisions from the earliest earliest case of PLDT Employees Union v. PLDT Co. Free Telephone Workers Union to the latest, latest, Philippi Philippine ne Communic Communication ations, s, Electronic Electronics s & Electricity Workers' Federation (PCWF) v. Court of Industrial Relations Relations,, had made clear. clear. The same principle principle was again again given given expres expressio sion n in langu languag age e equall equally y empha emphatic tic in the subseque subsequent nt case of Philippi Philippine ne Associati Association on of Free Labor Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations: 'Petitioner thus appears to be woefully lacking in awareness of the significance of a

Labor Law 2

A2010

certification election for the collective bargaining process. It is the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor organ organiza izatio tion n can truly repres represent ent the workin working g force force.. It is a fundame fundamental ntal postulate postulate that the will will of the majority, majority, if given expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the voters to make their choice, is controlling. No better device can assure assure the institu institution tion of industri industrial al democrac democracy y with with the two   parti parties es to a busin business ess enter enterpri prise, se, manag managem ement ent and labor labor,, establishing a regime of self-rule .' That is to accord respect to the policy of the Labor Code, indisputably partial to the holding of a certification election so as to arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit (emphasis supplied). - Cancel Cancellat lation ion of the regist registrat ration ion certi certific ficate ate is not the only only resultant penalty in case of any violation of the Labor Code. (See Sec. 8 Rule II Book V of Labor Code, in relation to A273) - As aptly ruled by respondent Bureau of Labor Relations Director Noriel: "The rights of workers to self-organization finds general and specific constitutional guarantees. guarantees. Section 7, Article IV of the Phil Philip ippi pine ne Cons Consti titu tuti tion on prov provid ides es that that the the righ rightt to form form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. This right is more pronounced in the case of  labor. labor. Section Section 9, Article Article II (ibid) (ibid) specific specifically ally declares declares that the State State shall shall assure assure the rights of workers workers to self-orga self-organiza nization, tion, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work. Such constitutional guarantees should not be lightly taken much less easily nullified. A healthy respect for the freedom of association demands that acts imputable to officers or member members s be not easil easily y visite visited d with with capit capital al punish punishmen ments ts against the association itself" Dispositive: THE WRIT OF mandamus IS GRANTED; BLR DIR ORDERED TO CALL AND DIRECT THE IMMEDIATE HOLDING OF A CERTIFICATION ELECTION.

3. UNIV UNIVER ERSA SAL L DECLAR DECLARAT ATIO ION N OF HUMAN HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas Whereas disregard disregard and contempt contempt for human human rights rights have resu result lted ed in barb barbar arou ous s acts acts whic which h have have outr outrag aged ed the the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Wherea Whereas s it is essent essentia iall to promot promote e the devel developm opmen entt of  friendly relations between nations, Wherea Whereas s the peoples peoples of the United United Natio Nations ns have have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Wherea Whereas s Membe Memberr States States have have pledge pledged d themse themselve lves s to achiev achieve, e, in co-ope co-operat ration ion with with the United United Natio Nations, ns, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental fundamental freedoms, Wherea Whereas s a common common under understa stand nding ing of these these rights rights and and free freedo doms ms is of the the grea greate test st impo import rtan ance ce for for the the full full realization of this pledge,

- 16 -

Disini

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY proclaims proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of  society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive strive by teaching teaching and education education to promote promote respect respect for these these rights rights and freedoms freedoms and by progressiv progressive e measures, measures, national national and internati international onal,, to secure secure their their universa universall and effec effectiv tive e recogn recogniti ition on and and observ observan ance, ce, both both among among the peopl peoples es of Member Member States States themse themselve lves s and among among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, race, colour colour,, sex, sex, langu languag age, e, religi religion, on, politi political cal or other other opinion, opinion, national national or social social origin, origin, property, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of  the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independ independent, ent, trust, non-self non-self-gove -governing rning or under under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 23. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONO CONOMI MIC, C, SOCI SOCIAL AL AND CUL CULTURA TURAL L RIGHTS Articl Article e 2 - 1. Each Each State State Party Party to the present present Coven Covenant ant unde undert rtak akes es to take take step steps, s, indi indivi vidu dual ally ly and and throu through gh inter internat nation ional al assis assistan tance ce and co-ope co-operat ration ion,, especi especiall ally y economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, resources, with a view to achievin achieving g progressi progressively vely the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures. 2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guar guaran ante tee e that that the the righ rights ts enun enunci ciat ated ed in the the pres presen entt Covenant Covenant will be exercise exercised d without without discrimi discriminati nation on of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other other opinion, opinion, national or social social origin, origin, property, property, birth or other status. 3. Developing countries, with due regard to human rights and their national economy, may determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals. non-nationals. Article 8 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure: (a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and  join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization organization concerned, concerned, for the promot promotion ion and and protec protectio tion n of his econo economic mic and and social interests. No restrictions may be placed on the the exer exerci cise se of this this righ rightt othe otherr than than thos those e prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democr democrati atic c socie society ty in the intere interests sts of nation national al security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; (b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latte latterr to form form or join join inter internat nation ional al trade trade-un -union ion organizations; (c) The right of trade trade unions unions to functi function on freely freely subj subjec ectt to no limi limita tati tion ons s othe otherr than than thos those e prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democr democrati atic c socie society ty in the intere interests sts of nation national al security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;

Labor Law 2

A2010

(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country. 2. This This arti articl cle e shal shalll not not prev preven entt the the impo imposi siti tion on of lawf lawful ul restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces or of the police or of the administration of the State. 3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the Inte Intern rnat atio iona nall Labo Labour ur Orga Organi nisa sati tion on Conv Conven enti tion on of 1948 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or appl apply y the the law law in such such a mann manner er as woul would d prej prejud udic ice, e, the the guarantees guarantees provided for in that Convention.

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS Article 22 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national securi security ty or publi public c safety safety,, publi public c order order (ordre (ordre public public), ), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right. 3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the Inte Intern rnat atio iona nall Labo Labour ur Orga Organi nisa sati tion on Conv Conven enti tion on of 1948 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to appl apply y the the law law in such such a mann manner er as to prej prejud udic ice, e, the the guarantees guarantees provided for in that Convention.

4. ILO ILO CONVE CONVENT NTIO ION N NO. NO. 48

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (NUBE) V CONFESOR 432 SCRA 371 CALLEJO, SR; JUNE 16, 2004 NATURE Special civil action in the SC. Certiorari.

FACTS

 The Union alleged that the Bank violated its duty to bargain, hence, committed ULP under Article 248 (g) when it engaged in surface bargaining without any intent of reaching an agreement, as evident in the Bank’s counter-proposals. It explained that of  the 34 economic provisions it presented, the Bank made only 6 economic counterproposals. Further, as borne by the minutes of  the meetings, the Bank, after indicating indicating the economic provisions it had rejected, accepted, retained or were open for discussion, refuse refused d to make make a list list of items it agree agreed d to inclu include de in the economic package.

ISSUES 1. WON the Union was able to substantiate its claim of unfair labor practice against the Bank arising from the latter’s alleged “interference” “interference” with its choice of negotiator (P. 6) 2. WON the Union was able to substantiate its claim of unfair labor practice against the Bank arising from the latter’s surface bargaini bargaining; ng; making making bad faith faith non-econ non-economic omic proposals proposals;; and refusal to furnish the Union with copies of the relevant data (P. 25) 3. WON the petitioner is estopped from filing the instant action (P. 28)

HELD

- 17 -

Disini

1. No. No. Unde Underr the the Inte Intern rnat atio iona nall Labo Laborr Orga Organi niza zati tion on Conventi Convention on (ILO) No. 87 FREEDOM FREEDOM OF ASSOCIAT ASSOCIATION ION AND PROTEC PROTECTIO TION N OF THE RIGHT RIGHT TO ORGAN ORGANIZE IZE to which which the Philippines is a signatory, “workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to   job organization organizations s of their their own choosing without without previous previous authorization.” Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom to organize their admi admini nist stra rati tion on and and acti activi viti ties es and and to form formul ulat ate e thei theirr programs. Article 2 of ILO Convention No. 98 pertaining to the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining, provides: Article 2 1. Worker Workers’ s’ and and emplo employer yers’ s’ organi organizat zation ions s shall shall enjoy enjoy adequate adequate protection protection against against any acts or interfere interference nce by each each other other or each each other’ other’s s agents agents or member members s in their their establishment, establishment, functioning or administration. administration. 2. In particular, particular, acts which are designe designed d to promote promote the esta establ blis ishm hmen entt of work worker ers’ s’ organ organiz izat atio ions ns unde underr the the domination of employers or employers’ organizations or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with with the object object of placin placing g such such organ organiza izatio tions ns under under the control of employers or employers’ organizations within the meaning of this Article .   The aforecited aforecited ILO Conventi Conventions ons are incorporated incorporated in our Labor Labor Code, Code, partic particula ularly rly in Artic Article le 243 thereo thereof, f, which which provides: ART. 243. COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF SELF-O -ORG RGAN ANIZ IZAT ATIO ION. N. — All All pers person ons s empl employ oyed ed in commerci commercial, al, industri industrial al and agricult agricultural ural enterprise enterprises s and in religiou religious, s, charitabl charitable, e, medical medical or educatio educational nal institut institutions ions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self self-o -org rgan aniz izat atio ion n and and to form form,, join join,, or assi assist st labo laborr orga organi niza zati tion ons s of thei theirr own own choo choosi sing ng for for purp purpos oses es of  collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, workers, self-emp self-employe loyed d people, people, rural workers and those withou thoutt any defi defini nite te employ ploye ers may form orm labor bor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. and Articles 248 and 249 respecting ULP of employers and labor organizations.   The said ILO Conventi Conventions ons were ratified ratified on December December 29, 1953. However, even as early as the 1935 Constitution, 44 the State had already expressly expressly bestowed bestowed protection protection to labo laborr as part part of the the gene genera rall provi rovisi sion ons. s. The The 1973 1973 Constitution, 45 on the other hand, declared it as a policy of  the state to afford protection to labor, specifying that the workers’ workers’ rights rights to self-orga self-organiza nization, tion, collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining, ng, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work would be assured. For its part, the 1987 Constitution, aside from making it a policy to “protect the rights of workers and prom promot ote e thei theirr welf welfar are, e,” ” devo devote tes s an enti entire re sect sectio ion, n, emphasizing its mandate to afford protection to labor, and highlights “the principle of shared responsibility” between workers and employers to promote industrial peace. peace. Article 248(a) of the Labor Code, considers it an unfair labor practice when an employer interferes, restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or the the righ rightt to form form asso associ ciat atio ion. n. The The rig right to self self-organizat organization ion necessari necessarily ly includes includes the right right to collecti collective ve bargaining. Parenthetically, if an employer interferes in the selection of  its negotiat negotiators ors or coerce coerces s the Union to exclud exclude e from from its panel of negotiators a representative of the Union, and if it can be inferred that the employer adopted the said act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise to right to self-

Labor Law 2

A2010

Disini

- 18 -

organ organiza izatio tion n or on the right right to colle collecti ctive ve barga bargain ining ing of the employees, ULP under Article 248(a) in connection with Article 243 of the Labor Code is committed.

its guestimates on the data of the rank and file. However, Umali failed to put his request in writing as provided for in Article 242(c) of the Labor Code:

In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Labor Code, Code, substanti substantial al evidence evidence is required required to support support the claim. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence evidence as a reasonabl reasonable e mind might accept as adequate adequate to support a conclusion. In the case at bar, the Union bases its claim of interference on the alleged suggestions of Diokno to exclude Umali from the Union’s negotiating panel.

Article 242. Rights of Legitimate Labor Organization . . . (c) (c) To be furn furnis ishe hed d by the the empl employ oyer er,, upo upon n writ writte ten n request, with the annual audited financial statements, including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of  receipt of the request, after the union has been duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining bargaining representatives of the employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective negotiation;

 The circumstances that occurred during the negotiation do not show that the suggestion made by Diokno to Divinagracia is an anti-union conduct from which it can be inferred that the Bank consciously adopted such act to yield adverse effects on the free exer exerci cise se of the the righ rightt to self self-o -org rgan aniz izat atio ion n and and coll collec ecti tive ve bargaining of the employees, especially considering that such was was unde underta rtake ken n prev previo ious us to the the comm commen ence ceme ment nt of the the negotiation and simultaneously with Divinagracia’s Divinagracia’s suggestion that the bank lawyers be excluded from its negotiating negotiating panel.   The The record records s show show that that after after the initia initiatio tion n of the colle collecti ctive ve bargaining process, with the inclusion of Umali in the Union’s negot negotia iatin ting g panel panel,, the negot negotia iatio tions ns pushed pushed throug through. h. The complaint was made only on August 16, 1993 after a deadlock was declared by the Union on June 15, 1993. 2. No. The Union Union alleg alleges es that that the Bank violated violated its duty duty to bargain; bargain; hence, committed committed ULP under Article Article 248(g) when when it engaged in surface bargaining. Surface bargaining is defined as “going through the motions of  negotiating” without any legal intent to reach an agreement. 50  The resolution of surface bargaining allegations never presents an easy easy issue. issue. The determ determin inati ation on of whethe whetherr a party party has has engaged in unlawful surface bargaining is usually a difficult one because it involves, at bottom, a question of the intent of the party in question, and usually such intent can only be inferred from the totality of the challenged party’s conduct both at and away from the bargaining table. 51 It involves the question of  whether an employer’s conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to bargain in good faith or is merely hard bargaining.  The minutes of meetings from March 12, 1993 to June 15, 1993 do not show that the Bank had any intention of violating its duty to bargain with the Union. Records show that after the Union sent its proposal to the Bank on February 17, 1993, the latter replied with a list of its counter-proposals on February 24, 1993.   There Thereaft after, er, meetin meetings gs were were set for the settle settlemen mentt of their their differen differences. ces. The minutes minutes of the meetings meetings show that both the Bank and the Union Union exchange exchanged d economic economic and non-econ non-economic omic proposals and counter-proposals.  The Union has not been able to show that the Bank had done acts, both at and away from the bargaining table, which tend to show that it did not want to reach an agreement with the Union or to settle the differences between it and the Union. Admittedly, the parties parties were not able to agree and reached reached a deadloc deadlock. k. However, it is herein emphasized that the duty to bargain “does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.” concession.” Hence, the parties’ parties’ failure to agree did did not amount to ULP under Article 248(g) for violation of the duty to bargain. We, likewise, find that the Union failed to substantiate its claim that the Bank refused to furnish the information it needed. While the refusal to furnish requested information is in itself an unfair labor practice, and also supports the inference of surface bargaining, in the case at bar, Umali, [the federation president] in a meeting dated May 18, 1993, requested the Bank to validate

  The The Union, Union, did not, not, as the Labor Labor Code Code requir requires, es, send a written request for the issuance of a copy of the data about the Bank’s rank and file employees. Moreover, as alleged by the Union, the fact that the Bank made use of the aforesaid guestimates, amounts to a validation of the data it had used in its presentation. 3. No.  The respondent Bank argues that the petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of ULP when it signed the new CBA. Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides:  Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. A person, who by his deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another. In the case, however, the approval of the CBA and the release of signing bonus do not necessarily necessarily mean that the Union waived its ULP claim against the Bank during the past negotiations. After all, the conclusion of the CBA was included in the order of the SOLE, while the signing bonus was included in the CBA itself. Moreover, the Union twice filed a motion for reconsideration respecting respecting its ULP charges against the Bank before the SOLE. Dispositive Assailed Dispositive Assailed order and resolutions affirmed.

2.2 2.2

EXTE EXTENT NT AND AND SCO SCOPE PE OF RIGH RIGHT T REYES V TRAJANO 209 SCRA 484 NARVASA; June 2, 1992

NATURE Special civil action of  certiorari

FACTS -The officer-in-charge officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresen Cresencia ciano no Trajan Trajano) o) sustai sustaine ned d the denia deniall by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election at which two (2) labor labor organ organiza izatio tions ns were were contes contestin ting g the right right to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. -The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau Bureau of Labor Relations Relations among the employees employees of 

Labor Law 2

A2010

  Tri-U Tri-Unio nion n Indust Industrie ries s Corpor Corporati ation on on Octobe Octoberr 20, 1987. 1987. The comp compet etin ing g unio unions ns were were the the TriTri-Un Unio ion n Empl Employ oyee ees s Unio UnionnOrganized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services Services (TUPAS). (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially initially deemed to be qualifie qualified d voters, voters, only 240 actually actually took part in the election, election, cond conduc ucte ted d unde underr the the supe superv rvis isio ion n of the the Bure Bureau au of Labo Laborr Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK.   The ballots ballots provided provided for three (3) choices. They provided provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending labor labor organi organizat zation ions, s, (a) TUPAS TUPAS and and (b) TUEUTUEU-OLA OLALIA LIA;; and, and, conformably with with established established rule and practice, practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: "NO UNION."  The final tally of the votes showed the following results: TUPAS 1 TUEU-OLALIA 95 NO UNION 1 SPOILED SPOILED 1 CHALLENGED 141

ISSUE/S WON the right to self-organization self-organization includes the right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization HELD: YES. Ratio EXTENT AND SCOPE OF RIGHT TO SELFORGANIZATION. Logically, the right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization, is subsumed in the right to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to maintain membership therein. Reasoning The The righ rightt to form form or join join a labo laborr orga organi niza zati tion on necessarily includes includes the right to r efuse or refrain from exercising said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. The fact that a person has opted to acquire membership in a labor union does not not prec preclu lude de his his subs subseq eque uent ntly ly opti opting ng to reno renoun unce ce such such membership.

PAN-AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. V. PAN-AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSN. 27 SCRA 1202 FERNANDO; April 29, 1969 NATURE Special civil action for certiorari

FACTS -CIR could not agree to exclude from a return-to-work order five unio union n offi offici cial als s of resp respon onde dent nt Pan Pan Amer Americ ican an Empl Employ oyee ees s Association on the ground of having led an illegal strike, in itself, according to Pan-American World Airways, a sufficient cause for dismi dismissa ssall thus thus result resulting ing in their their losing losing their their incent incentive ive and motivation for doing their jobs properly with the consequent fear that they could cause grave injury to it

ISSUE 1. WON CIR committed grave abuse abuse of discretion in ordering the return to work of the union officials

HELD 1. NO. Ratio  There is both a constitutional and statutory recognition that laborers have the right to form unions to take care of their interests vis-a-vis their employers. Reasoning The moment management displays what in this case appears to be a grave but unwarranted distrust in the union official officials s dischargi discharging ng their their function functions s just because a strike strike was resort resorted ed to, then then the integr integrity ity of the collec collectiv tive e barga bargaini ining ng process itself is called into question. It would have been different

- 19 -

Disini

if ther there e were were a rati ration onal al basi basis s for for such such fear fears, s, pure purely ly speculative in character. The record is bereft of the slightest indication that any danger, much less one clear and present, is to be expected from their return to work. If petitioner were were to succee succeed d in their their unprec unprecede edente nted d demand demand,, the laborers in this particular union would thus be confronted with with the the sad sad spec specta tacl cle e of the the lead leader ers s of thei theirr choi choice ce condemne condemned d as irrespons irresponsible ible,, possibly possibly even constitut constituting ing a menac menace e to the operat operation ions s of the enterpri enterprise. se. That is an indictment of the gravest character, devoid of any factual basis. What is worse, the result, even if not intended, would be to call into question their undeniable right to choose their leaders, who must be treated as such with all the respect to which which they are legitima legitimately tely entitled. entitled. The fact that they would be paid but not be allowed to work is, to repeat, to add add to the the infa infamy my that that woul would d thus thus atta attach ch,, to them them necessarily, necessarily, but to respondent union equally.

Disposition PETITION DENIED.

UNION OF SUPERVISORS (R.B)-NATU V SECRETARY OF LABOR (REPUBLIC BANK) 109 SCRA 139 MAKASIAR; November 12, 1981 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the order of the Secretary of Labor

FACTS -The Republic Bank Provident Fund was established for the benefit of the officers and employees of the Republic Bank. -The fund is supposed to be managed by a Board of Tr ustees comp compos osed ed of 5 memb member ers, s, of which hich 3, incl includ udin ing g the the chairman, are to be designated by the bank president, and the other 2 are the presidents of the Republic Bank Union of  Supervisors and of the Republic Bank Employees' Union -Mr. Norberto Luna, president of the petitioner union and exofficio member of the fund's Board of Trustees, became the fund's fund's administ administrator rator and secretary. secretary. During the three (3) years of his incumbency as administrator, the resources of  the fund grew from P278,445.27 to P1,779,159.85 -On February meetin ing g of the the PF Board Board of  February 12, 1974, 1974, a meet  Trustees was held, attended by Mr. Restituto de Vera who had then just been designated to sit on the board, and who opened the meeting stating that they would like to have cont contro roll of the the fund funds s of the the PF and and for for that that matt matter er the the administration administration of the Fund, because the Provident Fund PF is an entity of the Republic Bank considering that the main bulk of contributions is put up by the RB into the PF. -Mr. Luna, the erstwhile administrator and Secretary of the Fund, vigorously objected. -Messrs. Armando Abad (chairman) and Mario Galicia, the two other other manageme management-a nt-appoin ppointed ted trustees trustees sided sided with de Vera, and forced the issue of reorganization. -The same was carried by a vote of 3 to 2, with all the management appointed trustees voting for it, and the two labor representatives voting against -Mr. -Mr. Luna Luna moved moved that that all all the trustees trustees execu execute te a trust trust agreement and a bond in favor of the PF members to protect the interests of the PF Messrs. Abad, de Vera and Galicia counter argued against the proposal. -De Vera questioned Luna's apprehensions. In answer, Luna made the allegedly derogatory statements - Luna and Antonio Canizares the other labor representative walked out of the meeting. -The remaining 3 trustees unanimously elected Galicia as the new administrator -The -The bank bank moved moved for the dismi dismissa ssall of Luna, Luna, and and sought sought clearance from the Sec. of Labor for his termination -Labor Sec issued an order granting the same, and this is

Labor Law 2

A2010

the subject of this petition

Disini

- 20 -

ISSUE

- Some employees of CENECO then filed for withdrawal of  membership in the cooperative but CENECO contended that this cannot be allowed.

WON Mr. Luna's utterances and alleged acts of insubordination insubordination constitute just cause for his dismissal

ISSUE/S

HELD NO. Luna's remarks at the meeting of an official board are privileged in nature as a valid exercise of his constitutional freedom of  expre expressi ssion. on. He addre addresse ssed d his his remark remarks s to the body that that has  jurisdiction over the question of management of the assets of  the Provident Fund. Luna's remarks were intended to protect the interests of the members of the Provident Fund from what he hone honest stly ly beli believ eved ed was was a risk risky y vent ventur ure e on the the part part of the the management. -His protests could even be treated as union activity by

the Industrial Peace Act, which assures the employees' right right "to self-o self-orga rganiz nizati ation on and to form, form, join join or assist assist labor organizations of their own choosing and to engage in concer concerted ted activi activities ties for the purpos purpose e of collec collectiv tive e bargaining and other mutual aid and protection ... " (Sec. 3, Rep. Act 875).

-This -This is so becau because se Luna's Luna's members membership hip in the PF Board Board of   Trustees was by virtue of his being president of the RB Union of  Supervisors. The Provident Fund was itself created as a result of  the union's collective bargaining agreement with the bank. Luna was therefore acting out his role as protector of his constituents when he voiced out his apprehension and protests over the plan of mana manage geme ment nt.. It matt matter ers s not not that that he acte acted d sing singly ly or individually. What is important is that he had been selected by the supervisors of respondent bank to be their president and representative in the PF Board of Trustees. His actuations as

such such shou should ld ther theref efor ore e be cons consid ider ered ed as legi legiti tima mate te exercise of the employees' right to self-organization and as an activity for their mutual aid and protection, aside from being privileged privileged communication communication protected by the consti constitut tution ional al guaran guarantee tee on free free speech speech.. His remark remarks s were in defense of the interest of the Provident Fund, part of which comes from the contribution of the rank  and file employees. Disposition Petition is granted.

CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC V DOLE SECRETARY  201 SCRA 584 REGALADO; September 13, 1991 NATURE Special civil action for certiorari

FACTS

- Petit Petition ioner er Centra Centrall Negros Negros Electr Electric ic Cooper Cooperati ative, ve, Inc. (CENE (CENECO) CO) seeks seeks to annul annul the order issue issued d by then then Acting Acting Secr Secret etar ary y of Labo Laborr Lagu Lagues esma ma decl declar arin ing g the the proj projec ecte ted d certi certifi ficat cation ion elect election ion unnec unnecess essary ary and and direct directin ing g petiti petitione onerr CENECO CENECO to continue continue recognizi recognizing ng private private responden respondentt CENECO (CURE) E) as the the sole sole and and Union Union of Ration Rational al Emplo Employee yees s (CUR exclusiv exclusive e bargaini bargaining ng representa representative tive of all the rank-and rank-and-fil -file e employees of petitioner's electric cooperative. - Previous Previous events: Their CBA was valid for a term of 3 years; years; CURE CURE then then wrote wrote CENECO CENECO propos proposing ing that that negot negotia iatio tions ns be conducted for a new agreement. CENECO CENECO denied CURE's request on the the grou ground nd that that,, und under er applic applicabl able e decisi decisions ons of the

Suprem Supreme e Court Court,, employ employees ees who at the same same time time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union.

- CURE filed a petition for direct recognition or for certification certification election; CENECO filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of legal restraints.

1. WON WON the the empl employ oyee ees s were were allo allowe wed d to with withdr draw aw membership from the cooperative so as to entitle them to form or join CURE for purposes of the negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement

HELD 1. YES Ratio Membership in the cooperative is on a voluntary basis. Hence, Hence, withdraw withdrawal al therefrom therefrom cannot cannot be restricted restricted unnecessarily. The right to join an organization necessarily  includes the equivalent right not to join the same .

EXTENT AND ORGANIZATION

SCOPE

OF

RIGHT

TO

SELF-

- The right of the employe employees es to self-o self-orga rganiz nizati ation on is a comp compel elli ling ng reas reason on why why thei theirr withd ithdra rawa wall from from the the cooperative must be allowed. As pointed out by CURE, the resignation of the member- employees is an expression of  thei theirr pref prefer eren ence ce for for unio union n memb member ersh ship ip over over that that of  membership in the cooperative . The avowed policy of the State to afford fall protection to labor and to promote the primacy primacy of free collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng mandates mandates that the employees' right to form and join unions for purposes of  collective bargaining be accorded the highest consideration. - Membership in an electric cooperative which merely vests in the member a right to vote during the annual meeting becomes too trivial and insubstantial vis-a-vis vis-a-vis the primordial and more important constitutional right of an employee to  join a union of his choice. Besides, the 390 employees of  CENECO, some of whom have never been members of the cooper cooperati ative, ve, repres represent ent a very very small small perce percenta ntage ge of the coope oopera rattive' ive's s total otal members bershi hip p of 44,00 4,000 0. It is inconceivable how the withdrawal of a negligible number of  members could adversely affect the business concerns and operations of CENECO.

No Right of Self-Organization: WORKER/MEMBER OF COOPERATIVE - It was held in Batangas I Electric Cooperative Labor Union vs. Romeo A. Young that "employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join unions for purposes purposes of collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng agree agreemen ment, t, for certa certainl inly y an owner owner canno cannott bargai bargain n with with himself or his co-owners." - However, nowhere in said case is it stated that memberempl employ oyee ees s are are proh prohib ibit ited ed from from with withdr draw awin ing g thei theirr membership in the cooperative in order to join a labor union. 2. NO - By virtue of EO 111, which became effective on March 4, 1987, the direct certification originally allowed under Article 257 of the Labor Code has apparently been discontinued as a method of selecting the exclusive bargaining agent of the workers. The mere fact that no opposition is made does not warrant warrant a direct direct certifica certification. tion. The most effective effective way of  determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force is by certification election. election. Disposition The questioned order is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The med-arbiter is hereby ordered to conduct a certification election among the rank-and- file employees of  CENECO with CURE and No Union as the choices therein.

2.3

WORKERS WITH RIGHT OF SELFORGANIZATION

Labor Law 2

A2010

1.Worker Qualifications ART. 277. Miscellaneous provisions. - (c) Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered as an employee for purposes of  membership in any labor union. (As amended by Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715).

UST FACULTY UNION V. BITONIO, JR. 318 SCRA 185 PANGANIBAN; November 16, 1999 NATURE Special civil civil action in the Supreme Court. Court. Certiorari.

FACTS

- Union announced a general assembly to elect next union officers. - TRO was issued by med-arbiter med-arbiter enjoining them from conducting election. - UST held a general faculty assembly, attended by both union members and non-member non-members. s. Here, appellants were elected as new union officers by acclamation and clapping of  hands. - Appellees filed instant petition to seek injunctive relief and to nullify results of election. - Bitonio upheld med-arbiter med-arbiter and said said election was void. He rejected contention that it was a legitimate exercise of right to self organization

ISSUE/S Basis of right to self-organization (p5 of outline) / Workers with right of self-organization (p6 of outline)

HELD

Ratio Self-organization is a fundamental right to form, join or assist labor organizations for collective bargaining, mutual aid and protection protection. Whether Whether employed employed for a definite definite

perio period d or not, not, employ employee ee shall shall be consid considere ered d as such, such, begi beginn nnin ing g on 1st day day of serv servic ice, e, for for purp purpos oses es of  Corollary to this right right is the the membership in a labor union. Corollary

prerogative not to join. Reasoning The election can’t be considered as exercise of right to self-organization because the petitioners’ frustration over the performance of the respondents could not justify the method they chose to impose their will on the union.

1.

All Empl mploye oyees

ART. 243. Coverage and employees’ right to self-organization. All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right right to self-o self-orga rganiz nizati ation on and and to form, form, join, join, or assist assist labor labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, selfemployed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980).

Non-Profit Organization FEU v TRAJANO(FEU-AFW) TRAJANO(FEU-AFW) 152 SCRA 725 PARAS, July 31, 1987

NATURE petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the decision affirming the Order of the Med-Arbiter for the holding of a certification election election among the rank and file employees of FEU

FACTS

- 21 -

Disini

FEU FEU was was a non-st non-stock ock,, non-pr non-profi ofitt medica medicall instit instituti ution on and and before 1980, workers of these institutions were not allowed to form, join or organize labor unions under Article 244 of  the LC. So when the FEU Alliance of Filipino Workers (FEUAFW) filed a petition for consent and/or certification election and was denied, they assailed the constitutionality of Article 244 with the SC. But with BP70 which amended the said provision provision by granting granting even employe employees es of non-stock, non-stock, nonprofit institutions the right to form, join and organize labor unions of their choice, the respondent union filed again for certification election and was granted by the Med Arbiter, and was affirmed by the respondent director Trajano. FEU now assails the validity of the or der by Director Trajano.

ISSUES 1. WON workers of non-stock, non-profit institutions could now form, join and organize organize labor unions of their their choice choice (focus in the outline) 2. WON Director Director Trajano Trajano gravely gravely abused abused his discretio discretion n in granting granting the petition petition for certific certification ation election despite the pendency of a similar petition

HELD 1. YES Ratio. Article 244 of the Labor Code was already amended by BP7 which provides that rank and file employees of nonprofit profit medic medical al insti institut tution ions s were were now permit permitted ted to form, form, organize or join labor unions of their choice for purposes of  coll collec ecti tive ve barg bargai aini ning ng.. Sinc Since e priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nt had had complied with the requisites provided by law for calling a certific certification ation election election,, it was incumben incumbentt upon responde respondent nt Director to conduct such certification election to ascertain the bargaining representative of petitioner's employees. 2. NO orderr that that the the pend penden ency cy of anot anothe herr acti action on Ratio. In orde betwe between en the same parties parties for the same cause may be availed of as a ground to dismiss a case, there must be, betwe between en the action action under under consid considera eratio tion n and and the other other acti action on:: (1) (1) iden identi tity ty of part partie ies, s, or at leas leastt such such as representing the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights rights asserted asserted and relief relief prayed prayed for, the relief relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity on the two precedin preceding g particul particulars ars should should be such that any judgment judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. Reasoning. Any judgment which may be rendered in the peti petiti tion on for for certi certior orar arii pend pendin ing g befo before re the the SC will will not not consti constitut tute e res judica judicata ta in the petiti petition on for certi certifi ficat cation ion election under consideration, for while in the former, private respondent questioned the constitutionality of Article 244 of  the Labor Code before its amendment, in the latter, private respondent invokes the same article as already amended. Disposition. WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED, and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

Members of Religious Group VICTORIANO vs ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION 59 SCRA 54 ZALDIVAR; September 12, 1974 FACTS - Victoriano was an employee of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. and was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union.  The Union had with the Company a CBA containing a closed shop shop agre agreem emen ent, t, by virt virtue ue of whic which, h, if any any perso person, n, regardless of his religious beliefs, wishes to be employed or to keep his employment, he must become a member of the collective bargaining union.

Labor Law 2

A2010

Disini

- 22 -

- In 1961, RA No. 3350 was enacted (amending the industrial peace peace act), act), providing providing that a closed closed shop agreement agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of  their members in any such labor organization. - Being a member of a member of the religious sect "Iglesia ni Cristo" that prohibits the affiliation of its members with any labor organization, Victoriano resigned from the union. Thereupon, the Union Union asked asked the Compan Company y to separa separate te Victo Victoria riano no from from the service.

may benefit those who are members of religious sects that prohibit their members from joining labor unions, the benefit upon the religious sects is merely incidental and indirect.   The The "estab "establis lishme hment nt clau clause" se" (of relig religion ion)) does does not ban ban regula regulatio tion n on conduc conductt whose whose reason reason or effec effectt merel merely y happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. The free exercise clause of the Constitution has been been interp interpret reted ed to requir require e that that religi religiou ous s exerci exercise se be preferentially preferentially aided.

ISSUE

 To compel persons to join and remain members of a union to keep their jobs in violation of their religious scrupples, would would hurt, rather than help, help, labor labor unions, unions, Congress Congress has seen it fit to exempt religious objectors lest their resistance sprea spread d to other other worker workers, s, for religi religious ous object objection ions s have have contagious potentialities potentialities more than political and philosophic objections. Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even even to the the coun countr try, y, and and a fortiori to a labo laborr unio union n assumi assuming ng that that such such unity unity and loyal loyalty ty can can be attai attained ned throug through h coerci coercion on is not a goal goal that that is consti constitut tution ional ally ly obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.

WON RA No. 3350 infringes on the freedom of association and disc discri rimi mina nate tes s in favo favorr of memb member ers s of the the INC INC (hen (hence ce,, unconstitutional)

HELD NO. RA No. No. 3350 3350 intr introd oduc uced ed an exce except ptio ion n to the the clos closed ed shop shop agreement under the Industrial Peace Act. It excluded ipso jure from the application and coverage of the closed shop agreement the employees belonging to any religious sects which prohibit affiliat affiliation ion of their their members members with any labor labor organiza organization. tion. What the exception provides is that members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the collec collectiv tive e bargai bargainin ning g union union.. It is clear, clear, theref therefore ore,, that that the assailed Act, far from infringing the constitutional provision on freedom freedom of associati association, on, upholds and reinforces reinforces it. It does not prohibit the members of said religious sects from affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves to said members the liberty and the power power to affil affiliat iate, e, or not to affili affiliate ate,, with with labor labor union unions. s. If, notwithst notwithstandi anding ng their their religiou religious s beliefs, beliefs, the members members of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they can do so. If in deference and fealty to their religious faith, they refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does not coerce them to join; neither does the law prohibit them from joining; and neither may the employer employer or labor labor union union compel compel them to join. join. Republic Republic Act No. 3350, therefore, does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of association.  The purpose sought to be achieved by RA 3350 was to insure freed freedom om of belief belief and and religi religion, on, and and to promote promote the genera generall welfare by preventing discrimination against those members of  religious sects which prohibit their members from joining labor unio unions ns,, conf confir irmi ming ng ther thereb eby y thei theirr natu natura ral, l, stat statut utor ory y and and constitutional right to work, the fruits of which work are usually the only means whereby they can maintain their own life and the life of their dependents. It cannot be gainsaid that said purpose is legitimate.  The purpose of RA 3350 is secular, worldly, and temporal, not spiritual or religious or holy and eternal. It was intended to serve the secular purpose of advancing the constitutional right to the free exercise exercise of religion, religion, by averting that certain persons be refused work, or be dismissed from work, or be dispossessed of  their right to work and of being impeded to pursue a modest means of livelihood, by reason of union security agreements. To help its citizens to find gainful employment whereby they can make a living to support themselves and their families is a valid objective of the state.   The The prim primar ary y effe effect cts s of the the exem exempt ptio ion n from from clos closed ed shop shop agreements in favor of members of religious sects that prohibit their their members members from affilia affiliating ting with a labor labor organizat organization, ion, is the protection of said employees against the aggregate force of the collective bargaining agreement, and relieving certain citizens of  a burden burden on their their relig religiou ious s belie beliefs; fs; and by elimi eliminat nating ing to a certain extent economic insecurity due to unemployment, which is a serious menace to the health, morals, and welfare of the people people of the State, the Act also promotes promotes the well-be well-being ing of  society. It is our view that the exemption from the effects of  closed shop agreement does not directly advance, or diminish, the interests of any particular religion. Although the exemption

KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AND CANNING V. CALLEJA

162 SCRA 367 Victoriano ano v Elizal Elizalde de Rope Rope Worker Workers s Union, Union, the HELD: In Victori refusal of the members of the INC sect not to join a labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs does not bar the members of the sect from forming their own union. The recognition of the tenets of the sect should not infringe on the basic right of  self-organization grante granted d by the Consti Constitut tution ion to worker workers, s, regard regardle less ss of  religious affiliation. affiliation.

2.

Govern Governmen mentt Corpo Corpora ratio tion n Empl Employ oyees ees

ART. ART. 244. 244. Righ Rightt of empl employ oyee ees s in the the publ public ic serv servic ice. e. Employee Employees s of governmen governmentt corporatio corporations ns establis established hed under under the Corporation Code shall have the right to organize and to bargain bargain collecti collectively vely with their their respecti respective ve employers employers.. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form form associ associati ations ons for purpos purposes es not contra contrary ry to law. law. (As (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986).

3.

Supervisors

ART. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor labor organi organizat zation ion;; right right of superv superviso isory ry emplo employee yees. s. 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 rankand-file and-file employees employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. (As amended by Section 18, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Right

FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION vs. FILOIL SUPERVISORY & CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 46 SCRA 512 TEEHANKEE; Aug 18, 1972 NATURE Appeal from the orders of the Court of Industrial Relations Relations

FACTS Filo Filoil il Refi Refine nery ry Corp Corpor orat atio ion n exec execut uted ed a coll collec ecti tive ve bargaining agreement with the Filoil Employees & Workers Associati Association on (FEWA), (FEWA), a labor labor associat association ion composed of the

Labor Law 2

A2010

corporation's rank-and-file employees . This collective bargaining agreemen agreementt expressly expressly excluded excluded from its coverage coverage petition petitioner's er's supervisory and confidential employees, who in turn organized their own labor association, respondent herein. - The Corporati Corporation on filed a motion motion to dismiss the petiti petition on for certi certifi ficat cation ion of the respon responden dentt assoc associa iatio tion n as the sole sole and and excl exclus usiv ive e coll collec ecti tive ve barg bargai aini ning ng agen agentt of all all peti petiti tion oner er’s ’s supervisory and confidential employees employees working at its refinery in Rosario, Cavite. Cavite. Their reason being, since since they are part part of the management, they do not have the right to bargain collectively although they may organize an organization of their own.

ISSUE WON supervisors supervisors 'shall have the the right to self-organization, self-organization, and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining bargaining

Disini

- 23 -

with the exercise if their right to self-organization. - pend pendin ing g the the noti notice ce to stri strike ke,, the the unio union n deci decide ded d to parti partici cipat pate e in a mass mass actio action n by alyan alyansa sa in front front of the company's company's premises. premises. operations operations would come to complete complete stops for insufficiency of contractual employees who would take over. after the mass strike (separate and distinct from the mass action), the company filed to declare strike illegal, to declare the officers of union and individual respondents to have lost their employment status, to declare the union, its officers and members guilty of unfair labor practice to violation of the CBA, and to award them damages. - the the LA foun found d the the stri strike ke to be illeg illegal al such such that the participants lost their employment status. the CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE/S 1. WON the mass action wit Alyansa is actually a strike

HELD  YES. Reasoning As stated for the Court by the now Chief Justice in AG & P Co. of Manila, Inc. Inc. vs. C.I.R., 8 section 3 of the Industrial Industrial Peace Peace Act "explicitly "explicitly provides provides that 'employees' 'employees' and this term includes supervisors 'shall have the right to self-organizati self-organization, on, and and to form, form, join join or assist assist labor labor organi organizat zation ions s of their their own choosi choosing ng for the purpo purpose se of colle collecti ctive ve barga bargaini ining ng throug through h repr repres esen enta tati tion ons s of thei theirr own own choo choosi sing ng and and to enga engage ge in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection' and that 'individuals employed as supervisors . . . may form separate organizations of their own'. Indeed, Indeed, it is well settled that 'in relation relation to his employer,' employer,' a foreman or supervisor 'is an employee within the meaning of the Act' . . . For this reason, supervisors are entitled to engage in union activities and any discrimination against them by reason thereof constitutes an unfair labor practice." Supervisors and confidential employees, even though they may exercise the prerogatives of management as regards the rank and file employees employees are indeed employees employees in relation relation to their their employer, the company which is owned by the stockholders and bondholders (capital) and should therefore be entitled under the law law to barga bargain in collec collectiv tively ely with with the top manag manageme ement nt with with respect to their terms and conditions of employment.

HELD 1. YES Ratio  The factual findings and conclusions of tribunals, as long as based on substantial evidence, are conclusive on the SC. The term term stri strike ke2 encomp encompas asses ses not only only Reasoning   The conce concerte rted d work work stoppa stoppage ges, s, but also also slowd slowdown owns, s, mass mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant plant equip equipmen mentt and and facili facilitie ties, s, and and simila similarr activi activitie ties. s. Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the premi premises ses of the emplo employer yer,, usual usually ly accomp accompan anie ied d by the display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute. That there was a labor dispute between the parties is not an issue. Petitioners notified the respon responde dent nt of their their intent intention ion to stage stage a strike, strike, and and not merely to picket. Disposition Petition is denied for lack of merit. CA decision is affirmed.

PENARADA VS BANGANGA PLYWOOD CORP. AND HUDSON CHUA 489 SCRA 95 PANGANIBAN; May 3, 2006

DISPOSITION Petition DISMISSED.

NATURE Petition for review under rule 45 of the ROC

STA ROSA COCA-COLA PLANT EMPLOYEES UNION (union), ET AL V COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS INC (company)

FACTS -

312 SCRA 437 CALLEJO, SR; January 24, 2007

-

NATURE  This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter

FACTS - The union is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the the regu regula larr paid paid work worker ers s and and the the mant manthl hly y paid paid nonnonccommissi ccommission on earning earning employee employees s of the comopany. comopany. individu individual al petitioners are union officers,directors and shop stewards. - The union and the company entered into a 3 year CBA. upon the expiration, the union told the company that they wanted to negotiate the terms. the union insisted that representatives from Alyansa ng mga Unyon ng Coca Cola be allowed to observe the CBA meetings. the company refused to allow alyansa to observe and an impasse ensued. union officers, directors and stewards filed a notice of strrice with NCMB based on deadlock on CBA and unfair labor practice arising from the company's refusal to bargain. the grounds were ammended to unfair labor practice for the company's refusal to bargain in good faith and interference

-

2

Char Charli lito to Peña Peñara rand nda a was was hire hired d as as a foreman/boiler/shift foreman/boiler/shift engineer of Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. He filed filed a comp compla laint int for illega illegall dism dismiss issal al with with money claims. He claims that he was was not paid his overtime pay, premium pay for working during holidays/rest days, night shift differentials and finally claims for payment of damages and attorney’s fees having been forced to litigate the present complaint. BPC on the other other han hand d cla claims ims that that Pena Penaran randa’ da’s s the the separation from service was due to the temporary closure due to repair and general maintenance of  the company. When BPC partially reopened, reopened, Peñaranda failed failed to reapply. Hence, he was not terminated from employment much less illegally. illegally. He opted to severe employment when he insisted payment of his separation benefits. Furthermore, being a managerial employee he is not entitled to overtime pay and if ever he rendered services

Article 212(o) of the Labor Code defines strike as a temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

Labor Law 2 -

A2010

beyond the normal hours of work, [there] was no office order/or authorization for him to do so. LA foun found d Pena Penaran randa da to to be entitl entitled ed of of the the overt overtime ime pay pay and premium pay. pay. NLRc, deleted the award award because he was a managerial employee. CA dismissed Penaranda’s petition for certiorari.

ISSUE 1.

WON Pena Penaran randa da is a regul regular, ar, comm common on emplo employee yee entitled to overtime pay and other monetary benefits.

HELD NO. Managerial employees and members of the managerial staff are exempted from the provisions of the Labor Code on labor labor standa standards rds.. Since Since petiti petitione onerr belon belongs gs to this this class class of  employees, he is not entitled to overtime pay and premium pay for working on rest days.  The Court disagrees with the NLRC’s finding that the petitioner was a managerial managerial employee. employee. However, he was a member member of the managerial staff, which also takes him out of the coverage of  labor labor standa standards rds.. Like Like mana manager gerial ial emplo employee yees, s, offic officers ers and and memb member ers s of the the mana manage geri rial al staf stafff are are not not enti entitl tled ed to the the provisions of law on labor standards. Article Article 82 of the Labor Code exempts exempts manageri managerial al employee employees s from the coverage of labor standards. Labor standards provide the working working conditio conditions ns of employee employees, s, includin including g entitlem entitlement ent to overtime pay and premium premium pay for working on rest days. Under this provision, managerial employees are "those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision." (1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof; thereof; (2) They customari customarily ly and regularly regularly direct the work of  two or more employees employees therein; (3) They have the authority authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight. Penaranda’s duty as a shift engineer, particularly, ((1)To supply the required and continuous steam to all consuming units at minimum cost, (2) To supervise, check and monitor manpower workmanship as well as operation of boiler and accessories, (3)  To evaluate performance of machinery and manpower, (5) To train train new employees employees for effective effective and safety safety while while working) working) illustrates that petitioner was a member of the managerial staff. His duties and responsib responsibili ilities ties conform to the definition definition of a member of a managerial managerial staff under the Implementing Implementing Rules. Rules. He supervised the engineering engineering section of the steam plant boiler. His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the performance of the workers in the engineering section. This work necessari necessarily ly required required the use of discretio discretion n and independ independent ent  judgment to ensure the proper functioning of the steam plant boiler. boiler. As superviso supervisor, r, petitione petitionerr is deemed a member member of the managerial staff. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds no justification to award overtime pay and premium pay for rest days to petitioner.

Disposition Petition is denied.

 TEST DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ) 300 SCRA 120 PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998 NATURE Petition for certiorari

FACTS - Responde Respondent nt union union filed filed a Petition Petition for Certific Certificatio ation n Electio Election n

- 24 -

Disini

among the supervisory, office and technical employees of  the petitioner company before the DOLE, R egional Office No. III. - Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-file rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rankand-file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts. - Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization. - The mediator mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said said that that the the cont conten enti tion on of the the resp respon onde dent nt that that the the petitioning union is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the exclusion-inclusion exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed. (as regards the TEST)

The TEST of supervisory status as we have repeatedly ruled is:

-Whether -Whether an employee employee possesses possesses authority authority to act in the interest of his employer, - Which authority should not be merely routinary or clerical in nature - But requires the use of independent independent judgment. - Corollary, what determines the nature of  employment is not the employee's title, but his  job description. - It is not decisive that these employees are monthly paid employees. Their mode of compensation is usually a matter of convenien convenience ce and does not necessari necessarily ly determine determine the nature and character of their job.

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHILS. V LAGUESMA 330 SCRA 295 DE LEON; April 12, 2000 NATURE Petition Petition for certiorari certiorari seeking to annul annul the Resolution Resolution and the Order Laguesma, acting then as Undersecretary, now the Secretary, of the DOLE

FACTS - PICOP-Bi PICOP-Bislig slig Superviso Supervisory ry and Technica Technicall Staff Staff Employee Employees s Union Union (PBSTS (PBSTSEU EU)) instit institute uted d a Petiti Petition on for Certi Certific ficati ation on Election Election to determine determine the sole and exclusiv exclusive e bargaini bargaining ng agent of the supervisory and technical staff employees of  PICOP for CBA purposes. - Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU) filed their respective petitions for intervention. - Med-Arbiter granted the petitions for interventions of the FFW FFW and and ALU. ALU. Anot Anothe herr Orde Orderr set set the the hold holdin ing g of a certi certific ficati ation on electi election on among among PICOP PICOP's 's superv superviso isory ry and and technical staff employees in Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, with four (4) choices, choices, namely: namely: (1) PBSTSEU; PBSTSEU; (2) FFW; (3) ALU; and (4) no union. - PICOP appealed the Order which set the holding of the certi certific ficati ation on electi election on conten contendin ding g that that the Med-A Med-Arbi rbiter ter committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case withou thoutt givi iving PIC PICOP the the oppor pportu tun nity to file its comments/answer, and that PBSTSEU had no personality to file the petition for certification certification election. - DOLE DOLE Sec. Sec. Drilon Drilon upheld upheld the Med-Ar Med-Arbit biter' er's s Order Order with with modification allowin allowing g the supervising and staff employees in

Labor Law 2

A2010

Cebu, Davao and Iligan City to participate in the certification election. - PICOP questioned and objected to the inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassified as managerial employees in the light of the reorganization effected by it.

ISSUE WON the positions positions Section Heads and Superviso Supervisors, rs, who have been designated as Section Managers and Unit Managers who were converted to managerial managerial employees are ineligible for union membership

HELD - NO. The mere fact that an employee is designated designated “manager” “manager” does does not ipso ipso facto facto make make him him one. one. Desig Designat nation ion shoul should d be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of employment. - Manageri Managerial al employee employees s are ranked as Top Managers, Managers, Middle Managers Managers and First Line Managers. Managers. Top and Middle Managers Managers have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rankand- file employees of an organization. - A thorough dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably show that

they are not actually managerial managerial but only supervisor supervisory y employees since they do not lay down company policies. Any authority they exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final determination of the company polic policies ies inasm inasmuch uch as any any action action taken taken by them them on matter matters s rela relati tive ve to hiri hiring ng,, prom promot otio ion, n, trans transfe fer, r, susp suspen ensi sion on and and terminat termination ion of employee employees s is still still subject subject to confirma confirmation tion and approval by their respective superior. Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the Resolution Resolution and Order of public public responde respondent nt Bienveni Bienvenido do E. Lagu Lagues esma ma date dated d Apri Aprill 17, 17, 1991 1991 and and Augu August st 17, 17, 1991 1991,, respectively, finding the subject supervisors and section heads as superviso supervisory ry employee employees s eligibl eligible e to vote in the certific certificatio ation n election are AFFIRMED.

Samson vs NLRC (Schering-Plough Corp) 330 SCRA 460 Kapunan, J.; April 12, 2000 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari

FACTS - Rufino Norberto F. Samson was dismissed from the Company for uttering what was considered by the company as obscene, insulting, and offensive words and for making malicious and lewd gestures directed at the President and General Manager of the company during an informal Sales and Marketing gathering in relation relation to the decision decision of the Management Management Committe Committee e on a disp disput ute e with with anot anothe herr empl employ oyee ee.. He was was also also accu accuse sed d of  threat threaten ening ing to disru disrupt pt or create create viole violence nce in a forthc forthcomi oming ng National Sales Conference. - The Labor Arbiter found that Samson was illegally dismissed but the decision was reversed by NLRC.

ISSUE/S WON the dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is valid

HELD No. As a ground for dismissal, the term “trust and confidence” is restricte restricted d to manageri managerial al employees employees.. And before one may be properly properly considere considered d a manageri managerial al employee employee,, three conditions conditions must be met: a. Their primary duty consists of the management of  the the esta establ blis ishm hmen entt in whic which h they they are are empl employ oyed ed or of a

- 25 -

Disini

department or subdivision subdivision thereof: b. They customarily and regularly direct the work of  two or more employees therein; c. They have the authority to hire or fire other

employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to hiring an firing and as to the promo promotio tion n or any other change change of status status of other other employees are given particular weight.

-In this case the job description of Samson does not mention that petitioner possesses the power “to lay down policies nor to hire, hire, transfer, transfer, suspend, suspend, lay off, recall. recall. discharge, discharge, assig assign n or discipl discipline ine employ employees ees”. ”. Absen Absentt this this cruci crucial al element element,, petitione petitionerr cannot cannot be considere considered d a manageria manageriall employee despite his designation as District Sales Manager. Disposition Petition is granted. NLRC decision is reversed and set aside. Samson is reinstated to his position without loss of seniority rights and is awarded payment of his full backwages.

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC V TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNIONPGTWO 395 SCRA 699 CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003 NATURE Petition Petition for Certiorari Certiorari under Rule 45 THIGCI THIGCI assailin assailing g CA decision decision denying its petition petition to annul annul the Department Department of  Labor and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and December 29, 1998

FACTS - October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THE (THEU) U),, Phil Philip ippi pine ne Trans Transpo port rt and and Gene Genera rall Work Worker ers s Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor organization said to represent majority of the rankand-file employees employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification elect election ion before before the DOLE DOLE Media Mediatio tion-A n-Arbi rbitra tratio tion n Unit, Unit, Regional Branch No. IV - November November 27, 1997 > opposed opposed petition for certific certification ation election because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signature signatures s of superviso supervisors, rs, resigned resigned,, terminate terminated d and abse absent nt with withou outt leav leave e (AWO (AWOL) L) empl employ oyee ees, s, as well well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and and sepa separa rate te from from THIG THIGCI CI;; and and that that out out of the the 192 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. Also, some of the signatures in the list of union union members members were secured through fraudulent fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the handwritten denia deniall and and withdr withdraw awal al of some some of its emplo employee yees s from from participating participating in the petition.  THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizat organizations ions pursuant pursuant to DOLE Department 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 legitimate organization. organization. Therefore, the Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Department Order No. 09, automatic automaticall ally y order the conduct of a certification election. - January January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbite Med-Arbiterr Anastacio Anastacio Bactin ordered the holding of a certification election election

Labor Law 2

A2010 1

- DOLE Resolution of November 12, 1998 > setting aside the  June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election. MFR denied denied - CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. 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. allegations.

- 26 -

Disini

ISSUES

were their leaders. - NLRC NLRC ruled ruled in favor of the school, school, declari declaring ng that the management prerogative on retirement of EEs was validly exerc exercise ised. d. Also, Also, it gave, gave, as anothe anotherr justi justific ficati ation on for the retire retireme ment, nt, the reason reason that that as manag manageri erial al employ employee ees s (LLagas was the Dean of Student Affairs while Javier was the Subject Subject Area Coordinator), Coordinator), when they joined and became became officers officers of the union. They lost the trust and confidenc confidence e of  the school. They allowed their loyalties be divided between the union and the school. - appeal of the union to the CA was granted, saying that the retirement of the 2 union officers was a mere subterfuge to bust the union. The school then filed this petition.

1. WON the inclusion of the supervisors should affect the result of the certification election

ISSUE/S

HELD 1. NO Reasoning Article 245 of the Labor Code 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 rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. - As this Court put it in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor : Designation Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of subject employees x x x The mere fact that an employee is designated manager manager does not necessarily make him one. Otherwise, there would be an absurd situation where one can be given the title just to be deprived of the right to be a member of  a union. In the case of National Steel Corporation vs. Laguesma (G. R. No. 103743, January 29, 1996), it was stressed that:

What is essential is the nature of the employee’s 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.

Disposition Petition is DENIED. Let the records of the case be remanded to the office of origin, the Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regi Region onal al Bran Branch ch No. No. IV, IV, for for the the imme immedi diat ate e cond conduc uctt of a cert certif ific icat atio ion n elec electi tion on subj subjec ectt to the the usua usuall prepre-el elec ecti tion on conference.

CAINTA CATHOLIC SCHOOL V CAINTA CATHOLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES’ UNION 489 SCRA 468 TINGA; May 4, 2006 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari

FACTS - the school and union entered into a CBA. Then the union in the school became inactive for several years. When it became active again, led by Llagas (Pres) and Javier (VP), the school decided to enfo enforc rce e the the prov provis isio ion n on the the CBA CBA re: re: reti retire reme ment nt (tha (thatt management can retire an employee if s/he has reached age of  60 or rendered at least 20 years of service, the last 3 years continuous). The school retired Llagas and Javier, both having rendered more than 20 years of continuous service. The union struck, alleging unfair labor practice and unlawful termination.  The school countered with a petition to declare the strike illegal. - school claims that it could validly retire Llagas and Javier, at its prerogative granted to it by law and the CBA. Union claims that retirement was equivalent equivalent to union busting, as the dismissed EEs

WON Llagas and Javier were managerial EES, thus making the strike called by the union on their behalf (as unqualified union members) illegal

HELD  YES Ratio  The 2 employees are not rank and file employees, thus disqualified from joining a union. Thus, the strike called in their behalf is illegal. Reasoning Art.212(m) defines a managerial employee as: one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspe suspend, nd, lay-o lay-off, ff, recal recall, l, disch discharg arge, e, assig assign n or discip disciplin line e employee employees, s, or to effectiv effectively ely recommend recommend such managerial managerial actions. On the other hand, Supervisory EEs are those

who, in the interest of the ER, effectively recommend such such mana manage geri rial al acti action ons s if the the exer exerci cise se of such such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment.

- court reviewed the functions of the positions of the retired EEs found in the Faculty Manual in order to determine their classification. As the Dean of Student Affairs, Llagas was clea clearl rly y a mana manage geri rial al empl employ oyee ee.. As a Subj Subjec ectt Area Area Coordinator, Javier falls under supervisory EEs - thus, Llagas is proscribed from joining a labor union, more so being elected as union officer. In the case of Javier, a supervisory EE, she may join a labor union composed only of  supervisor supervisory y employee employees. s. Finding Finding both union union officers officers to be empl employ oyee ees s not not belo belong ngin ing g to the the rank rank-a -and nd-f -fil ile, e, thei theirr memb member ersh ship ip in the the Unio Union n has has beco become me ques questi tion onab able le,, rendering the Union inutile to represent their cause. Disposition Petition is granted. NLRC resolution reinstated.

PENARADA VS BANGANGA PLYWOOD CORP. AND HUDSON CHUA 489 SCRA 95 PANGANIBAN; May 3, 2006 NATURE Petition for review under rule 45 of the ROC

FACTS - Charli Charlito to Peñar Peñarand anda a was was hired hired as a forema foreman/b n/boil oiler/ er/shi shift ft engineer of Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. - He file filed d a comp compla lain intt for for ille illega gall dism dismis issa sall with with mone money y claims. He claims that he was was not paid his overtime pay, premium pay for working during holidays/rest days, night shift shift differ different entia ials ls and final finally ly claim claims s for payme payment nt of  damage damages s and and attorn attorney’ ey’s s fees fees having having been been forced forced to litigate the present complaint. - BPC BPC on the the othe otherr hand hand claim claims s that that Pena Penara rand nda’ a’s s the the separation from service was due to the temporary closure due to repair and general maintenance of the company. When BPC partially reopened, Peñaranda failed to reapply.

Labor Law 2

A2010

Hence, he was not terminated from employment much less illegall illegally. y. He opted opted to severe severe employme employment nt when when he insisted insisted payment payment of his separation separation benefits. benefits. Furthermore, Furthermore, being a managerial employee he is not entitled to overtime pay and if  ever he rendered services beyond the normal hours of work, [there] was no office order/or authorization for him to do so. - LA found found Penaran Penaranda da to be entit entitled led of the overtim overtime e pay and premium premium pay. pay. NLRc, NLRc, deleted deleted the award award because because he was a managerial employee. CA dismissed Penaranda’s petition for certiorari.

Disini

- 27 -

labor centers: Provided, however, That aliens working in the country country with valid permits issued by the Department Department of  Labor Labor and and Employ Employmen ment, t, may may exerci exercise se the right right to selfselforganization and join or assist labor organizations of their own own choo choosi sing ng for for purp purpose oses s of coll collec ecti tive ve barg bargai aini ning ng:: Provided, further, That said aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers. (As amended by Section 29, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

5.

ISSUE WON Penaranda is a regular, common employee entitled to overtime pay and other monetary benefits.

HELD NO. - Manageri Managerial al employee employees s and members members of the managerial managerial staff  staff  are exempted from the provisions of the Labor Code on labor standards. Since petitioner belongs to this class of employees, he is not entitled entitled to overti overtime me pay and premi premium um pay for working on rest days.

-  The Court disagrees with the NLRC’s finding that the petitioner was a managerial managerial employee. employee. However, he was was a member member of  the managerial staff, which also takes him out of the coverage of labor standards. Like managerial employees, officers

and members of the managerial staff are not entitled to the provisions of law on labor standards.

-

Article 82 of the Labor Code exempts managerial employees from the coverage of labor standards. Labor standards provide the working conditions of employees, including entitlement to overti overtime me pay pay and premium premium pay for workin working g on rest rest days. days. Under Under this provision, provision, managerial managerial employees employees are "those whose primary duty consists of the management of the esta establ blis ishm hmen entt in whic which h they they are are empl employ oyed ed or of a depart departmen mentt or subdiv subdivisi ision. on." " (1) Their Their primar primary y duty  duty  consists consists of the management management of the establishment establishment in whic which h they they are are empl employ oyed ed or of a depa depart rtme ment nt or  subdivision thereof; (2) They customarily customarily and regularly  direct the work work of two or more employees employees therein; (3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and   recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other  employees are given particular weight. - Penar Penaran anda’ da’s s duty duty as a shift shift engin enginee eer, r, parti particul cularl arly, y, ((1)To ((1)To supply the required and continuous steam to all consuming units at minimum cost, (2) To supervise, check and monitor manpower manpower workmanship workmanship as well as operation operation of boiler boiler and accessories, (3) To evaluate performance of machinery and manpower, (5) To train new employees for effective and safety while working) illustrates that petitioner was a member of the managerial staff. His duties and responsibilities responsibilities conform to the defini definitio tion n of a membe memberr of a manage manageria riall staff staff under under the Implementing Implementing Rules. He supervised the engineering engineering section of  the steam steam plant plant boile boiler. r. His work work involv involved ed overse overseei eing ng the operation of the machines and the performance of the workers in the engineering section. This work necessarily required the use of discreti discretion on and independen independentt judgment judgment to ensure ensure the proper functioning of the steam plant boiler. As supervisor, petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial managerial staff. - On the basis basis of the foregoing, the Court finds no justification justification to awar award d over overti time me pay pay and and prem premiu ium m pay pay for for rest rest days days to petitioner.

4.

Aliens

ART. 269. Prohibiti Prohibition on against against aliens; aliens; exceptio exceptions. ns. - All aliens, aliens, natural or juridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibite prohibited d from engaging engaging directly directly or indirectl indirectly y in all forms of  trade trade union union activ activiti ities es witho without ut prejud prejudic ice e to normal normal contac contacts ts between between Philippi Philippine ne labor unions unions and recognize recognized d internati international onal

Secur curity ity Gua Guarrds

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY V SECRETARY  OF LABOR. 197 SCRA 275 MEDIALDEA; May 20, 1991 NATURE: Petition for review FACTS: - The The Staf Stafff and and Tech Techni nica call Empl Employ oyee ees s Asso Associ ciat atio ion n of  MERA MERALC LCO O file filed d a peti petiti tion on for for cert certif ific icat atio ion n elec electi tion on to represent regular employees of MERALC0 who are: (a) non managerial employees with Pay Grades VII and above; (b) non-managerial employees in the Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services Section. Secretaries who are automatically removed from the bargaining unit; and (c) employees within the rank and file unit who are automaticall automatically y disquali disqualified fied from becoming union members of any organization within the same bargaining unit. MERALCO moved for dismissal of the petition on ground that some some of the the empl employ oyee ees s they they soug sought ht to repr repres esen entt are are security services personnel who are prohibited from joining or assisting the rank-and-file rank-and-file union

ISSUE:WON Security Guards may join a rank and file organization HELD: -Pres -Pres.. Corazon Corazon C. Aquino Aquino issue issued d E.O. No. 111 which which elimina eliminated ted the disquali disqualifica fication tion of security security guards. guards. While While therefore under the old rules, security guards were barred from joining a labor organization of the rank and file, under RA 6715, they may now freely join a labor organization of  the rank and file or that o f the supervisory union, depending on their their rank. By accommod accommodatin ating g superviso supervisory ry employee employees, s, the Secretary of Labor must likewise apply the provisions of  RA 6715 to security guards by favorably allowing them free access access to a labor labor organiza organization, tion, whether whether rank and file or supervisor supervisory, y, in recogniti recognition on of their their constitut constitutiona ionall right to self-organization. - The implementing rules of RA 6715, therefore, insofar as they disqualify security guards from joining a rank and file organization are null and void, for being not germane to the object and purposes of EO 111 and RA 6715 upon which such rules purportedly derive statutory moorings.

2.4

WORKERS WITH NO RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION

1. MANA MANAGE GERI RIAL AL AND AND CONF CONFID IDEN ENTI TIAL AL EMPLOYEES

SEC. 8. Article 245 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “ART. 245. Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to   Joi Join n any any Labo Laborr Orga Organi niza zati tion on;; Righ Rightt of  Supervisory Employees. - Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assi ssist or form form any lab labor orga organi niza zati tion on.. Superv perviisory sory empl employ oyee ees s shal shalll not not be elig eligib ible le for for memb member ersh ship ip in the the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units

Labor Law 2

A2010

and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors’ union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national union.”

 TEST

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION, VS. LAGUESMA 277 SCRA 370 (1997) ROMERO, J.: NATURE Petition for Certiorari FACTS -On -On Octo Octobe berr 5, 1990, 990, peti petiti tion oner er unio union n file filed d befo before re the the Departmen Departmentt of Labor Labor and Employment Employment (DOLE) a Petition Petition for Dire Direct ct Cert Certif ific icat atio ion n or Cert Certif ific icat atio ion n Elec Electi tion on amon among g the the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis. -On December 19, 1990, Med-Arbiter Danilo L. Reynante issued an Order ordering the conduct of certification election election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Produc Products ts Plants Plants of Cabuy Cabuyao, ao, San San Ferna Fernando ndo and and Otis Otis as ONE ONE BARGAINING UNIT. -On -On Janua January ry 18, 1991, 1991, respon responde dent nt San San Miguel Miguel Corpora Corporatio tion n appealed pointing out, among others, the Med-Arbiter's error in grouping together all three (3) separate plants, Otis, Cabuyao and San Fernando, Fernando, into one bargaining bargaining unit, and in including including SUPERVIS SUPERVISORY ORY LEVELS LEVELS 3 AND ABOVE WHOSE WHOSE POSITION POSITIONS S ARE CONFIDENTIAL IN NATURE. -Upo -Upon n peti petiti tion oner er-u -uni nion on's 's moti motion on date dated d Augu August st 7, 1991 1991,, Undersecretary Undersecretary Laguesma granted the reconsideration reconsideration prayed for on September 3, 1991 and directed the conduct of separate cert certif ific icat atio ion n elec electi tion ons s amon among g the the supe superv rvis isors ors rank ranked ed as supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exempt employees in each of the three plants at Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.

ISSUES 1. Whether Whether Supervi Supervisory sory employe employees es 3 and and 4 and the exemp exemptt empl employ oyee ees s of the the comp compan any y are are cons consid ider ered ed conf confid iden enti tial al employees, hence ineligible ineligible from joining a union. 2. Whether or not it was proper for Usec Laguesma to consider that the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit.

HELD 1. NO.

RATIO - An employee of a labor union, or of a management association, must have access to confidential confidential labor r elations information with respect respect to his employer, employer, the union, union, or the association, association, to be regard regarded ed a confid confident entia iall emplo employee yee,, and knowl knowledg edge e of labor labor relations information pertaining pertaining to the companies with which the union deals, or which the association represents, will not cause an empl employ oyee ee to be excl exclud uded ed from from the the barg bargai aini ning ng unit nit representing employees employees of the union or association. - Access to information which is regarded by the employer to be confiden confidential tial from the business business standpoint, standpoint, such as financia financiall inform informati ation on or techni technica call trade trade secret secrets, s, will will not rende renderr an employee a confidential employee."

REASONING -Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidenti confidential al capacity, capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, formulate, determine, determine, and effectuate effectuate management management policies policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a conf confid iden enti tial al empl employ oyee ee that that is, the the conf confid iden enti tial al relationship must exist between the employee and his supe superv rvis isor or,, and and the the supe superv rvis isor or mu must st hand handle le the the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations.

- 28 -

Disini

-The exclusion from bargaining bargaining units of employee employees s who, in the normal course of their duties, become awar aware e of mana manage geme ment nt poli polici cies es rela relatin ting g to labo laborr rela relati tion ons s is a prin princi cipa pall obje object ctiv ive e soug sought ht to be accomplish accomplished ed by the ''confident ''confidential ial employee employee rule." rule." THE BROAD RATIONALE BEHIND THIS RULE IS THAT EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN A POSITION INVOLVIN INVOLVING G A POTENTI POTENTIAL AL CONFLIC CONFLICT T OF INTEREST INTERESTS. S. "Management should not be required to handle labor rela relati tion ons s matt matter ers s thro throug ugh h empl employ oyee ees s who who are are represented represented by the union with which the company company is required to deal and who in the normal performance of their duties may obtain advance information of the comp ompany any's posit ositio ion n with ith regar egard d to contr ontra act negotiatio negotiations, ns, the dispositio disposition n of grievance grievances, s, or other labor relations matters." -AN -AN IMPO IMPORT RTAN ANT T ELEM ELEMEN ENT T OF THE THE "CON "CONFI FIDE DENT NTIA IAL L EMPLOYEE RULE" IS THE EMPLOYEE'S NEED TO USE LABOR RELA RELATI TION ONS S INFO INFORM RMAT ATIO ION. N. Thus Thus,, in dete determ rmin inin ing g the the conf confid iden enti tial alit ity y of cert certai ain n empl employ oyee ees, s, a key key ques questi tion on frequently considered is the employee's necessary access to confidential confidential labor relations information. -Gra -Grant ntin ing g argu arguen endo do that that an empl employ oyee ee has has acce access ss to confidential labor relations information but such is merely incid incident ental al to his dutie duties s and knowledg knowledge e thereo thereoff is not necessary in the performance performance of such duties, duties, said access access does not render the employee a confidential employee. employee. - It must be borne in mind that Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to guarantee to "all" workers workers the right right to self-orga self-organiza nization. tion. Hence, Hence, confiden confidential tial employees who may be excluded from bargaining unit must be strictly defined so as not to needlessly deprive many employee employees s of their their right right to bargain bargain collectivel collectively y through through representatives representatives of their choosing.

-In the case case at bar, bar, super supervis visor ors s 3 and and above above may not be considered confidential employees merely because they handle "confidential data" as such such must must firs firstt be stri strict ctly ly clas classi sifi fied ed as pertai pertainin ning g to labor labor rela relatio tions ns for them them to fall fall under under said restrict restrictions ions.. The informa information tion they handle are properly classifiable as technical and internal business operations data which, to our mind, mind, has has no releva relevance nce to negot negotiat iatio ions ns and settlement of grievances wherein the interests of a union and the management are invariably adversarial. 2. NO

RATIO - An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as "a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than than all all of the the enti entire re body body of empl employ oyee ees, s, whic which h the the collecti collective ve interest interest of all the employee employees, s, consisten consistentt with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal reciprocal rights and duties of the parties parties under under the collective bargaining bargaining provisions of the law." - A unit unit to be appr approp opri riat ate e must must effe effect ct a grou groupi ping ng of  employees who have SUBSTANTIAL, MUTUAL INTERESTS IN WAGE WAGES, S, HOUR HOURS, S, WORK WORKIN ING G COND CONDIT ITIO IONS NS AND AND OTHE OTHER R SUBJECTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

REASONING - It is readily seen that the employees in the instant case have "community "community or mutualit mutuality y of interests, interests,"" which which is the standa standard rd in deter determi minin ning g the proper proper consti constitue tuency ncy of a collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng unit. unit. It is undispute undisputed d that they all belon belong g to the Magno Magnolia lia Poultr Poultry y Divisi Division on of San San Miguel Miguel

Labor Law 2

A2010

Corporatio Corporation. n. This means that, although although they belong belong to three different plants, they perform work of the same nature, receive the same wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities.

-

SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. VS LAGUESMA 325 SCRA 425 QUISUMBING: February 2, 2000 NATURE:

-

Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition

FACTS:

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Disini

- 29 -

-

APSOTEU-TUCP APSOTEU-TUCP members were actually managerial employees who were prohibited by law from joining or organizing unions. DOLE Undersecretary denied SRBI's appeal for lack of meri merit. t. He rule ruled d that that APSO APSOTE TEUU-TU TUCP CP was was a legitimate labor organization. It was fully entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election. He also held that that unti untill and and unle unless ss a fina finall order order is issu issued ed cancelling APSOTEU-TUCP's registration certificate, it had the legal right to represent its members for collective bargaining purposes. SRBI moved for recons onsiderat ration of the Undersecretary's Undersecretary's decision

ISSUE/S: Petit Petition ioner er Sugbu Sugbuan anon on Rural Rural Bank, Bank, Inc., Inc., ( SRBI, for brevity) brevity) is a duly-reg duly-registe istered red banking banking instituti institution on with principal office in Cebu City and a branch in Mandaue City. ty. Priv rivate resp respon ond dent SRBI RBI Ass Associa ociati tion on of  Prof Profes essi sion onal al,, Supe Superv rvis isor ory, y, Offi Office ce,, and and Tech Techni nica call Employ Employee ees s Union Union (APSOT (APSOTEU EU)) is a legit legitima imate te labor labor organization affiliated with the Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines Philippines (TUCP). On October 8, 1993, the DOLE Regional Office in Cebu City granted Certific Certificate ate of Registrati Registration on to APSOTEUAPSOTEU TUCP, hereafter referred to as the union. On Octobe Octoberr 26, 1993, 1993, the union union filed filed a petit petition ion for certifica certification tion election election of the superviso supervisory ry employee employees s of  SRBI. It alleged, among others, that: (1) APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more supervisory empl employ oyee ees; s; (3) (3) a majo majori rity ty of thes these e empl employ oyee ees s supp suppor orte ted d the the peti petiti tion on:: (4) (4) ther there e was was no exis existi ting ng collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng agreemen agreementt (CBA) (CBA) between between any union union and SRBI; and (5) no certifica certification tion election election had been held in SRBI during the past 12 months prior to the petition. On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the union's petition. It sought to prevent the holding of  a certification election on two grounds. First , that the members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial or confidential confidential employees. Second , the the Asso Associ ciat atio ion n of  Labor Unions-Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines or ALU-TUCP was representing the union.  The union filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 1, 1993. It argued that its members were not manag manageri erial al emplo employee yees s but merely merely superv superviso isory ry employees. On Dece Decemb mber er 9, 1993 1993,, the the MedMed-Ar Arbi bite terr deni denied ed petitioner's motion to dismiss. SRBI SRBI appe appeal aled ed the the MedMed-Ar Arbi bite ter's r's deci decisi sion on to the the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The appeal was denied for lack of merit. The certification election was ordered. On June June 16, 1994, 1994, the Med-A Med-Arbi rbiter ter sched schedul uled ed the holding of the certification election for June 29, 1994. On June 17, 1994, SRBI filed with the Med-Arbiter an urgent motion to suspend proceedings. The Med-Arbiter deni denied ed the the same same.. SRBI SRBI then then file filed d a moti motion on for for reco recons nsid ider erat atio ion. n. Two Two days days late later, r, the the MedMed-Ar Arbi bite terr cancelled cancelled the certification certification election scheduled for June 29, 199 1994 in orde orderr to addre ddres ss the the moti otion for for reconsideration.   The Med-Arbi Med-Arbiter ter later later denied denied petition petitioner's er's motion motion for reconsideration SRBI SRBI appea ppeale led d the the orde orderr of deni denial al to the the DOLE DOLE Secretary Petitione Petitionerr proceeded proceeded to file a petition petition with the DOLE Regi Region onal al Offi Office ce seek seekin ing g the the canc cancel ella lati tion on of the the respon responden dentt union union's 's regist registrat ration ion.. It averre averred d that that the

(1) (1) WON WON the the memb member ers s of the the resp respon onde dent nt unio union n are are manageri managerial al employee employees s and/or and/or highly-p highly-place laced d confidenti confidential al emplo employee yees, s, hence hence prohib prohibite ited d by law law from from joinin joining g labor labor organizations and engaging in union activities (2) WON the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification election

HELD: 1. NO Reasoning - Articl Article e 212 (m) of the Labor Labor Code Code defines defines the terms terms "manage "managerial rial employee employee"" and "supervi "supervisory sory employee employees" s" as follows: Art. 212. Definitions (m) "Managerial "Managerial employee" employee" is one who is vested with with powe powers rs or prer prerog ogat ativ ives es to lay lay down down and and execute management policies and/or hire, tr ansfer, susp suspen end, d, laylay-of off, f, reca recall ll,, disc discha harg rge, e, assi assign gn or discipline employees. Supervisory Supervisory employees are thos those e who, who, in the the inte intere rest st of the the empl employ oyer er,, effectively recommend such managerial actions if  the the exer exerci cise se of such such auth author orit ity y is not not mere merely ly routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file rank-and-file employees for purposes of  - Petitioner submitted submitted detailed detailed job descriptions descriptions to support its conten contentio tion n that that the union union membe members rs are mana manager gerial ial employees and/or confidential employees proscribed from engaging in labor activities. In the present case, however, petition petitioner er failed failed to show that the employee employees s in question were vested with managerial powers. At best they only had recommendatory powers subject to evaluation, review, and fina finall deci decisi sion on by the the bank bank's 's mana manage geme ment nt.. The The job job description forms submitted by petitioner clearly show that the union members in question may not transfer, suspend, lay-off, lay-off, recall, recall, discharg discharge, e, assign, assign, or discipli discipline ne employee employees. s. Moreover, Moreover, the forms also do not show that the Cashiers, Cashiers, Accounta Accountants, nts, and Acting Acting Chiefs Chiefs of the Loans Loans Departmen Departmentt formulate formulate and execute execute manageme management nt policies policies which which are normally expected of management management officers.

2. YES

Reasoning

-

One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all employee employees s in an appropria appropriate te bargaini bargaining ng unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a certification election shall automatically  be conducted conducted by the MedMed-Ar Arbi bite terr upon upon the the fili filing ng of a peti petiti tion on by a legitimate labor organization.

Labor Law 2

A2010

DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed.

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHILS. V LAGUESMA 330 SCRA 295 DE LEON; April 12, 2000 NATURE Petition Petition for certiorari certiorari seeking to annul annul the Resolution Resolution and the Order Order Lague Laguesma sma,, acting acting then then as Unders Undersec ecret retary ary,, now the Secretary, of the DOLE

FACTS - PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU) instituted a Petition for Certification Election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP for CBA purposes. - Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU) filed their respective petitions for intervention. - Med-Arbiter granted the petitions for interventions of the FFW and ALU. Another Order set the holding of a certification election among PICOP's supervisory and technical staff employees in  Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, with four (4) choices, namely: (1) PBSTSEU; (2) FFW; (3) ALU; and (4) no union. - PICOP appealed the Order which set the holding of the certification election contending that the Med-Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case without giving PICOP the opportunity to file its comments/answer, comments/answer, and that PBSTSEU had no personality to file the petition for certification election. - DOLE Sec. Drilon upheld the Med-Arbiter's Order with modification allowing allowing the supervising and staff employees in Cebu, Davao and Iligan City to participate in the certification certification election. - PICOP questioned and objected to the inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassified as managerial employees in the light of the reorganization effected by it.

ISSUE WON the positions Section Heads and Supervisors, who have been designated as Section Managers and Unit Managers who were converted to managerial managerial employees are ineligible ineligible for union membership

HELD - NO. 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. - Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers, Middle Managers and First Line Managers. Top and Middle Managers have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies policies while the task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rankand- file employees of an organization. - A thorough dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably show that they are not actually managerial managerial but only supervisory employees since they do not lay down company policies. Any authority they exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final determination determination of the company policies inasmuch as any action taken by them on matters relative to hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension and termination of employees is still subject to confirmation and approval by their respective superior. Disposition

- 30 -

Disini

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the Resolution and Order of public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma dated April 17, 1991 and August 17, 1991, respectively, respectively, finding the subject supervisors and section heads as supervisory employees eligible to vote in the certification election are AFFIRMED.

SAMSON VS NLRC (SCHERING-PLOUGH (SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP) 330 SCRA 460 Kapunan, J.; April 12, 2000 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari

FACTS - Rufi Rufino no Norb Norber erto to F. Sams Samson on was was dism dismis isse sed d from from the the Company for uttering what was considered by the company as obscene, insulting, and offensive words and for making malicious and lewd gestures directed at the President and General Manager of the company during an informal Sales and Marketing gathering in relation to the decision of the Manage Managemen mentt Commi Committe ttee e on a dispute dispute with with another another employee. He was also accused of threatening to disrupt or create violence in a forthcoming National Sales Conference. - The The Labo Laborr Arbi Arbite terr foun found d that that Sams Samson on was was ille illega gall lly y dismissed but the decision was reversed by NLRC.

ISSUE/S WON the dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is valid

HELD No. No. As a grou ground nd for for dism dismis issa sal, l, the the term term “tru “trust st and and confiden confidence” ce” is restricte restricted d to manageri managerial al employe employees. es. And before before one may may be proper properly ly consid considere ered d a manag manageri erial al employee, three conditions must be met:

a. The Their prim rimary ary duty uty consi onsist sts s of the the mana manage geme ment nt of the the esta establ blis ishm hmen entt in which they are employed employed or of a departmen departmentt or subdivision thereof: b. they customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees employees therein; c. They They have have the the auth author orit ity y to hire hire or fire fire othe otherr empl employ oyee ees s of lowe lowerr rank rank;; or thei theirr sugg suggest estio ions ns and and reco recomm mmen enda dati tion ons s as to hiring an firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight. In this case the job description of Samson does not mention that petitioner possesses the power “to lay down policies nor to hire, hire, transfer, transfer, suspend, suspend, lay off, recall. recall. discharge, discharge, assig assign n or discipl discipline ine employ employees ees”. ”. Absen Absentt this this cruci crucial al element element,, petitione petitionerr cannot cannot be considere considered d a manageria manageriall employee despite his designation as District Sales Manager. Disposition Petition is granted. NLRC decision is reversed and set aside. Samson is reinstated to his position without loss of seniority rights and is awarded payment of his full backwages

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHILS. V LAGUESMA 330 SCRA 295 DE LEON; April 12, 2000 NATURE

Labor Law 2

A2010

Petition Petition for certiorari certiorari seeking to annul annul the Resolution Resolution and the Order Order Lague Laguesma sma,, acting acting then then as Unders Undersec ecret retary ary,, now the Secretary, of the DOLE

FACTS - PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTS (PBSTSEU EU)) instit institute uted d a Petit Petition ion for Certi Certific ficati ation on Electi Election on to deter determi mine ne the sole sole and and exclus exclusive ive barga bargaini ining ng agent agent of the superviso supervisory ry and technical technical staff staff employee employees s of PICOP PICOP for CBA purposes. - Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU) filed their respective petitions for intervention. - Med-Arbiter granted the petitions for interventions of the FFW and ALU. Another Order set the holding of a certification certification election among among PICOP's PICOP's superviso supervisory ry and technica technicall staff employees employees in  Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, with four (4) choices, namely: (1) PBSTSEU; (2) FFW; (3) ALU; and (4) no union. - PICO PICOP P appe appeal aled ed the the Orde Orderr whic which h set set the the hold holdin ing g of the the certification election contending that the Med-Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case without giving PICOP PICOP the opportunity opportunity to file its comments/a comments/answe nswer, r, and that PBSTSEU had no personality to file the petition for certification election. - DOLE DOLE Sec. Sec. Dril Drilon on uphe upheld ld the the MedMed-Ar Arbi bite ter's r's Orde Orderr with with modifica modification tion allowing allowing the supervisi supervising ng and staff staff employee employees s in Cebu, Davao and Iligan City to participate in the certification election. - PICOP questioned and objected to the inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassified as managerial employees in the light of the reorganization effected by it.

Disini

- 31 CAINTA CATHOLIC SCHOOL V CAINTA CATHOLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES’ UNION 489 SCRA 468 TINGA; May 4, 2006 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari

FACTS

WON the positions positions Section Heads and Superviso Supervisors, rs, who have been designated as Section Managers and Unit Managers who were converted to managerial managerial employees are ineligible for union membership

- the school and union entered into a CBA. Then the union in the school school became became inacti inactive ve for severa severall years years.. When When it became active again, led by Llagas (Pres) and Javier (VP), the school decided to enforce the provision on the CBA re: retirement (that management can retire an employee if s/he has reached age of 60 or rendered at least 20 years of  service, service, the last 3 years years continuou continuous). s). The school school retired retired Llagas and Javier, both having rendered more than 20 years of continuous service. The union struck, alleging unfair labor practice practice and unlawful unlawful termination. termination. The school school countered countered with a petition to declare the strike illegal. - school claims that it could validly retire Llagas and Javier, at its prerogative granted to it by law and the CBA. Union claims that retirement was equivalent to union busting, as the dismissed EEs were their leaders. - NLRC NLRC ruled ruled in favor of the school, school, declari declaring ng that the management prerogative on retirement of EEs was validly exerc exercise ised. d. Also, Also, it gave, gave, as anothe anotherr justi justific ficati ation on for the retire retireme ment, nt, the reason reason that that as manag manageri erial al employ employee ees s (LLagas was the Dean of Student Affairs while Javier was the Subject Subject Area Coordinator), Coordinator), when they joined and became became officers officers of the union. They lost the trust and confidenc confidence e of  the school. They allowed their loyalties be divided between the union and the school. - appeal of the union to the CA was granted, saying that the retirement of the 2 union officers was a mere subterfuge to bust the union. The school then filed this petition.

HELD

ISSUE/S

- NO. The mere fact that an employee is designated designated “manager” “manager” does does not ipso ipso facto facto make make him him one. one. Desig Designat nation ion shoul should d be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of employment. - Manageri Managerial al employee employees s are ranked as Top Managers, Managers, Middle Managers Managers and First Line Managers. Managers. Top and Middle Managers Managers have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rankand- file employees of an organization. - A thorough dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably show that they are not actually managerial managerial but only supervisory employees since they do not lay down company policies. Any authority they exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final determination of the company policies inasmuch as any any acti action on take taken n by them them on matt matter ers s rela relati tive ve to hiri hiring ng,, promotion, transfer, suspension and termination of employees is still still subject subject to confirmati confirmation on and approval by their their respectiv respective e superior. - Thus, where such power, which is in effect RECOMMENDATORY in character, is SUBJECT TO EVALUATION, REVIEW, and FINAL ACTION by department heads and other higher executives executives of the company. The same, although present, is not effective and not an exercise of  INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT as required by law.

WON Llagas and Javier were managerial EES, thus making the strike called by the union on their behalf (as unqualified union members) illegal

ISSUE

Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the Resolution and Order of public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma dated April 17, 1991 and August 17, 1991, respectively, finding the subject supervisors and section heads as supervisory employees eligible to vote in the certification election are AFFIRMED.

HELD  YES Ratio  The 2 employees are not rank and file employees, thus disqualified from joining a union. Thus, the strike called in their behalf is illegal. Reasoning Art.212(m) defines a managerial employee as: one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspe suspend, nd, lay-o lay-off, ff, recal recall, l, disch discharg arge, e, assig assign n or discip disciplin line e employee employees, s, or to effectiv effectively ely recommend recommend such managerial managerial actions. On the other hand, Supervisory EEs are those

who, in the interest of the ER, effectively recommend such such mana manage geri rial al acti action ons s if the the exer exerci cise se of such such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment.

- court reviewed the functions of the positions of the retired EEs found in the Faculty Manual in order to determine their classification. As the Dean of Student Affairs, Llagas was clea clearl rly y a mana manage geri rial al empl employ oyee ee.. As a Subj Subjec ectt Area Area Coordinator, Javier falls under supervisory EEs - thus, Llagas is proscribed from joining a labor union, more so being elected as union officer. In the case of Javier, a supervisory EE, she may join a labor union composed only of  supervisor supervisory y employee employees. s. Finding Finding both union union officers officers to be empl employ oyee ees s not not belo belong ngin ing g to the the rank rank-a -and nd-f -fil ile, e, thei theirr memb member ersh ship ip in the the Unio Union n has has beco become me ques questi tion onab able le,, rendering the Union inutile to represent their cause. Disposition Petition is granted. NLRC resolution reinstated.

Labor Law 2

A2010

PROHIBITION AND RATIONALE METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC VS ROLDANCONFESSOR 254 SCRA 182 KAPUNAN; February 28, 1996 NATURE Petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of the Resolution and Omnibus Resolution of the Secretary of L abor and Employment

FACTS - On 31 December 1990, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Metrolab and the Private respondent Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association-Federation Association-Federation of Free Workers (hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as the Union) expired. The negotiations for a new CBA, however, ended in a deadlock. The Union filed a notice of strike against Metrolab and Metro Drug Inc. The parties failed to settle their dispute despite the conciliation efforts of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. -To contain the escalating dispute, the then Secretary of Labor and Employment, Ruben D. Torres, issued an assumption order, the dispositive portion of which states, among others:  Accordingly, any strike or lockout is hereby strictly enjoined . The Companies and the Metro Drug Corp . Employees Association ? FFW are likewise directed to cease and desist from committing any and all acts that might exacerbate the situation . - Thereafter, the union filed a motion for reconsideration. during the pendency of the abovementioned motion for r econsideration, econsideration, Metrolab laid off 94 of its rank and file employees. On the same date, the Union filed a motion for a cease and desist order to enjoin Metrolab from implementing the mass layoff, alleging that such act violated the prohibition against committing acts that would exacerbate the dispute as specifically specifically directed in the assumption order. 2 - On the other hand, Metrolab contended that the layoff was temporary and in the exercise of its management prerogative. It maint maintai ained ned that that the compa company ny would would suffe sufferr a yearly yearly gross gross revenue loss of approximately sixty-six (66) million pesos due to the the with withdr draw awal al of its its prin princi cipa pals ls in the the Toll Toll and and Cont Contra ract ct Manufacturing Manufacturing Department. - Thereafter, on various dates, Metrolab r ecalled some of the laid off workers on a temporary basis due to availability of work in the production lines.On 14 April 1992, Acting Labor Secretary Nieve Nieves s Confe Confesor sor issued issued a resolu resolutio tion n decla declarin ring g the layoff layoff of  Metrolab' Metrolab's s 94 rank and file workers illegal illegal and ordered their reinstatement with full backwages. - Labor Labor Secret Secretary ary Confe Confesor sor issued issued the assail assailed ed Pendi Pending ng the resolution of the aforestated motions. Metrolab laid off 73 of its employees on grounds of redundancy due to lack of work which the union again promptly opposed on. Labor Secretary Confesor again issued a cease and desist order. Metrolab moved for a reconsiderations. The reconsiderations. The Omnibus Resolution contains the following orders: 1. MII's motion for partial reconsideration of our 14 April 1992 resolution resolution specific specifically ally that portion portion thereof thereof assailin assailing g our ruling that the layoff of the 94 employees is illegal, is hereby denied. MII is hereby ordered to pay such employees their full backwages computed from the time of actual layoff to the time of actual actual recal recall; l; Labor Labor Secret Secretary ary Confes Confesor or also also ruled ruled that that execu executiv tive e secret secretari aries es are exclud excluded ed from from the close closed-s d-shop hop provision of the CBA, not from the bargaining unit.

ISSUE/S 1. WON the Sec of Labor erred in declaring declaring the temporary temporary layoff  ille illega gal, l, and and order orderin ing g the the rein reinst stat atem emen entt and and paym paymen entt of  backwages to the affected employees 2. WON WON the the Sec Sec of Labor Labor erred erred in exclu excludi ding ng execu executi tive ve secret secretari aries es as part part of the bargaini bargaining ng unit unit of rank rank and and file file employees

HELD

- 32 -

Disini

1. NO Ratio   Thi This s Cour Courtt reco recogn gniz izes es the the exer exerci cise se of mana manage geme ment nt prer prerog ogat ativ ives es and and ofte often n decl declin ines es to inte interf rfer ere e with with the the legitimate legitimate business decisions of the employer. However, this privilege is not absolute but subject to limitations imposed by law. Reasoning -That -That Metrol Metrolab' ab's s busin business ess is of natio nationa nall intere interest st is not disputed. Metrolab is one of the leading manufacturers and supplie suppliers rs of medical medical and pharmace pharmaceutic utical al products products to the country.Metrolab's management management prerogatives, therefore, are not being being unjustly unjustly curtailed curtailed but duly balanced balanced with and tempered by the limitations set by law, taking into account its special character and the particular circumstances in the case at bench.

- As aptly declared by public respondent Secretary of Labor in its assailed resolution: one of the substantive evils which Articl Article e 263 (g) of the Labor Labor Code Code seeks seeks to curb curb is the exacerbation of a labor dispute to the further detriment of  the national national interest interest.. When When a labor labor dispu dispute te has in fact fact occu occurre rred d and and a gene genera rall inju injunc ncti tion on has has been been issu issued ed restraining the commission of disruptive acts, management prerogatives must always be exercise consistently with the statutory objective. 2. NO Ratio Alth Althou ough gh Arti Articl cle e 245 245 of the the Labo Laborr Code Code 20 limits limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to manageri managerial al employee employees, s, jurisprud jurisprudence ence has extended extended this prohib prohibiti ition on to confid confident entia iall employ employee ees s or those those who who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and and hence hence,, are likew likewise ise privy privy to sensit sensitive ive and and highl highly y confidential confidential records Reasoning In the case at bench bench,, the Union does not disagre disagree e with with petition petitioner er that the executiv executive e secretari secretaries es are confiden confidential tial empl employ oyee ees. s. (I)n (I)n the the coll collec ecti tive ve barg bargai aini ning ng proc proces ess, s, managerial managerial employees are supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that its interest are well protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if these employees themselves are union members. members. Collecti Collective ve bargaini bargaining ng in such a situation situation can become one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. 245 as if the disquali disqualifica fication tion of confident confidential ial employee employees s were written written in the provision. provision. If confidenti confidential al employee employees s could could unionize unionize in order to bargain bargain for advantage advantages s for themselv themselves, es, then they could could be governed governed by their their own motives motives rather rather than the inte intere rest st of the the empl employ oyer ers. s. More Moreov over er,, unio unioni niza zati tion on of  conf confid iden enti tial al empl employ oyee ees s for for the the purp purpos ose e of coll collec ecti tive ve bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act "in the interest of the empl employ oyer ers. s. It is not not farf farfet etch ched ed that that in the the cour course se of  collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining, ng, they might might jeopardi jeopardize ze that interest interest which they are duty-bound to protect.

Petition is partly partly granted. granted. The resolution resolutions s of  Disposition Petition the Sec of Labor are hereby MODIFIED to the extent that execu executiv tive e secret secretari aries es of petiti petitione onerr Metrol Metrolab' ab's s Genera Generall Manager and the executive secretaries of the members of  its its Mana Manage geme ment nt Comm Commit itte tee e are are excl exclud uded ed from from the the bargaining bargaining unit of petitioner's rank and file employees.

PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS VS SEC. OF LABOR (PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION-UOEF)

Labor Law 2

A2010

312 SCRA 104 PURISIMA; August 10, 1999 NATURE Petitions for certiorari FACTS - the Pepsi-Co Pepsi-Cola la Employee Employees s Organiza Organizationtion-UOEF UOEF (Union) filed filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive bargaining agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI). -the Med-Arbiter granted the Petition, with the explicit statement that that it was an affili affiliate ate of Union Union de Obrero Obreros s Estiva Estivador dores es de Filipinas (federation) together with two (2) rank and file unions. Pepsi-Cola Labor Unity (PCLU) and Pepsi-Cola Employees Union of the Philippines (PEUP). - PEPSI filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to Set Aside, Cancel and/or Revoke Charter Affiliation of the Union on the grounds that (a) the members of the Union were managers and (b) a supervisors' union can not affiliate with a federation whose members include the rank and file union of the same company. - the Federation argued that:   The pertinent portion of Art.245 of the Labor Code states that. "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 organization of their own.  This provision of law does not prohibit a local union composed of  superviso supervisory ry employee employees s from being being affiliat affiliated ed to a federatio federation n which has local unions with rank-and-file members as affiliates. - the Secretary of Labor and Employment, sent in a Comment, alleging inter alia, that: …Art …Art.. 245 245 of the the New New Labo Laborr Code Code does does not not prec preclu lude de the the super supervis visor's or's union union and the rankrank-an and-f d-fil ile e union union from from being being affiliated affiliated with the same federation. A federation of local union is not the labor organization referred to in Art.245 but only becomes entitled to all the rights enjoyed by the labor organization (at the company level) when it has complied with the registration requirements found in Art.234 and 237. Hence, Hence, what what is prohibite prohibited d by Art.245 is membersh membership ip of  supervisory employees in a labor union (at the company level) of  the rank and file. . . . . . . In other words, the affiliation of the supervisory employee's union union with the same federatio federation n with which the rank and file emplo employee yees s union union is affil affiliat iated ed did not make make the superv superviso isory ry employees members of the rank and file employee's union and vice versa.2 . . . - PEPSI, in its Reply, asserted: It is our humble contention contention that a final final determinatio determination n of the Petition Petition to Set-Aside Set-Aside,, Cancel, Cancel, Revoke Revoke Charter Charter Union Union Affiliat Affiliation ion should first be disposed of before granting the Petition for the Conduct of Certification Certification Election. - Petitioner again filed a Supplemental Supplemental Reply stressing:   The respondent respondent supervisor supervisory y union union could could do indirec indirectly tly what what it could not do directly as the simple expedient of affiliating with UOEF would negate the manifest intent and letter of the law that supervisory employees can only "join, assist or form separate labor labor organiza organizations tions of their their own" and cannot cannot "be eligible eligible for memb member ersh ship ip in a labo laborr organ organiz izat atio ion n of the the rank rank and and file file employees."

ISSUES 1. WON WON a supe superv rvis isors ors'' unio union n can can affi affili liat ate e with with the the same same Federation of which 2 rank and file unions are likewise members, members, without violating Art. 245 of the Labor Code 3 3

Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial 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 rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.

- 33 -

Disini

2. WON WON the Petit Petition ion to cance cancel/r l/revo evoke ke regist registrat ration ion is a prejudicial prejudicial question to the petition for certification certification election. 3. WON confidential employees can join the labor union of  the rank and file.

HELD 1. NO Ratio If the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting inter interest ests, s, then then a local local superv superviso isors' rs' union union should should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of  rank-andrank-and-file file employee employees s where where that federati federation on actively actively participates participates in union activity in the company. Reasoning  The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors' wanting to join a rankand-file and-file union. The prohibiti prohibition on extends extends to a supervisor supervisors' s' 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 at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit. 2. NO Ratio   The The Court Court appli applies es the estab establis lishe hed d rule rule correc correctly tly followed by the public respondent that an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing the cancellation. cancellation. 3. NO Ratio A confi confiden dentia tiall emplo employee yee is one entrus entrusted ted with with conf confid iden ence ce on deli delica cate te matt matter ers, s, or with with the the cust custod ody, y, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. While While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles singles out manageri managerial al emplo employee yee as ineli ineligib gible le to join, join, assis assistt or form any labor labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication, implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified. Reasoning - if these these manage manageria riall emplo employee yees s would would belong belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of  their their loyal loyalty ty to the Union Union in view view of evide evident nt confli conflict ct of  interests. The Union can also become company dominated with with the presen presence ce of manag manageri erial al emplo employee yees s in Union Union membership." - 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 interest are well protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if  these employees themselves are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can become one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the positi position on of confid confident entia iall employ employees ees as includ included ed in the disqualification found in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of  confiden confidential tial employees employees were written in the provision. provision. If  confidential 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, Moreover, unioniza unionization tion of confident confidential ial employee employees s 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.

DISPOSITION Petitions DISMISSED but Decision of the Secretary of Labor is MODIFIED MODIFIED in that Credit and Collecti Collection on Managers Managers and Accounting Managers are highly confidential employees not eligible for membership in a supervisors' union.

Labor Law 2

A2010

- 34 -

Disini

FACTS

2. WORKER WORKER/ME /MEMBE MBER R OF OF COOPER COOPERATI ATIVE VE

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v CALLEJA 180 SCRA 740 Cortes; Dec.29, 1989 NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the resolution of the Director of  the Bureau of Labor Relations

FACTS - A certi certific ficati ation on elect election ion was was held held to determ determine ine which of 2 BENECO (Benguet Electric Cooperative) labor unions would be the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all rank and file employees of BENECO. The 2 disputing labor unions were: 1. BWLU-ADLO (Benguet electric cooperative Workers’ Labor UnionAssociat Association ion of Democrat Democratic ic Labor Organizatio Organizations) ns) and 2. BELU (BENECO Employees Labor Union) - After BELU won, BENECO filed a protest claiming that some employees who are members and co-owners of the cooperative had had voted voted in the electio election n when when they they are inelig ineligibl ible e to do so. BENECO claimed that these employees are not eligible to form,  join or assist labor orgs. of their own choosing because they are members and joint owners of the cooperative. BENECO’s protest was dismissed by the med-arbiter. - Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) director 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.

ISSUE 1. WON employees of a cooperative are qualified to form or join a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining bargaining

HELD 1. NO Ratio  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. But employees who are neither members nor co-owners of the cooperative are entitled to exercise the rights to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiation as mandated by the 1987 Constitution and applicable statutes. Reasoning As members of the cooperative they are co-owners thereo thereof. f. As such, such, they they cannot cannot invoke invoke the right right to colle collecti ctive ve bargaining for “certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself  or his co-owners.” (Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, Ferrer-Calleja, et al.) - The fact that the members-e members-empl mployees oyees of petitione petitionerr do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative does not not make make them them elig eligib ible le to form form,, assi assist st or join join a labo laborr organ organiza izatio tion n for the purpos purpose e of collec collectiv tive e barga bargaini ining ng with with petitioner. It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvem involvement ent in the manageme management nt thereof, thereof, which which disquali disqualifies fies a memb member er from from join joinin ing g any any labo laborr orga organi niza zati tion on with within in the the coop cooper erat ativ ive. e. Thus Thus,, irre irresp spec ecti tive ve of the the degr degree ee of thei theirr 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. bargaining. Disposition Petit Petition ion is grante granted. d. Resolu Resolutio tion n of respon responden dentt director of BLR is annulled. annulled. Certification election is set aside.

CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE V DOLE SECRETARY  201 SCRA 584 REGALADO; September 13, 1991 NATURE Special civil action for certiorari

- Petitioner Central Central Negros Negros Electric Electric Cooperati Cooperative, ve, Inc. (CENECO) seeks to annul the order issued by then Acting Secre Secretar tary y of Labor Labor Lague Laguesma sma decla declarin ring g the proje projecte cted d certification election unnecessary and directing petitioner CENE CENECO CO to cont contin inue ue reco recogn gniz izin ing g priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nt (CURE) as the CENECO CENECO Union of Rational Rational Employee Employees s (CURE) sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rankand-file employees of petitioner's electric cooperative. - Previous events: Their CBA was valid for a term of 3 years; CURE then wrote CENECO CENECO proposing proposing that negotiat negotiations ions be conducte conducted d for a new agreement. agreement. CENECO CENECO denied CURE's request on the ground that, under applicable decisions

of the Supreme Court, employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union.

- CURE filed a petition for direct recognition or for certification election; election; CENECO filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of legal restraints. - Some employees of CENECO then filed for withdrawal of  membership in the cooperative but CENECO contended that this cannot be allowed.

ISSUE/S 1. WON WON the the empl employ oyee ees s were were allo allowe wed d to with withdr draw aw membership from the cooperative so as to entitle them to form or join CURE for purposes of the negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement

HELD 1. YES Ratio Membership in the cooperative is on a voluntary Hence, withdraw withdrawal al therefrom therefrom cannot cannot be restricted restricted basis. Hence, unnecessarily. The right to join an organization necessarily  includes the equivalent right not to join the same .

No Right of Self-Organization: WORKER/MEMBER OF COOPERATIVE - It was held in Batangas I Electric Cooperative Labor Union vs. Romeo A. Young that "employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join unions for purposes purposes of collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng agree agreemen ment, t, for certa certainl inly y an owner owner canno cannott bargai bargain n with with himself or his co-owners." - However, nowhere in said case is it stated that memberempl employ oyee ees s are are proh prohib ibit ited ed from from with withdr draw awin ing g thei theirr membership in the cooperative in order to join a labor union. Disposition The questioned order is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The med-arbiter is hereby ordered to conduct a certification election among the rank-and- file employees of  CENECO with CURE and No Union as the choices therein.

3. NONNON-EM EMP PLOYE LOYEES ES

REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES UNION - NATU v LAGUESMA 264 SCRA 637 PUNO; Nov 21, 1996 NATURE Petition for certiorari

FACTS -on Janua January ry 21, 1991, 1991, Repub Republic lic Plante Planters rs Bank Bank Genera Generall Services Services Employee Employees s Union-Nat Union-Nationa ionall Associat Association ion of Trade Unions (petitioner) filed a petition for certification election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all all regula regularr employ employees ees outsid outside e the barga bargaini ining ng unit unit of 

Labor Law 2

A2010

Republic Planters Bank. -The -The prop propos osed ed barg bargai aini ning ng unit unit is comp compos osed ed of cler clerks ks,, messenge messengers, rs, janitors, janitors, plumbers, plumbers, telex telex operators, operators, mailing mailing and printing personnel, drivers, mechanics and computer personnel. Alleg Allegedl edly, y, these these emplo employee yees s are regul regular ar emplo employee yees s but are consid considere ered d as contra contractu ctual al employ employees ees by the bank bank and and are excluded from the existing collective bargaining agreement. -The bank filed moved to dismiss the petition for certification elec electi tion on on the the cont conten enti tion ons s that that they they are are empl employ oyed ed on contractual basis, that there was already an existing bargaining unit unit,, and and that that the the peti petiti tion on fail failed ed to stat state e the the numb number er of  employees in the proposed bargaining unit. - The petition petition was dismissed dismissed by the Med-Arbite Med-Arbiter. r. On Dec 21, 1992, Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma reversed the Order of the Med-arbiter. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Usec Laguesma Laguesma modified modified the December December 21, 1992 Resolution, Resolution, finding 6 employees as regular and included in the existing rank and file unit. - Both parties moved for reconside reconsideratio ration. n. Petitione Petitionerr sought sought a ruling ruling that the other workers workers in the proposed proposed bargaining bargaining unit should also be considered regular employees. On Feb 24, 1995, Usec Laguesma issued another Order reinstating the Resolution dated December 21, 1992.

ISSUE WON petitioners have the right to self-organization, and thus be allowed to file a petition for certification election. election.

HELD NO. - In the case of  Singer Sewing Machine Company vs . Drilon, et  al., it was rules that if the union members are not employees, no right to organize for purposes of bargaining, nor to be certified as bargai bargainin ning g agent agent can can be recogn recognize ized. d. Since Since the person persons s invol involved ved are not emplo employee yees s of the company, company, they are not entit entitled led to the constitu constitutio tional nal right right to join join or form form a labor labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining. bargaining. Disposition Petition is dismissed

2.05 2.05 PART PARTY Y PROT PROTEC ECTE TED D

MACTAN WORKERS UNION vs. DON RAMON ABOITIZ, President, Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. 45 SCRA 577 FERNANDO; June 30, 1972

NATURE Appeal from CFI Cebu by intervenor Associated Labor Union

FACTS - The employees and laborers of Cebu Shipyard and Eng’g Works belon belong g to two rival rival unions unions:: the Mactan Mactan Worker Workers s Union Union and Associated Labor Union. - Asso Associ ciat ated ed Labo Laborr Unio Union n (ALU (ALU), ), as excl exclus usiv ive e barg bargai aini ning ng representa representative tive of the workers, entered into a CBA with Cebu Cebu Shipyard where they agreed on a profit-sharing bonus scheme. It was agreed that Cebu Shipyard will release the money to ALU then ALU will deliver it to the members. Any unclaimed money will be returned to the company after 60 days. -The 72 members of Mactan Workers Union failed to get their money (bec they did not like to go to ALU’s office). office). Their money was returned to the company and ALU advised the company not to deliver the amount to the members of the Mactan Workers Union unless ordered by the Court, otherwise the ALU will take steps to protect the interest of its members. -So Cebu Shipyard did not pay to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs, but instead instead,, deposited the said amount with the Labor Administrator. For the recovery recovery of their their money, money, Mactan Mactan Workers filed filed money money claims claims against Cebu Shipyard. -The -The lower lower court court decla declared red the Cebu Cebu Shipya Shipyard rd to delive deliverr the

- 35 -

Disini

money to ALU, and for ALU to distribute it immediately to Mactan Workers members. - ALU appeal appealed, ed, allegin alleging g lack lack of a cause cause of action action,, of   jurisdiction of the City Court of Lapulapu and of personality of the Mactan Workers Union to represent its members.

ISSUES WON CFI Cebu was correct in ordering ALU to deliver Mactan Workers Union’s share

HELD  YES -The lower court just required required literal literal complian compliance ce with the terms of a collective bargaining contract -The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract consti constitut tute e the law between between the partie parties. s. Those Those who who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. In the event that that an obliga obligatio tion n therei therein n impose imposed d is not fulfil fulfille led, d, the aggrieved party has the right to go to court for redress. - The benefits of a collective bargaining agreement

exte extend nd to the the labo labore rers rs and and empl employ oyee ees s in the the collective bargaining unit, including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization. … The labor union that gets the majority vote as the exclusive bargaining representative does not act for its members alone. It represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit.

- The raison d’etre of labor unions: it is not to be forgotten that what is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or more specifically the working men and women, not labor organizat organizations. ions. The latter latter are merely merely the instrumen instrumentali talities ties through which their welfare may be promoted and fostered.  That is the raison d'etre of labor unions. Disposition CFI Decision affirmed

2.06 2.06 NON-AB NON-ABRID RIDGME GMENT NT OF RIGHT RIGHT ART. 246. Non-abridgment of right to self-organization. - It shal shalll be unla unlawf wful ul for for any any pers person on to rest restra rain in,, coer coerce ce,, discriminate against against or unduly interfere with employees and workers workers in their exercise exercise of the right to self-orga self-organiza nization. tion. Such right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor organi organizat zation ions s for the purpos purpose e of colle collecti ctive ve bargai bargaini ning ng throug through h repres represent entati ative ves s of their their own choosi choosing ng and and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the provisions of Article 264 of this Code. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980). ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. - It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: (a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; self-organization; (b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employ employee ee shall shall not join join a labor labor organ organiza izatio tion n or shall shall withdraw from one to which he belongs; (c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce coerce employee employees s in the exercise exercise of their their rights rights to selfselforganization; (d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters; (e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other other terms terms and condit condition ions s of employ employmen mentt in order order to enco encour urag age e or disc discou oura rage ge memb member ersh ship ip in any any labo laborr organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment,

Labor Law 2

A2010

except those employees who are already members of another union union at the time of the signing signing of the collective collective bargaining bargaining agreemen agreement. t. Employee Employees s of an appropria appropriate te bargainin bargaining g unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and othe otherr fees fees paid paid by memb member ers s of the the reco recogn gniz ized ed coll collec ecti tive ve barga bargaini ining ng agent agent,, if such such non-un non-union ion membe members rs accept accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided, that the individ individual ual authoriza authorization tion required required under Article Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of  the recognized collective bargaining agent; (f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code; (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code; (h) To pay negotia negotiatio tion n or attorn attorney’ ey’s s fees fees to the union union or its office officers rs or agents agents as part part of the settleme settlement nt of any issue issue in collective bargaining bargaining or any other dispute; or (i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.  The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, notwithstanding, only the the offi office cers rs and and agen agents ts of corp corpora orati tion ons, s, asso associ ciat atio ions ns or partnershi partnerships ps who have actuall actually y participa participated ted in, authorize authorized d or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981). ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. - It shall be unfair unfair labor labor practice practice for a labor organizati organization, on, its officers, officers, agents or representatives: representatives: (a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership; membership; (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate again against st an employ employee ee,, includ includin ing g discri discrimin minati ation on again against st an empl employ oyee ee with with resp respec ectt to whom whom memb member ersh ship ip in such such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and condition conditions s under under which which membe membersh rship ip or contin continuat uation ion of membe membersh rship ip is made made available available to other members; (c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is the representative of the employees; (d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed, including the demand for fee for union negotiations; (e) To ask ask for or accept accept negotia negotiatio tion n or attorne attorney’s y’s fees from from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining bargaining or any other dispute; or (f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.  The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981).

III. LABOR ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION 3.1 POLICY ART. 211. Declaration of Policy . - A. It is the policy of the State: (b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancem enhancement ent of democrac democracy y and the promotion promotion of social social  justice and development; development; (c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement;

Disini

- 36 -

3.2

LABOR UNIONS

ORGANIZATION

–

DEFINITION

AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CIR 76 SCRA 274 CASTRO; April 15, 1977

Definition of Legitimate Labor Organization: Section 2(e) of R.A. 875 defines "labor organization" as any union or association of employees which exist, in whole or in part, for the purpose of the collective bargaining or dealing with with empl employ oyer ers s conc concer erni ning ng term terms s and and cond condit itio ions ns of  employment." The emphasis of Industrial Peace Act is

clear learly ly on the the purpo urpose ses s for for whic which h a union nion or association of employees established rather than that member membership ship therein therein should should be limite limited d only only to the employees of a particular employer. Under Section 2(h)

of R.A R.A 875 875 "rep "repre rese sent ntat ativ ive" e" is defi define ne as incl includ udin ing g "a legitimate labor organization or any officer or agent of such organization, whether or not employed by the employer or employee whom he represents." It cannot be overem overempha phasiz sized ed likew likewise ise that that labor labor dispu dispute te can can exist exist "reg "regar ardl dles ess s of whet whethe herr the the disp disput utan ants ts stan stand d in the the proximate relation of employer and employee.”

DUNLOP SLAZENGER V SEC. OF LABOR (RUIZ) 300 SCRA 120 PUNO; DECEMBER 11, 1998 NATURE Petition for certiorari

FACTS - Respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election among the supervisory, office and technical employees of  the petitioner company before the DOLE, R egional Office No. III. - Petitioner company filed a motion to dismiss based on 1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-and-file rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rankand-file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts. - Respondent alleges that it is composed only of supervisory employees and that it has no obligation to attach its books of accounts since it is a legitimate labor organization. - The mediator mediator arbiter granted the petition of the union. It said said that that the the cont conten enti tion on of the the resp respon onde dent nt that that the the petitioning union is composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees is not sufficient to dismiss the petition. It can be remedied thru the exclusion-inclusion exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank and file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters. The secretary of labor affirmed.

ISSUE/S WON the union can be composed of supervisory and rank and file employees

HELD NO. Ratio Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file rank-and-file employees.”

Labor Law 2

A2010

Reasoning Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of  rank-andrank-and-file file employee employees. s. There is a irreconcil irreconcilabil ability ity of their their interests which cannot be cured even in the exclusion-inclusion proceedings. Disposition Petition is granted.

DOLE REGISTRATION AS BASIS LEGITIMACY

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC V TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNIONPGTWO 395 SCRA 699 CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003 NATURE

Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 THIGCI assailing assailing CA decision decision denyi denying ng its petiti petition on to annul annul the Depar Departme tment nt of Labor Labor and Employme Employment nt (DOLE) (DOLE) Resolution Resolutions s of November November 12, 1998 and December 29, 1998

FACTS - October October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Tagaytay Highlands Highlands Employees Employees Union Union (THEU), Philippine Philippine Transport and General General Workers Organization Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor organization said to represent represent majority majority of the rank-andrank-and-file file employees employees of   THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV - November 27, 1997 > opposed petition for certification election because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of  superviso supervisors, rs, resigned resigned,, terminat terminated ed and absent absent without without leave 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 deni denial al and and with withdr draw awal al of some some of its its empl employ oyee ees s from from participating participating in the petition.  THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid valid affiliat affiliation ion and inclusion inclusion in the roster of legitima legitimate te labor 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 order of cancel cancellat lation ion,, it contin continues ues to enjoy enjoy the rights rights accord accorded ed to a legitimate organization. Therefore, the Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Arti Articl cle e 257 257 of the the Labo Laborr Code Code and and Sect Sectio ion n 11, Rule Rule XI of DOLE DOLE Depa Depart rtme ment nt Orde Orderr No. No. 09, 09, auto automa mati tica cally lly orde orderr the the cond conduc uctt of a certification election. - January January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter Anastacio Anastacio Bactin Bactin ordered the holding of a certification election - DOLE Resolution of November 12, 1998 1 > setting aside the June 4, 1998 Resolution Resolution dismissing dismissing the petition for certificati certification on election. MFR denied - CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. 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 emplo employer yer-em -emplo ployee yee relati relations onship hip and petiti petitione onerr failed failed to adduce adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations. ISSUE. ISSUE. WON DOLE registration can be the the basis for legitimacy HELD NO

- 37 -

Disini

- Continuing, petitioner argues that without resolving the status of  THEU, THEU, the DOLE DOLE Unders Undersecr ecreta etary ry "conve "convenie nientl ntly y deferr deferred ed the resolution on the serious infirmity in the membership of [THEU] and ordered the holding of the certification election" which is frowned upon as the following ruling of this Court shows: We also do not agree with the ruling of the respondent Secretary of  Labor that the infirmity in the membership of the respondent union can can be reme remedi died ed in "the "the pre-elect pre-election ion conference conference thru thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank-and-file positions will be excluded from the list of  eligible voters." Public respondent gravely misappreciated the basic antipathy antipathy between the interest interest of superviso supervisors rs and the interest interest of  rank-and-file employees. Due to the irreconcilability of their interest we held in Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motors Philippines Corporation Labor Union, Union, viz : "Clearly, based on this provision [Article 245], 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 posses 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." (Emphasis by petitioner) (Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.), v. Secret Secretary ary of Labor, Labor, 300 SCRA SCRA 120 [1998] [1998];; Unders Underscor coring ing and emphasis supplied by petitioner.)

LAGUNA AUTOPARTS V OFFICE OF THE DOLE SECRETARY 457 SCRA 730 CALLEJO; April 29, 2005 NATURE Petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals

FACTS - May 3, 1999 1999 - Laguna Laguna Autopart Autoparts s Manufa Manufactu cturin ring g Corporatio Corporation n Obrero Obrero Pilipin Pilipino-LAM o-LAMCOR COR Chapter Chapter filed filed a petition for certification certification election with with the DOLE. In its petition petition,, it noted noted its registrat registration ion certific certificate ate number number along along with with the regist registrat ration ion certi certific ficate ate number number of  chapter affiliate. affiliate. The petition alleged alleged that the union was composed of all rank-and-file employees, that the bargaining unit is unorganized and that there had been no certification election for the past 12 months prior to the filing of the petition. - Laguna Laguna Autoparts Autoparts moved to cancel cancel the certifica certification tion elect election ion becau because se the union union was was not consi consider dered ed a legitimate labor organization for failure to show that it had complied with registration requirements such as submissi submission on of required required documents documents to the Bureau of  Labor Relations. - MedMed-Ar Arbi bite terr Bact Bactin in dism dismis isse sed d the the cert certif ific icat atio ion n elec electi tion on peti petiti tion on beca becaus use e of the the unio union’ n’s s lack lack of  personali personality. ty. DOLE Secretary Secretary Sto. Tomas Tomas reversed reversed Bactin’s order. This was affirmed affirmed by the CA. CA. - The The CA stress stressed ed that a loca locall or chapte chapterr need need not be regist registere ered d to become a legitimate labor organi organizat zation ion.. It pointe pointed d out that that a loca locall or chap chapte terr acqu acquir ires es lega legall personali personality ty as a labor labor organiza organization tion from the date of filing of the complete documents. - The The CA note oted tha that it was the employ employer er which which offere offered d the most most tenaciou tenacious s resistanc resistance e to the holding holding of a certification election among its regular regular rank-andrank-and-file file employee employees. s. It

Labor Law 2

A2010

opined that this must not be so for the choice choice of a collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng agent agent was the sole concern of the employees, and and the the empl employ oyer er shou should ld be a mere mere bystander.

ISSUE/S 1. WON the union union is a legit legitim imate ate labor labor organization 2. WON the chapter’s legal personality can be attacked collaterally in an election action

HELD 1. YES Ratio A local local or chapte chapterr need need not be indepe independe ndentl ntly y registere registered d to acquire acquire legal personal personality. ity. A local/ch local/chapte apterr constituted in accordance with Section 1 of Rule 6 shall acquire legal personality from from the date of filin filing g of the the complete documents enumerated. Reasoning   The The task task of determ determini ining ng wheth whether er the local local or chapt chapter er has has submitted submitted the complete complete documenta documentary ry requirem requirements ents is lodged lodged with the Regional Office or the BLR, as the case may be. The records of the case show that the respondent union submitted the said docume documents nts to the regional regional office office and and was issued issued a certification. 2. NO Ratio Reasoning - It may not be subject to a collateral attack but only through a separa separate te action action instit institute uted d partic particula ularly rly for the purpos purpose e of  assailing the chapter, as prescribed in Section 5, Rule 5 of the impl implem emen enti ting ng rule rules s of Book Book 5 whic which h stat states es:: “The “The labo laborr organization or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certi certifi ficat cate e of regist registrat ration ion.. Such Such legal legal perso personal nalit ity y cannot  cannot  thereafter thereafter be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned  only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. [” - The pronouncement of the Labor Relations Division Chief, that the respon responden dentt union union acqui acquired red a legal legal person personali ality ty with with the submission of the complete documentary r equirement, equirement, cannot be challenged in a petition for certification election. Disposition Petition is denied. No costs.

COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. V DOLE 507 SCRA 300 QUISUMBING; QUISUMBING; November 20, 2006 NATURE For review on certiorari FACTS - Respondent Respondents s Coastal Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Terminal, Inc. Rank-andRank-and-File File Union Union (CSBTI-RFU) and Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Supervisory Union (CSBTI-SU) filed separate petitions for certification election - The rank-and-file union insists that it is a legitimate labor organization having been issued a charter certificate by the Associated Labor Union (ALU), (ALU), and the superv superviso isory ry union union by the Assoc Associat iated ed Profes Professio sional nal,, Supervisory, Office and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU). - Petitione Petitionerr Coastal Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Terminal, Inc. (CSBTI) (CSBTI) opposed both petitions for certification election alleging that the rank-and-file union and supervisory union were not legitimate labor organizations - Petitioner argues that APSOTEU improperly secured its registration from the DOLE Regional Director and not from the BLR - Petiti Petitione onerr insist insists s that that APSOT APSOTEU EU lacks lacks legal legal person personali ality, ty, and its chartered affiliate CSBTI-SU cannot attain the status of a legitimate labor  organization to file a petition for certification election. - Without ruling on the legitimacy of the respondent unions, the MedArbiter dismissed, both petitions - Both parties appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, who

- 38 -

Disini

reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. The Secretary ruled that CSBTI-SU and CSBTI-RFU have separate legal personalities to file their separate petitions for certification election. The Secretary held that APSOTEU APSOTEU is a legitimate legitimate labor organization organization because it was proper properly ly regist registere ered d pursua pursuant nt to the 1989 1989 Revise Revised d Rules Rules and Regulations implementing Republic Act No. 6715, the rule applicable at the time of its registration. It further ruled that ALU and APSOTEU are separate and distinct labor unions having separate certificates of  registration from the the DOLE. They also have different sets of locals. - The motion for reconsideration was also denied. - On appeal appeal,, the Court of Appeal Appeals s affir affirme med d the decision decision of the Secretary. - The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, the instant petition by the company anchored on the following grounds: ISSUES 1. WON the CA erred in relying on the “1989 Revised Rules and Regulations implementing RA 6715” as basis to recognize private respondent APSOTEU’s registration by the DOLE Regional Director. 2. WON ALU, a rank-and-file union and APSOTEU, a supervisory union one and the same because of the commonalities between them. 3. WON the supervisory and rank-and-file unions could separately petition for certification elections. HELD 1. NO. Ratio Article 235 of LC provides that applications for registration shall be acted upon by the Bureau. “Bureau” as defined under the Labor Code means the BLR and/or the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor. - Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules of the Labor Code (Implementing Rules) provides that: Section 2. Where to file application; procedure - Any national labor  organi organizat zation ion or labor labor feder federati ation on or local local union union may file an application for registration with the Bureau or the Regional Office where where the applicant’s applicant’s principal principal offices is located. located. The Bureau Bureau or  the Regional Office shall immediately immediately process and approve approve or  deny deny the applicati application. on. In case case of approv approval, al, the the Burea Bureau u or the Regional Office shall issue the registration certificate within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the application, together with all the requirements for registration as hereinafter provided. The Implementing Rules specifically Section 1, Rule III of Book V, as amended by Department Order No. 9, thus: SECTI SECTION ON 1. Where Where to file file applic applicati ations ons.. - The applic applicati ation on for  registration of any federation, national or industry union or trade union center shall be filed with the Bureau. Where the application is filed with the Regional Office, the same shall be immediately forwarded to the Bureau within forty-eight (48) hours from filing ther thereo eof, f, toge togeth ther er with with all all the the docu docume ment nts s supp suppor orti ting ng the the registration. The applications for registration of an independent union shall be filed filed with with and acted acted upon upon by the Regional Regional Office Office where where the applicant’s principal office is located …. - The DOLE issued Department Order No. 40-03, which took effect on Marc March h 15, 15, 2003 2003,, furt furthe herr amen amendi ding ng Book Book V of the the abov above e implementing rules. The new implementing rules explicitly provide that applications for registration of labor organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or with the BLR. - Even after the amendments, the rules did not divest the Regional Office Office and the BLR of their their jurisd jurisdict iction ion over over applic applicati ations ons for  regist registrat ration ion by labor labor organi organizat zation ions. s. The amend amendmen ments ts to the the implementing rules merely specified that when the application was filed with the Regional Office, the application would be acted upon by the BLR. Reasoning  The records in this case showed that APSOTEU was registered on March 1, 1991. Accordingly, the law applicable at that time was Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules, and not Department Order No. 9 which took effect only on June 21, 1997. Thus, considering further that APSOTEU’s principal office is located in Diliman, Quezon City, and its registration was filed with the NCR Regional Office, the certificate of registration is valid.

Labor Law 2

A2010

2. NO. Ratio Once Once a labor labor union union attain attains s the the statu status s of a legiti legitimat mate e labor  labor  organizat organization, ion, it continues continues as such until its certificate certificate of registrat registration ion is cance cancelle lled d or revoke revoked d in an indepe independe ndent nt action action for cancel cancellat lation ion.. In addition, the legal personality of a labor organization cannot be collaterally attacked. Reasoning In Reasoning  In the absence of any independent action for cancellation of  registration against either APSOTEU or ALU, and unless and until their  registrations are cancelled, each continues to possess a separate legal personality. The CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI-SU CSBTI-SU are therefore therefore affiliated with distinct and separate federations, despite the commonalities of APSOTEU and ALU. - Under the rules implementing the Labor Code, a chartered local union acquires legal personality through the charter certificate issued by a duly registere registered d federatio federation n or national union, and reported to the Regional Office in accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code. A local union union does does not owe its existen existence ce to the the federa federatio tion n with with which which it is affiliate affiliated. d. It is a separate separate and distinct distinct voluntary association association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local local union union of its own person personalit ality, y, neith neither er does does it give give the the mother  mother  federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter. Hence, local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent. As such principals, the unions are entitl entitled ed to exerci exercise se the rights rights and privil privilege eges s of a legiti legitimat mate e labor  labor  organizat organization, ion, including including the right to seek certificat certification ion as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit. 3. NO. Ratio Under Article 245 of the the Labor Code, supervisory employees employees are not eligible for membership in a labor union of rank-and-file employees. The supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are not allowe allowed d to join join the rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e union union becaus because e of potent potential ial conflicts of interest. Further, to avoid a situation where supervisors supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors’ labor union would represent conflicting interests, a local supervisors’ union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of unions of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively participates in the union activity within the company. Thus, the limitation is not confined to a case of  supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition extends to a superv superviso isors’ rs’ local local union union applyi applying ng for membe membersh rship ip in a nation national al federation federation the members members of which which include include local unions of rank-and-f rank-and-file ile employees. Reasoning  In the instant instant case, the national national federatio federations ns that exist as separate entities to which the rank-and-file and supervisory unions are separately affiliated affiliated with, do have a common common set of officers. In addition, APSOTEU, the supervisory federation, actively participates in the CSBTISU while ALU, the rank-andrank-and-file file federation, federation, actively actively participat participates es in the CSBTI-RFU, giving occasion to possible conflicts of interest among the common officers of the federation of rank-and-file and the federation of  supervisory unions. For as long as they are affiliated with with the APSOTEU and ALU, the supervisory and rank-and-file unions both do not meet the criteria to attain the status of legitimate labor organizations, and thus could not separately petition for certification elections. The purpose of affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise is to increase the collective bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. When there is commingling of officers of a rank-andfile union with a supervisory union, the constitutional policy on labor is circum circumven vente ted. d. Labor Labor organi organizat zation ions s should should ensure ensure the the freedo freedom m of  emplo employee yees s to organi organize ze themse themselve lves s for for the purpos purpose e of leveli leveling ng the bargaining process but also to ensure the freedom of workingmen and to keep keep open open the corridor corridor of opport opportuni unity ty to enable enable them to do it for  for  themselves. Disposition The petition was GRANTED.

CEBU SEAMEN'S ASSO., INC., V FERRER-CALLEJA 212 SCRA 50

- 39 -

Disini MEDIALDEA; August 4, 1992

NATURE Petition seeking the reversal of the resolution of the Bureau of Labor  Relations which affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter holding that the set of officers of Seamen's Association of the Philippines headed by Dominica C. Nacua, as president president,, was the lawful set of officers officers entitled to the release and custody of the union dues as well as agency fees of said association. FACTS -23Oct -23Oct 1950: a group of deck officers officers and marine marine engineers on board board vessel vessels s plying plying Cebu Cebu and other other ports ports of the the Philip Philippin pines es organized themselves into an association and registered the same as a non-stock corporation known as Cebu Seamen's Association, Inc. (CSAI), with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Later, Later, on 23 June 1969, the same group registered registered its associati association on with with this this Bure Bureau au as a labo laborr unio union n know known n as the the Seam Seamen en's 's Association of the Philippines, Incorporated (SAPI). -SAPI has an existing CBA with the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation due to expire expire on 31 Dec 1988. 1988. In consonan consonance ce with with the the CBA, CBA, said said company company has been remitting remitting checked-of checked-offf union dues to said union until February, 1987 when Banayoyo, et al introducing themselves to be the new set of officers, went to the company and claimed that they are entitled to the remittance and custody of such union dues. -26 May 1987: 1987: anoth another er group group headed headed by Domini Dominica ca C. Nacua, Nacua, claiming as the duly elected set of union officers, filed a complaint, for and in behalf of the union, against the CSAI as represented by Manuel Manuel Gabayoyo Gabayoyo for the security of the aforementione aforementioned d CBA, seekin seeking g such such relief relief,, among among others others,, as an order order restr restrain aining ing the responden respondentt from acting on behalf of the union and directing directing the Aboitiz Shipping Corp. to remit the checked-off union dues for the months of March and April 1987. -CSAI filed its Answer alleging that the complainant union and CSAI are one and the same union; that Dominica C. Nacua and Atty. Prospero Paradilla who represented the union had been expelled as members/officers as of November 1984 for lawful causes; and, that its set of officers headed by Manuel Gabayoyo has the l awful right to the remittance and custody of the corporate funds (otherwise known as union dues) in question pursuant to the resolution of the SEC dated dated 22 April April 1987. 1987. The followin following g day, day, CSAI CSAI filed filed MTD on the the grounds, grounds, among others, that the SEC, not the Med-Arbiter, Med-Arbiter, has  jurisdiction over the dispute as provided under P.D. No. 902-A; that there can neither be a complainant nor respondent in the instant case as the parties involved are one and the same labor union, and that Mrs. Dominica C. Nacua and Atty. Prospero Paradilla have no personality to represent the union as they had already been expelled as member members/ s/off office icers rs there thereof of in two two resolut resolution ions s of the the Board Board of  Directors dated November 1984 and January 17, 1987. -19 June 1987: the Med-Arbiter issued an Order denying said motion but directing the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation to remit the already checked-off union dues to the complainant union through its officers and to continue remitting any checked-off union dues until further  notice. The Med-Arbiter also set further hearing of the complaint on July 1, 1987. -The Med-Arbiter eventually held that SAPI, headed by Nacua, was the lawful set of officers entitled to the release and custody of the union dues as well as agency fees of said association. CSAI headed by Gabayoyo filed an appeal with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). (BLR). But the latte latterr affir affirmed med the Med-Ar Med-Arbit biter’ er’s s decisi decision. on. The Gabayoyo group also appealed to the Office of the SOLE, but this was also denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition. ISSUES 1. WON the med-arbiter of Region VII has jurisdiction over the case 2. WON SAPI was registered as a labor federation with the BLR 3. WON Nacua and Paradilla have the personality to represent the union HELD 1. YES - Article 226 of the Labor Code vests upon the Bureau of Labor  Relations Relations and Labor Relations Relations Division Division the original and exclusive exclusive

Labor Law 2

A2010

authority and jurisdiction to act on all inter-union and intra-union disputes. The contro controver versy sy betwee between n the afores aforesaid aid two sets sets of office officers rs (Cebu (Cebu Seamen's Association headed by Gabayoyo & Seamen's Association of  the Philippines headed by Nacua) is an intra-union dispute. Both sets of  officers claim to be entitled to the release of the union dues collected by the company with whom it had an existing CBA. 2. YES. -As stated in the findings of fact in the questioned resolution of Director  Pura Pura Ferrer Ferrer-Ca -Calle lleja, ja, on Octobe Octoberr 23, 1950, 1950, a group group of deck deck office officers rs organized organized the Cebu Seamen's Association, Association, Inc., Inc., (CSAI), (CSAI), a non-stock non-stock corp corpor orat atio ion n and and regi regist ster ered ed it with with the the Secu Securi riti ties es and and Exch Exchan ange ge Commission (SEC). The same group registered the organization with the Bureau Bureau of Labor Labor Relati Relations ons (BLR) (BLR) as Seamen Seamen's 's Associ Associati ation on of the Philippines (SAPI). It is the registration of the organization with the BLR BLR are not with with the the SEC SEC whic which h made made it a legi legiti tima mate te labo labor  r  organizati organization on with rights and privileges privileges granted under the Labor  Code. 3. YES. -CSAI, the corporation was already inoperational before the controversy in this case arose. In fact, on August 24, 1984 the SEC ordered the CSAI to show cause why its certificate of registration should not be revoked for  continuous inoperation. There is nothing in the records which would show that CSAI answered said show-cause order. -Also, before the controversy, Nacua was elected president of the labor  union, SAPI. It had an existing CBA with Aboitiz Shipping Corporation. Before Before the end of the Nacua’s term, some union members members including Gabayoyo showed signs of discontentment with the leadership of Nacua. This break-away group revived the moribund corporation and issued an undated resolution expelling Nacua from association. It later held its own election of officers supervised by the SEC and filed a case of estafa against Nacua. -The expulsion of Nacua from the corporation, of which she denied being a member, has however, not affected her membership with the labor  union. In fact, in the elections of officers for 1987-1989, she was reelected as the president of the labor union. -In this connection, We cannot agree with the contention of Gabayoyo that Nacua Nacua was already expelled from the union. union. Whatever Whatever acts their group had done in the corporat corporation ion do not bind the labor labor union. union. Moreover Moreover,, Gabayoyo cannot claim leadership of the labor group by virtue of his having been elected as a president of the dormant corporation CSAI. - Bureau of Labor Relations correctly ruled on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties that SAPI, the legitimate labor union, registered with its office, office, is not the same same associati association on as CSAI, the corporati corporation, on, insofar as their rights under the Labor Code are concerned. Hence, the former and not the latter association is entitled to the release and custody of union fees with Aboitiz Shipping and other shipping companies with whom it had an existing CBA. -It is undisputed from the records that the election of the so-called set of  officers headed by Gabayoyo was conducted under the supervision of the SEC, presumably in accordance with its constitution and by-laws as well as the articles of incorporation of respondent CSAI, and the Corporation Code. That had been so precisely on the honest belief of the participants therein that they were acting in their capacity as members of the said corporation. That being the case, the aforementioned set of officers is of  the respondent corporation and not of the complainant union. It follows, then, that any proceedings, and actions taken by said set of officers can not, in any manner, affect the u nion and its members. -The other set of officers headed by Dominica C. Nacua is the lawful set of officers of SAPI and therefore, is entitled to the release and custody of  the union dues as well as the agency fees, if any, there be. Disposition Petition dismissed.

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. LAGUESMA 244 SCRA 173 GUTIERREZ; FEB. 4,1992

- 40 -

Disini

NATURE Petition for certiorari to set aside the resolution of Med-arbiter and two orders the of the Sec. of Labor. FACTS Respondent Kilusan file filed d with with the the Depa Depart rtme ment nt of Labo Laborr and and Employment (DOLE) a petition for certification election among the rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e emplo employee yees s of the petiti petitione onerr allegi alleging ng that that it is a legiti legitimat mate e labor labor federa federatio tion n and its local local chapte chapter, r, Progressive Development Employees Union, Union, was issued charter certificate No. 90-6-1-153 90-6-1-153.. Kilusan Kilusan claimed claimed that there was no existing existing collective collective bargaining agreement and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining unit. Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss contending that the local union failed to comply with Rule II, Section 3, Book V of the Rules Implement Implementing ing the Labor Code, as amended, amended, which requires requires the submis submissio sion n of: (a) the consti constitu tutio tion n and by-law by-laws; s; (b) names, names, addresses addresses and list of officers and/or and/or members; members; and (c) books of  accounts. Kilusan claimed that it had submitted the necessary documentary requirements for registration, such as the constitution and by-laws of  the local union, and the list of officers/members with their addresses. Kilusan further averred that no books of accounts could be submitted as the local union was only recently organized. Petitioner insisted that upon verification with the Bureau of Labor  Rela Relati tion ons s (BLR (BLR), ), it foun found d that that the the alle allege ged d minu minute tes s of the the organizational meeting was unauthenticated, the list of members did not bear the corresponding signatures of the purported members, and the constitution and by-laws did not bear the signatures of the members and was not duly subscribed. It argued that the private respon responden dentt theref therefore ore failed failed to substa substanti ntiall ally y comply comply with with the registration requirements provided by the rules. Med-Arbite Med-Arbiterr held that there was substantia substantiall complianc compliance e with the requir requireme ements nts for the forma formatio tion n of a chapte chapter. r. Unders Undersecr ecreta etary ry Laguesma Laguesma denied PDC's PDC's motion motion for reconsider reconsideration ation.. Hence, Hence, this petition. ISSUE When does a branch, local or affiliate of a federation become a legitimate labor organization. HELD Ordina Ordinaril rily, y, a labor labor organi organizat zation ion acquir acquires es legiti legitimac macy y only only upon upon registrat registration ion with the BLR. Under  Article Article 234 (Requirements of  Registration): Registration): 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) (P50.00) registration fee; (b) The names of its officers, their their addresses, the principal address address of the labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings; (c) The names of all its members members comprising comprising at least least twenty 20% percent of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate; (d) If the applicant applicant has been in existenc existence e for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and (e) Four copies copies of the constituti constitution on and by-laws by-laws of the applicant applicant union, the minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members who participated in it." And under Article under Article 235 ( Action  Action on Application): Application ): "The Bureau shall act on all applications for registration within thirty (30) days from filing.

Labor Law 2

A2010

All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and attested to by its president." Moreover, section 4 of Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules requires that the application should be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of  the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and be accompanied by a sworn sworn state statemen mentt of the applican applicantt union union that that there there is no certif certified ied bargaining agent or, where there is an existing collective agreement duly submitted to the DOLE, that the application is filed during the last sixty (60) days of the agreement. RATIONALE: The registration prescribed in is not a limitation to the right of assembly or association, which may be exercised with or without said regist registrat ration ion.. The latter latter is merely merely a condit condition ion sine sine qua non for for the acquisitio acquisition n of legal personality personality by labor organizations, organizations, associations associations or  unions and the possession of the "rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations." The Constitution does not guarantee these rights and privileges, much less said personality, which are mere statutory creations, for the possession and exercise of which registration is required to protect both labor and the public against abuses, fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers, although not truly accredited agents of the union the purport to represent. Such requirement is a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of workers are engaged affect public interest, which should be protected. Furthermore, the obligation to submit financial statements, as a condition condition for the non-cancellat non-cancellation ion of a certifica certificate te of registration, registration, is a reasonable regulation for the benefit of the members of the organization, considering that the same generally solicits funds or membership, as well as oftentimes collects, on behalf of its members, huge amounts of money due to them or to the organization. But when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer required. The provisions governing union affiliation are found in Rule II, Section 3, Book V of the Implementing Rules. A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR: BLR : 1) A charter certificate, certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor  federation or national union, and 2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or  chapter, and attested to by its president. president. RATIONALE: RATIONALE: The intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase the local union's bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor. Absent Absent compliance compliance with these these mandatory mandatory requirements, requirements, the local local or  chapter does not become a legitimate labor organization. In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status. DISPOSITION Petition is GRANTED. The assailed resolution and orders of respondents Med-Arbiter and Secretary of Labor and Employment, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE.

Disini

- 41 -

3.3

UNION FUNCTION RATIONALE

AND

UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION V DAVAO SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION MAKALINTAL, J.; J.; August 31, 1967 A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of promot promoting ing the intere interests sts of labor labor withou withoutt unnece unnecessa ssary ry labor  labor  disput disputes. es. That is why it is given given person personali ality ty and recognit recognition ion in concluding collective bargaining agreements. But if it is made use of  as a subterfuge, or as a means to subvert valid commitments, it defeats defeats its own purpose, for it tends to undermine undermine the harmoniou harmonious s relations between management and labor.

GUIJARNO V CIR 52 SCRA 307 FERNANDO; FERNANDO; August 27, 1973 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari

FACTS - Three unfair labor practice practice cases for unlawful unlawful dismissal dismissal alle alleged gedly ly based based on legiti legitima mate te union union activi activity ty were were filed filed again against st respon responden dentt Centr Central al Santo Santos s Lopez Lopez Co., Co., Inc. Inc. and and respondent United Sugar Workers Union-ILO - The respondent company, in its answer, alleged that the only reason for the dismissal of the complainants herein is because their said dismissal was asked by the USWU-ILO of  which union respondent company has a valid and existing collective bargaining contract with a closed-shop provision to the effect that those laborers who are no longer members of good good standi standing ng in the union union may may be dismi dismisse ssed d by the respon responde dent nt compan company y if their their dismi dismissa ssall is sough soughtt by the union; that respondent company has never committed acts of unfair unfair labor labor practice practice against against its employees employees or workers workers much less against the complainants herein but that it has a solemn obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. - Petitioners were employed by the company long before the collective bargaining contract.

ISSUE/S 1. WON petitioners were validly dismissed

HELD 1. NO Ratio A closed-sh closed-shop op provision provision in a collecti collective ve bargaini bargaining ng agreement is not to be given a retroactive effect so as to precl preclude ude its being being appli applied ed to employ employees ees alrea already dy in the service Reasoning In order that an employer employer may be deemed deemed bound, under a collective bargaining agreement, to dismiss employees for non-union membership, the stipulation to this effect must be so clear and unequivocal as to leave no room for doubt thereon. An undertaking of this nature is so harsh that that it must must be stric strictly tly constr construed ued,, and and doubts doubts must be resolved against the existence of "closed shop". - The The functi nction on of a lab labor union nion is to assur ssure e that that Constitu Constitution’ tion’s s fundame fundamental ntal objective objectives s for labor labor would would be achi achiev eved ed.. It is the the inst instru rume ment ntal alit ity y thro throug ugh h whic which h an individu individual al laborer laborer who is helpless helpless as against against a powerful powerful emplo employer yer may, may, throug through h conce concerte rted d effort effort and activi activity, ty, achieve the goal of economic well-being Disposition Petition is granted. RATIONALE:

Wher Where e

does does

that that

leav leave e

a

labo labor r

unio union?  n? 

Corr Correc ectly tly unde unders rstoo tood, d, it is noth nothin ing g but but the the mean means s of 

Labor Law 2

A2010

assuring that such fundamental objectives would be achieved. It is the instrumentality through which an individual laborer who is helpless as against a powerful e mployer may, through concerted effort effort and activi activity ty achiev achieve e the goal goal of econom economic ic well-b well-being eing.. Workers unorganized are weak, workers organized are strong. Unions are merely instrumentalities through which their welfare may be protected and fostered. That is the raison d’être of labor unions. It is the instrumentality by which the weak laborer up against the strong employer, may, by concerted effort, achieve economic well-being.

3.4

LABOR BOR UN UNION ION AN AND GO GOVER VERNMEN MENT REGULATION

1. Union Union Registrat Registration ion and and Proced Procedure ure A. Requ Requir irem emen ents ts SAN MIGUEL CORP. V MANDAUE 467 SCRA 107 Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005 Facts -CA affirmes affirmes DOLE Undersecret Undersecretary ary for Labor Relations, Relations, Rosalinda Rosalinda Dimapilis Dimapilis-Bald -Baldoz, oz, ordering ordering the immediate immediate conduct conduct of a certifica certification tion election among the petitioner’s rank-and-file employees. - Federa Federatio tion n of Free Free Worker Workers s (FFW/ (FFW/ respon responden dent) t) filed filed a petiti petition on for  certification election with with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. VII. It sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. The following documents were attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Charter Certificate certifying certifying that respondent as of that date was duly certified as a local or chapter of FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of respondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and attested attested by its President, President, Wilfred V. Sagun; Sagun; (3) a list of respondent respondent’s ’s officers and their respective addresses, again prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun; (4) a certification signifying that respondent had just been organized and no amount had yet been collected from its members, signed signed by respondent’s respondent’s treasurer treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez Rodriguez and attested attested by Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the Mandaue Packaging Products Plants and Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun. -SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is not listed or included in the roster of legitimat legitimate e labor organization organizations s based on the certification certification issued by the Officer-In-Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII, Atty. Jesus B. Gabor. -Respo -Responde ndent nt submit submitted ted to the Bureau Bureau of Labor Labor Relati Relations ons the same same docu docume ment nts s earl earlie ierr atta attach ched ed to its its peti petiti tion on for for cert certif ific icat atio ion. n. The The accompanying letter, signed by respondent’s president Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in compliance with the requirements for  the creation creation of a local/ local/cha chapt pter er pursua pursuant nt to the the Labor Labor Code Code and its Imple Implemen mentin ting g Rules; Rules; and it was hoped hoped that that the submis submissio sions ns would would facilitate facilitate the listing listing of respondent respondent under the roster roster of legitimate legitimate labor  organizations.The Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter No. ITD. IARFBT ARFBT-05 -058/9 8/98, 8, certif certifyin ying g that that from from 30 July July 1998, 1998, respon responden dentt has acquired legal personality as a labor organization/worker’s association, it having submitted all the required documents. Issues 1. When did the union acquire legal personality? 2. Whether or not the inclusion of the two alleged supervisory employees in appellee union’s membership amounts to fraud, misrepresentation, or  false statement within the meaning of Article 239(a) and (c) of the Labor  Code. 3. Whether or not subsequent developments change the disposition of the case Held 1. 15 June 1998, the date the complete documents were submitted.

- 42 -

Disini

The issuance of the certificate of registration by the Bureau or  Regi Region onal al Offi Office ce is not not the the oper operat ativ ive e act act that that vest vests s lega legall personality upon a local/chapter under Department Order No. 9. Such Such lega legall pers persona onali lity ty is acqu acquir ired ed from from the the fili filing ng of the the complete documentary requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule Rule VI. VI. Admit Admitted tedly, ly, the manner manner by which which respon responden dentt was deemed to have acquired legal personality by the DOLE and the Cour Courtt of Appe Appeal als s was was not not in stri strict ct conf confor ormi mity ty with with the the provisions of Department Order No. 9. Thus, in order to ascertain ascertain when respondent respondent acquired legal person personali ality, ty, we only only need need to determ determine ine on what what date date the Regional Office or Bureau received the complete documentary requ requir irem emen ents ts enum enumer erat ated ed under under Sect Sectio ion n 1, Rule Rule VI of  Department Order No. 9. There is no doubt that on 15 June 1998, or the date respondent filed its petition for certification election, attached thereto were respondent’s constitution, the names and addresses addresses of its officers, officers, and the charter certificate certificate issued by the national union FFW. The first two of these documents were duly certified under under oath by respondent’s secretary Bathan Bathan and attested to by president Sagun. What about the lack of documents documents containing containing the by-laws? by-laws? Not needed so long as it is part of the union’s constitution. An examination of respondent’s constitution reveals it sufficiently compre comprehen hensiv sive e in establ establish ishing ing the necess necessary ary rules rules for its operation. Article IV establishes the requisites for membership in the local/chapter. Articles V and VI name the various officers and what their respective functions are. The procedure for election of these officers, including the necessary vote requirements, is provided for in Articl Article e IX, while while Articl Article e XV deline delineate ates s the proced procedure ure for for the impeachment of these officers. Article VII establishes the standing commit committe tees es of the local/ local/cha chapte pterr and how their their member members s are appointed. Article VIII lays down the rules for meetings of the union, including including the notice notice and quorum requireme requirements nts thereof. Article X enumer enumerate ates s with with parti particul culari arity ty the the rules rules for union union dues, dues, specia speciall assessme assessments, nts, fines, and other payments. payments. Article Article XII provides the general rule for quorum in meetings of the Board of Directors and of  the members of the local/chapter, and cites the applicability of the Robert’s Rules of Order[43] Order[43] in its meetings. And finally, Article XVI XVI governs governs and institutes institutes the requisites for the amendment amendment of the constitution. The Court likewise sees no impediment in deeming respondent as having acquired legal personality as of 15 June 1998, the fact that it was the local/chapter itself, and not the FFW, which submitted the documents required under Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9. The evident rationale why the rule states that it is the federation or national union that submits said documents to the Bureau or Regional Office is that the creation of the local/chapter is the sole prerogative of the federa federatio tion n or nation national al union, union, and not of any other entity entity.. Cert Certai ainl nly, y, a puta putati tive ve loca local/ l/ch chap apte terr cann cannot ot,, with withou outt the the imprimatur of the federation or national union, claim affiliation with the larger unit or source its legal personality therefrom. In the ordinary course, it should have been FFW, and not respondent, which should have submitted the subject documents to the Regional Regional Office. Office. Nonetheless Nonetheless,, there is no good reason to deny legal personality or defer its conferral to the local/chapter  if it is evident at the onset that the federation or national union itself itself has alread already y through through its own means means establ establish ished ed the local/chapter. In this this case, case, such such is eviden evidenced ced by the the Charte Charter  r  Certificate dated 9 June 1998, issued by FFW, and attached to the petition petition for certificat certification ion election. election. The Charter Charter Certifica Certificate te expressly expressly state states s that that respon responden dentt has been been issued issued the said said certif certifica icate te “to “to operate as a local or chapter of the [FFW]”. The Charter Certificate expressly acknowledges FFW’s intent to establish respondent as of 9 June June 1998. 1998. This This being being the the case, case, we consid consider er it permi permissi ssible ble for  respondent to have submitted the required documents itself to the Regional Regional Office, Office, and proper proper that respondent’s respondent’s legal personalit personality y be deemed deemed existen existentt as of 15 June June 1998, 1998, the date the the comple complete te documents were submitted. 2. No, it does not. Under the law, a managerial employee is “one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management

Labor Law 2

A2010

policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.” A supervisory employee is “one who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommends managerial actions if the exercise exercise of such recommendator recommendatory y authority authority is not merely routinary routinary or  clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment.’” Finally, “all employees not falling within the d efinition of managerial or supervisory employee are considered considered rank-and-file employees”. employees”. It is also well-settled well-settled that the actual functions of an employee, not merely his job title, are determinative in classifying such employee as managerial, supervisory or  rank rank and file. file. Good Good faith faith is presum presumed ed in all repres represent entati ations, ons, an essential element of fraud, false statement and misrepresentation in order for these to be actionable is intent to mislead by the party making the representation. In this case, there is no proof to show that Bathan, or appellee appellee union for that matter, intended intended to mislead mislead anyone anyone.. If this this was appell appellee ee union’ union’s s intenti intention, on, it would would have have refrained from using a more precise description of the organization instead of declaring that the organization is composed of ‘rank and file file monthl monthlies ies’. ’. Hence, Hence, the charge charge of fraud, fraud, false false statem statement ent or  misrepresentation cannot be sustained. Even if  they are supervisory employees, no action can be done that emasculates the right to self-organization and the promotion of free trade unioni unionism. sm. We take take admini administr strati ative ve notice notice of the realit realities ies in union union organi organizin zing, g, during during which which the organi organizer zers s must must take take their their chanc chances, es, oftent oftentime imes s unawar unaware e of the fine fine distin distincti ctions ons betwee between n manage manageria rial, l, supervisory and rank and file employees. The grounds for cancellation of  union registration are not meant to be applied automatically, but indeed with utmost discretion. Where a remedy short of cancellation is available, that remedy should be preferred. In this case, no party will be prejudiced if  Bathan were to be excluded from membership in the union. The vacancy he will thus create can then be easily filled up through the succession provision of appellee union’s constitution and by-laws. What is important is that there is an unmistakeable intent of the members of appellee union to exercise their right to organize. We cannot impose rigorous restraints on such right if we are to give meaning to the protection to labor and social justice clauses of the Constitution. 3. No, it does not affect the case. The allegation that the bargaining unit that respondent sought to repres represent ent is no longer longer the the same same becaus because e of the dynamic dynamic nature nature of  petiti petitione oner’s r’s busine business ss,, a lot of change changes s having having occurr occurred ed in the work work enviro environme nment, nt, and that that four four of respon responden dent’s t’s office officers rs are no longer  longer  connected connected with petitioner petitioner have no effect on the Court’s ruling that a certification election should be immediately conducted with respondent as one of the available choices. Petitioner’s bare manifestations adduce no reason why the certification election should not be conducted forthwith. If  there are matters that have arisen since the filing of the petition that serve to delay or cancel the election, these can be threshed out during the preelection conferences. Neither is the fact that some of respondent’s officers have since resigned from petitioner of any moment. The local/chapter  retains a separate legal personality from that of its officers or members that that remain remains s viable viable notwit notwithst hstand anding ing any turnov turnover er in its office officers rs or  members. DISPOSITION The Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. V DOLE 507 SCRA 300 QUISUMBING; QUISUMBING; November 20, 2006 NATURE For review on certiorari FACTS - Respondent Respondents s Coastal Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Terminal, Inc. Rank-andRank-and-File File Union Union (CSBTI-RFU) and Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Supervisory Union (CSBTI-SU) filed separate petitions for certification election - The rank-and-file union insists that it is a legitimate labor organization having been issued a charter certificate by the Associated Labor Union (ALU), (ALU), and the superv superviso isory ry union union by the Assoc Associat iated ed Profes Professio sional nal,, Supervisory, Office and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU). - Petitione Petitionerr Coastal Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Terminal, Inc. (CSBTI) (CSBTI) opposed both

- 43 -

Disini

petitions for certification election alleging that the rank-and-file union and supervisory union were not legitimate labor organizations - Petitioner argues that APSOTEU improperly secured its registration from the DOLE Regional Director and not from the BLR - Petitioner insists that APSOTEU lacks legal personality, and its chartered affiliate CSBTI-SU cannot attain the status of a legitimate labor organization to file a petition for certification election. - Without ruling on the legitimacy of the respondent unions, the MedArbiter dismissed, both petitions - Both parties appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, who reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. The Secretary ruled that CSBTI-SU and CSBTI-RFU have separate legal personalities to file their separate petitions for certification election. The Secretary held that APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization because it was proper properly ly regist registere ered d pursua pursuant nt to the 1989 1989 Revise Revised d Rules Rules and Regulations implementing Republic Act No. 6715, the rule applicable at the time of its registration. It further ruled that ALU and APSOTEU are separate and distinct labor unions having separate certificates of  registration from the the DOLE. They also have different sets of locals. - The motion for reconsideration was also denied. - On appeal appeal,, the Court of Appeal Appeals s affir affirme med d the decision decision of the Secretary. - The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, the instant petition by the company anchored on the following grounds: ISSUES 1. WON the CA erred in relying on the “1989 Revised Rules and Regulations implementing RA 6715” as basis to recognize private respondent APSOTEU’s registration by the DOLE Regional Director. 2. WON ALU, a rank-and-file union and APSOTEU, a supervisory union one and the same because of the commonalities between them. 3. WON the supervisory and rank-and-file unions could separately petition for certification elections. HELD 1. NO. Ratio Article 235 of LC provides that applications for registration shall be acted upon by the Bureau. “Bureau” as defined under the Labor Code means the BLR and/or the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor. - Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules of the Labor Code (Implementing Rules) provides that: Section 2. Where to file application; procedure - Any national labor  organi organizat zation ion or labor labor feder federati ation on or local local union union may file an application for registration with the Bureau or the Regional Office where where the applicant’s applicant’s principal principal offices is located. located. The Bureau Bureau or  the Regional Office shall immediately immediately process and approve approve or  deny deny the applicati application. on. In case case of approv approval, al, the the Burea Bureau u or the Regional Office shall issue the registration certificate within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the application, together with all the requirements for registration as hereinafter provided. The Implementing Rules specifically Section 1, Rule III of Book V, as amended by Department Order No. 9, thus: SECTI SECTION ON 1. Where Where to file file applic applicati ations ons.. - The applic applicati ation on for  registration of any federation, national or industry union or trade union center shall be filed with the Bureau. Where the application is filed with the Regional Office, the same shall be immediately forwarded to the Bureau within forty-eight (48) hours from filing ther thereo eof, f, toge togeth ther er with with all all the the docu docume ment nts s supp suppor orti ting ng the the registration. The applications for registration of an independent union shall be filed filed with with and acted acted upon upon by the Regional Regional Office Office where where the applicant’s principal office is located …. - The DOLE issued Department Order No. 40-03, which took effect on Marc March h 15, 15, 2003 2003,, furt furthe herr amen amendi ding ng Book Book V of the the abov above e implementing rules. The new implementing rules explicitly provide that applications for registration of labor organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or with the BLR. - Even after the amendments, the rules did not divest the Regional Office Office and the BLR of their their jurisd jurisdict iction ion over over applic applicati ations ons for  regist registrat ration ion by labor labor organi organizat zation ions. s. The amend amendmen ments ts to the the implementing rules merely specified that when the application was

Labor Law 2

A2010

filed with the Regional Office, the application would be acted upon by the BLR. Reasoning  The records records in this this case case showed showed that that APSOT APSOTEU EU was registered on March 1, 1991. Accordingly, the law applicable at that time was Section Section 2, Rule Rule II, II, Book Book V of the Imple Implemen mentin ting g Rules, Rules, and not Department Order No. 9 which took effect only on June 21, 1997. Thus, considering further that APSOTEU’s principal office is located in Diliman, Quezon City, and its registration was filed with the NCR Regional Office, the certificate of registration is valid. 2. NO. Ratio Once Once a labor labor union union attain attains s the the statu status s of a legiti legitimat mate e labor  labor  organizat organization, ion, it continues continues as such until its certificate certificate of registrat registration ion is cance cancelle lled d or revoke revoked d in an indepe independe ndent nt action action for cancel cancellat lation ion.. In addition, the legal personality of a labor organization cannot be collaterally attacked. Reasoning In Reasoning  In the absence of any independent action for cancellation of  registration against either APSOTEU or ALU, and unless and until their  registrations are cancelled, each continues to possess a separate legal personality. The CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI-SU CSBTI-SU are therefore therefore affiliated with distinct and separate federations, despite the commonalities of APSOTEU and ALU. - Under the rules implementing the Labor Code, a chartered local union acquires legal personality through the charter certificate issued by a duly registere registered d federatio federation n or national union, and reported to the Regional Office in accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code. A local union union does does not owe its existen existence ce to the the federa federatio tion n with with which which it is affiliate affiliated. d. It is a separate separate and distinct distinct voluntary association association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local local union union of its own person personalit ality, y, neith neither er does does it give give the the mother  mother  federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter. Hence, local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent. As such principals, the unions are entitl entitled ed to exerci exercise se the rights rights and privil privilege eges s of a legiti legitimat mate e labor  labor  organizat organization, ion, including including the right to seek certificat certification ion as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit. 3. NO. Ratio Under Article 245 of the the Labor Code, supervisory employees employees are not eligible for membership in a labor union of rank-and-file employees. The supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are not allowe allowed d to join join the rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e union union becaus because e of potent potential ial conflicts of interest. Further, to avoid a situation where supervisors supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors’ labor union would represent conflicting interests, a local supervisors’ union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of unions of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively participates in the union activity within the company. Thus, the limitation is not confined to a case of  supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition extends to a superv superviso isors’ rs’ local local union union applyi applying ng for membe membersh rship ip in a nation national al federation federation the members members of which which include include local unions of rank-and-f rank-and-file ile employees. Reasoning  In the instant instant case, the national national federatio federations ns that exist as separate entities to which the rank-and-file and supervisory unions are separately affiliated affiliated with, do have a common common set of officers. In addition, APSOTEU, the supervisory federation, actively participates in the CSBTISU while ALU, the rank-andrank-and-file file federation, federation, actively actively participat participates es in the CSBTI-RFU, giving occasion to possible conflicts of interest among the common officers of the federation of rank-and-file and the federation of  supervisory unions. For as long as they are affiliated with with the APSOTEU and ALU, the supervisory and rank-and-file unions both do not meet the criteria to attain the status of legitimate labor organizations, and thus could not separately petition for certification elections. The purpose of affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise is to increase the collective bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. When there is commingling of officers of a rank-andfile union with a supervisory union, the constitutional policy on labor is circum circumven vente ted. d. Labor Labor organi organizat zation ions s should should ensure ensure the the freedo freedom m of  emplo employee yees s to organi organize ze themse themselve lves s for for the purpos purpose e of leveli leveling ng the bargaining process but also to ensure the freedom of workingmen and to keep keep open open the corridor corridor of opport opportuni unity ty to enable enable them to do it for  for  themselves.

- 44 -

Disini

Disposition The petition was GRANTED.

B. Requirements Rationale

and

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V LAGUESMA 205 SCRA 802 GUTIERREZ; FEB. 4,1992 NATURE Petition for certiorari to set aside the resolution of Med-arbiter  and two orders the of the Sec. of Labor. FACTS Respondent Kilusan filed with the Department of Labor and Emplo Employme yment nt (DOLE) (DOLE) a petiti petition on for certif certifica icatio tion n electi election on among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive Development Employees Union, Union, was issued charter certificate No. 90-6-1-153. Kilusan claimed that there was no existing collective bargaining agreement and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining unit. Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss contending that the local union failed to comply with Rule II, Section 3, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the submission of: (a) the constitution and bylaws laws;; (b) (b) name names, s, addr addres esse ses s and and list list of offi office cers rs and/ and/or  or  members; and (c) books of accounts. Kilu Kilusa san n clai claime med d that that it had had subm submit itte ted d the the nece necess ssar ary y docume documenta ntary ry requir requireme ements nts for regist registrat ration ion,, such such as the constitution and by-laws of the local union, and the list of  office officers/ rs/mem member bers s with with their their addres addresses ses.. Kilusa Kilusan n furthe further  r  averred that no books of accounts could be submitted as the local union was only recently organized. Petitioner insisted that upon verification with the Bureau of  Labor Relations (BLR), it found that the alleged minutes of  the organizational meeting was unauthenticated, the list of  members did not bear the corresponding signatures of the purported members, and the constitution and by-laws did not bear bear the the sign signat atur ures es of the the memb member ers s and and was was not not duly duly subscribed. It argued that the private respondent therefore fail failed ed to subs substa tant ntia iall lly y comp comply ly with with the the regi regist stra rati tion on requirements provided by the rules. Med-Arbiter held that there was substantial compliance with the requ requiireme rement nts s for the the form ormati ation of a chap chaptter. er. Unde Unders rsec ecre reta tary ry Lagu Lagues esma ma deni denied ed PDC' PDC's s moti motion on for  for  reconsideration. Hence, this petition. ISSUE When does a branch, local or affiliate of a federation become a legitimate labor organization. HELD

Labor Law 2

A2010

Ordinarily Ordinarily,, a labor organization organization acquires legitimacy legitimacy only upon Requirements of  registration with the BLR. Under Article Under  Article 234 (Requirements Registration ): 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, addresses, the principal principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings; (c) The names names of all its members comprising comprising at least twenty twenty 20% percent of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate; (d) If the applicant applicant has been in existence existence for one or more more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and (e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of of the applicant union, the minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members who participated in it."

And under Article under Article 235 ( Action   Action on Application ):

- 45 -

Disini

union affiliation are found in Rule II, Section 3, Book V of  the Implementing Rules. A local local or chapte chapterr theref therefore ore become becomes s a legitim legitimate ate labor  labor  organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR: BLR: 1) A charter certificate, certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or national union, and 2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of  officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president. president.

RATIONALE: RATIONALE: The The inte intent nt of the the law law in impo imposi sing ng less lesser  er  requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increa increase se the local local union' union's s bargai bargainin ning g powers powers respec respectin ting g terms and conditions of labor.

"The Bureau shall act on all applications for registration within thirty (30) days from filing.

Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the loca locall or chap chapte terr does does not not beco become me a legi legiti tima mate te labo labor  r  organization.

All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and attested to by its president."

In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEUKilusan to certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status.

Moreover, section 4 of Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules requires requires that the applicatio application n should be signed signed by at least twenty twenty percent (20%) of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and be accompanied by a sworn statement of the applicant union that there is no certified bargaining agent or, where there is an existing existing collective collective agreement agreement duly submitted submitted to the DOLE, DOLE, that the applicat application ion is filed filed during during the last last sixty sixty (60) (60) days days of the agreement.

DISPOSITION Petition is GRANTED. The assailed resolution and orders of  resp respon onde dent nts s MedMed-Ar Arbi bite terr and and Secr Secret etar ary y of Labo Laborr and and Employment, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE.

RATIONALE: The registration prescribed in is not a limitation to the right of assembly or association, which may be exercised with or without said registration. The latter is merely a condition sine qua qua non non for for the the acqu acquis isit itio ion n of lega legall perso persona nali lity ty by labo labor  r  organizati organizations, ons, associations associations or unions and the possession of the "rig "right hts s and and priv privil ileg eges es gran grante ted d by law law to legi legiti tima mate te labo labor  r  organizations." The Constitution does not guarantee these rights and privil privilege eges, s, much much less less said said person personali ality, ty, which which are mere mere statutory statutory creations, creations, for the possession possession and exercise exercise of which registration is required to protect both labor and the public against abuses, fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers, although not truly accredited agents of the union the purport to represent. Such requiremen requirementt is a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of  workers workers are engage engaged d affect affect public public intere interest, st, which which should should be protec protected ted.. Furthe Furthermo rmore, re, the obliga obligatio tion n to submit submit financ financial ial statements, as a condition for the non-cancellation of a certificate of registration, is a reasonable regulation for the benefit of the members of the organization, considering that the same generally solicits funds or membership, as well as oftentimes collects, on behalf of its members, huge amounts of money due to them or to the organization. But when an unregi unregiste stered red union union become becomes s a branch branch,, local local or  chapter of a federation, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer required. The provisions governing

PHOENIX IRON & STEEL CORP V SEC. OF LABOR 244 SCRA 173 BELLOSILLO; BELLOSILLO; May 16, 1995 NATURE Petition for review FACTS - Priva Private te respon responden dentt PISCO PISCOR-A R-ANGL NGLO O (Union (Union)as )asser sertin ting g to be legitimate labor organization filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbiter. Petitioner Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation (Phoenix) (Phoenix) sought clarificat clarification ion of the legal personality personality of PISCORPISCORANGLO. - Med-Arbit Med-Arbiter’s er’s ruling: ruling: Dismissed Dismissed petition, holding that PISCORPISCORANGLO is not a duly registered labor organization. Record shows that for purposes of registering Piscor Workers Union as an affiliate of ANGLO no books of account was filed before the Burueau of  Labor Relations (BLR). The constitution and by-laws and the list of  members who ratified the same were not attested to by the union president. president. The constitut constitution ion and by-laws by-laws was not likewise likewise verified under oath. So, the authority to file petition for certification election is without force and effect. Thus, in the absence of legal personality Piscor Piscor Workers Union may not validly validly authorize authorize ANGLO to file the present petition. - Sec. of Labor reversed reversed Med-Arbiter’s Med-Arbiter’s ruling: On appeal, appeal, USec. Lagues Laguesma, ma, acting acting by author authority ity of the Sec. Sec. of Labor, Labor, ruled ruled that that PISC PISCOR OR has has comp compli lied ed with with the the requ requir irem emen ents ts of the the law law on organization of a local after it was shown that it has submitted duly certified copies of its constitution and by-laws, list of officers and charte charterr certif certifica icate te and called called for the immedi immediate ate conduc conductt of a certification election ISSUE

Labor Law 2

A2010

WON PISCO PISCOR-A R-ANGL NGLO O has compli complied ed with with the requir requireme ements nts to be legitimate labor organization HELD NO Ratio A local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR: 1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or national union, and 2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president. Failure of a labor union to submit and certify under oath the required documents submitted with the BLR is fatal to the attainmen attainmentt of a legitimate legitimate status. (Progress (Progressive ive Dev’t Corp v. Sec. of  Labor) Reasoning  The rationale rationale for the requireme requirements nts enunciated enunciated above: The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the commission of fraud. They likewise afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or  fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or to use the union for dubious ends. Disposition Petition is GRANTED.

PAGAPALAIN HAULERS, INC. V TRAJANO 310 SCRA 354 ROMERO; July 15, 1999 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - Integrated Labor Organization-Pagpalain Haulers Worker’s Union (ILOPHILS), in a bid to represent the rank-and-file drivers and helpers of  petiti petitione onerr Pagpal Pagpalain ain Hauler Haulers, s, Inc. Inc. (Pagpa (Pagpalai lain), n), filed filed a petiti petition on for  for  certification election election with the Department of Labor Labor and Employment. ILOPHILS PHILS attach attached ed to the the petiti petition on copies copies of its charte charterr certif certifica icate, te, its constitution and by-laws, its books of account, and a list of its officers and their addresses. - Pagpalain filed a motion to dismiss the petition, alleging that ILO-PHILS was not a legitimate labor organization due to its failure to comply with the requireme requirements nts for registratio registration n under the Labor Code. Specifica Specifically, lly, it claimed claimed that the books of account account submitte submitted d by ILO-PHILS ILO-PHILS were not verified under oath by its treasurer and attested to by its president, a required by Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor  Code. - ILO-PHILS dismissed Pagpalain’s claims, saying that Department Order  No. 9, Series of 1997 had dispensed with the requirement that a local or  chapt chapter er of a nation national al union union submit submit books books of account account in order order to be registered with the Department of Labor and Employment. - Med-Ar Med-Arbit biter er decide decided d in favor favor of ILO-PH ILO-PHILS ILS.. Pagpal Pagpalain ain appeal appealed. ed. Secretary Secretary of Labor dismissed dismissed appeal. appeal. Hence, Hence, this petition. petition. Pagpalain Pagpalain maintains that Department Order No. 9 is null and void because it is illegal for contravening rulings of this Court which, according to Article 8 of the Civil Code, form a part of the legal system of the Philippines; and that dispensing with the books of accounts contravenes public policy.

ISSUE WON Department Order No. 09 is null and void. HELD NO Ratio Article 234 of the Labor Code does not require the submission of  books of account in order for a labor organization to be registered as a legitimate labor organization. organization. The requirement that books of account be submitted as a requisite for a registration can be found only in Book V of  the Omnibus Rules Rules Implementing the the Labor Code. Specifically, the old Section 3(e), Rule II, of Book V provided that ‘[t]he local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution

Disini

- 46 -

and by-laws, by-laws, set of officers and books books of accounts. accounts. For reporting reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.” - By virtue of Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997, however, the submission of books of account as a requisite for registration has been done away with, and the documents needed to be submitted by a local or chapter have been reduced to the following: (a) A charter charter certific certificate ate issued by the federation federation or national national unio union n indic indicat atin ing g the the creat creatio ion n or esta establ blis ishm hmen entt of the the local/chapter; (b) The names of the local/chapter’s officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; (c) The local/chapter’s constitution and by-laws; provided that where the local/chapter’s constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly. Reasoning Department Reasoning Department Order No. 9 has been issued on authority of  law. Under the law, the Secretary Secretary is authorized to to promulgate rules and regulations to implement implement the Labor Code. Specifically, Article Article 5 of the Labor Code provides that “[t]he Department of Labor and other  gove govern rnme ment nt agen agenci cies es char charge ged d with with the the admi admini nist stra rati tion on and and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing implementing rules and regulations.” Consonant with this article, article, the Secretary Secretary of Labor and Employme Employment nt promulgat promulgated ed the Omnibus Rules Implementing Implementing the Labor Code. By virtue of this selfselfsame same author authority ity,, the the Secret Secretary ary amende amended d the aboveabove-men mentio tioned ned omnibus rules by issuing Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997. - Cases cited by Pagpalain are not to be deemed as laws on the regist registrat ration ion of unions unions.. They They merely merely interp interpret ret and apply the implementing rules of the the Labor Code as to registration registration of unions. It is this this interp interpret retati ation on that that forms forms part part of the legal syste system m of the the Philippines, for the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. The cited cases, however, applied and interpreted the then existing Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Implementing the Labor Code. Since Book V of the the Omnibus Rules, as amended by Department Order No. 9, no longer requires a local or chapter to submit books of accounts as a prerequisite for  registration, the doctrines enunciated in the cases, with respect to books books of accoun account, t, are alread already y passe passe and theref therefore ore,, no longer  longer  applicable. Hence, Pagpalain cannot cannot insist that that ILO-PHILS comply comply with the requireme requirements nts prescribed prescribed in said rulings, for the current implementing rules have deleted the same. - Pagpal Pagpalain ain cannot cannot also also allege allege that that Depart Departmen mentt Order Order No. 9 is violative of public policy. policy. As adverted to earlier, the sole function of  our courts is to apply or interpret the laws. It does not formulate public policy, which is the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. - Furthermore, the controlling intention in requiring the submission of  books of account is the protection of labor through the minimization of the risk of fraud fraud and diversion in the handling handling of union funds. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, this intention can still be realized through other provisions provisions of the Labor Code. (Article 241 and 274) Disposition Petition is dismissed.

C. Consti Constitut tutio ion—b n—by y law SAN MIGUEL CORP. V. MANDAUE Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005 467 SCRA 107 Facts -CA affirmes DOLE Undersecretary Undersecretary for Labor Relations, Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, ordering the immediate conduct of a certification election among the petitioner’s rank-and-file employees. - Federation of Free Workers (FFW/ respondent) filed a petition for  certification election with with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. VII. It sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. petitioner. The following following documents documents were

Labor Law 2

A2010

attach attached ed to the petiti petition: on: (1) a Charte Charterr Certif Certifica icate te certif certifyin ying g that that respondent as of that date was duly certified as a local or chapter of FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of respondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and attested by its President, Wilfred V. Sagun; (3) a list of respondent’s officers and their respective addresses, again prepared by Batha Bathan n and attest attested ed by Sagun Sagun;; (4) a certif certifica icatio tion n signif signifyin ying g that that respon responden dentt had just been been organi organized zed and no amount amount had yet been collected from its members, signed by respondent’s treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and attested by Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the Mandaue Packaging Products Plants and Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun. -SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is not listed or included in the roster of legitimat legitimate e labor organization organizations s based on the certification certification issued by the Officer-In-Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII, Atty. Jesus B. Gabor. -Respo -Responde ndent nt submit submitted ted to the Bureau Bureau of Labor Labor Relati Relations ons the same same docu docume ment nts s earl earlie ierr atta attach ched ed to its its peti petiti tion on for for cert certif ific icat atio ion. n. The The accompanying letter, signed by respondent’s president Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in compliance with the requirements for  the creation creation of a local/ local/cha chapt pter er pursua pursuant nt to the the Labor Labor Code Code and its Imple Implemen mentin ting g Rules; Rules; and it was hoped hoped that that the submis submissio sions ns would would facilitate facilitate the listing listing of respondent respondent under the roster roster of legitimate legitimate labor  organizations.The Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter No. ITD. IARFBT ARFBT-05 -058/9 8/98, 8, certif certifyin ying g that that from from 30 July July 1998, 1998, respon responden dentt has acquired legal personality as a labor organization/worker’s association, it having submitted all the required documents. Issues 1. When did the union acquire legal personality? 2. Whether or not the inclusion of the two alleged supervisory employees in appellee union’s membership amounts to fraud, misrepresentation, or  false statement within the meaning of Article 239(a) and (c) of the Labor  Code. 3. Whether or not subsequent developments change the disposition of the case Held 1. 15 June 1998, the date the complete documents were submitted. The issuance issuance of the certific certificate ate of regist registrat ration ion by the Bureau Bureau or  Regional Office is not the operative act that vests legal personality upon upon a local/ local/cha chapte pterr under under Depart Departmen mentt Order Order No. 9. Such Such legal legal personality is acquired from the filing of the complete documentary requiremen requirements ts enumerated enumerated in Section Section 1, Rule VI. Admittedl Admittedly, y, the manner by which respondent was deemed to have acquired legal personality by the DOLE and the Court of Appeals was not in strict conformity with the provisions of Department Order No. 9. Thus Thus,, in orde orderr to asce ascert rtai ain n when when respo respond nden entt acqu acquir ired ed lega legall personality, we only need to determine on what date the Regional Office or Bureau received the complete documentary requirements enumerated under Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9. There is no doubt that on 15 June 1998, or the date respondent filed its its peti petiti tion on for for cert certif ific icat atio ion n elec electi tion on,, atta attach ched ed ther theret eto o were were respondent’s constitution, the names and addresses of its officers, and the charter certificate issued by the national union FFW. The first first two of these these docume documents nts were duly duly certif certified ied under oath oath by respondent’s secretary Bathan and attested to by president Sagun. What about the lack o f documents containing the by-laws? Not needed so long as it is part of the union’s constitution. An examinati examination on of respondent respondent’s ’s constituti constitution on reveals reveals it sufficientl sufficiently y comprehensive in establishing the necessary rules for its operation. Article IV establishes the requisites for membership in the local/chapter. Articles V and VI name the various officers and what their respective functions are. The procedure for election of these these officers, including the necessary vote requirements, is provided for in Article IX, while Article XV delineates the procedure for the impeachment of these officers. Article VII establishe establishes s the standing committees committees of the local/cha local/chapter pter and how their  members are appointed. Article VIII lays down the rules for meetings of  the union, including the notice and quorum requirements thereof. Article X enum enumer erat ates es with with part partic icul ular arit ity y the the rule rules s for for unio union n dues dues,, spec specia iall assessments, fines, and other payments. Article XII provides the general rule for quorum in meetings of the Board of Directors and of the members

- 47 -

Disini

of the local/chapter, and cites the applicability of the Robert’s Rules of Order[43] Order[43] in its meetings. meetings. And finally, finally, Article Article XVI governs and institutes the requisites for the amendment of the constitution. The Court likewise sees no impediment in deeming respondent as having acquired legal personality as of 15 June 1998, the fact that it was the local/chapter itself, and not the FFW, which submitted the documents required under Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9. The evident rationale why the rule states that it is the federation or national union that submits said documents to the Bureau or Regional Office is that the creation of the local/chapter is the sole prerogative of the federa federatio tion n or nation national al union, union, and not of any other entity entity.. Cert Certai ainl nly, y, a puta putati tive ve loca local/ l/ch chap apte terr cann cannot ot,, with withou outt the the imprimatur of the federation or national union, claim affiliation with the larger unit or source its legal personality therefrom. In the ordinary course, it should have been FFW, and not respondent, which should have submitted the subject documents to the Regional Regional Office. Office. Nonetheless Nonetheless,, there is no good reason to deny legal personality or defer its conferral to the local/chapter  if it is evident at the onset that the federation or national union itself itself has alread already y through through its own means means establ establish ished ed the local/chapter. In this this case, case, such such is eviden evidenced ced by the the Charte Charter  r  Certificate dated 9 June 1998, issued by FFW, and attached to the petition petition for certificat certification ion election. election. The Charter Charter Certifica Certificate te expressly expressly state states s that that respon responden dentt has been been issued issued the said said certif certifica icate te “to “to operate as a local or chapter of the [FFW]”. The Charter Certificate expressly acknowledges FFW’s intent to establish respondent as of 9 June June 1998. 1998. This This being being the the case, case, we consid consider er it permi permissi ssible ble for  respondent to have submitted the required documents itself to the Regional Regional Office, Office, and proper proper that respondent’s respondent’s legal personalit personality y be deemed deemed existen existentt as of 15 June June 1998, 1998, the date the the comple complete te documents were submitted. 2. No, it does not. Under the law, a managerial employee is “one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign assign or discipline discipline employees.” employees.” A supervisor supervisory y employee employee is “one who, who, in the intere interest st of the employ employer, er, effect effective ively ly recomm recommend ends s managerial actions if the exercise of such recommendatory authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of  independent judgment.’” Finally, “all employees not falling within the definition definition of managerial managerial or superviso supervisory ry employee employee are considered considered rank-and-f rank-and-file ile employees”. employees”. It is also well-settled well-settled that the actual actual functions of an employee, not merely his job title, are determinative in classifying such employee as managerial, supervisory or rank and file. Good faith is presumed in all representations, an essential element of fraud, false statement and misrepresentation in order  for these these to be actionabl actionable e is inten intentt to mislead mislead by the party making the representation. In this case, there is no proof to show that Bathan, or appellee union for that matter, intended to mislead anyone. If this was appellee union’s intention, it would have refrained from using a more precise description of the organi organizat zation ion inste instead ad of declar declaring ing that that the organi organizat zation ion is composed of ‘rank and file monthlies’. Hence, the charge of  frau fraud, d, fals false e stat statem emen entt or misr misrep epre rese sent ntat atio ion n cann cannot ot be sustained. Even if they if  they are supervisory employees, no action can be done that emasculates the right to self-organization and the promotion of free trade unionism. We take administrative notice of the realities in union organizing organizing,, during during which which the organizers organizers must take their chances, chances, oftentim oftentimes es unaware unaware of the fine distincti distinctions ons between between managerial managerial,, supe superv rvis isor ory y and and rank rank and and file file empl employ oyee ees. s. The The grou ground nds s for  for  cancel cancellat lation ion of union union regist registrat ration ion are not meant meant to be applie applied d automatically, but indeed with utmost discretion. Where a remedy short of cancellation is available, that remedy should be preferred. In this case, no party will be prejudiced if Bathan were to be excluded from membership in the union. The vacancy he will thus create can then be easily filled up through the succession provision of appellee union’s constitution and by-laws. What is important is that there is an unmistakeable intent of the members of appellee union to exercise their right to organize. We cannot impose rigorous restraints on such right if we are to give meaning to the protection to labor and social

Labor Law 2

A2010

 justice clauses of the Constitution. 3. No, it does not affect the case. The allegation that the bargaining unit that respondent sought to repres represent ent is no longer longer the the same same becaus because e of the dynamic dynamic nature nature of  petiti petitione oner’s r’s busine business ss,, a lot of change changes s having having occurr occurred ed in the work work enviro environme nment, nt, and that that four four of respon responden dent’s t’s office officers rs are no longer  longer  connected connected with petitioner petitioner have no effect on the Court’s ruling that a certification election should be immediately conducted with respondent as one of the available choices. Petitioner’s bare manifestations adduce no reason why the certification election should not be conducted forthwith. If  there are matters that have arisen since the filing of the petition that serve to delay or cancel the election, these can be threshed out during the preelection conferences. Neither is the fact that some of respondent’s officers have since resigned from petitioner of any moment. The local/chapter  retains a separate legal personality from that of its officers or members that that remain remains s viable viable notwit notwithst hstand anding ing any turnov turnover er in its office officers rs or  members. DISPOSITION WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

D. Effect on Constitution – Statutory Guarantee Freedom of Association PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS V SEC. OF LABOR 27 SCRA 40 The requir requireme ement nt of regist registrat ration ion does does NOT curtai curtaill the the freed freedoms oms of  assembly and association. Said freedoms may still be exercised with or  without registration. The latter is merely a condition sine qua non for the acquisition of legal personality by labor unions and the possessions of  rights and privileges granted by law. The constitution does not guarantee these rights and privileges, much less legal personality, which are mere statutory creations.

E. Quest Questio ion n of Legi Legitim timacy acy PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 494 SCRA 195

PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION 494 SCRA 195 CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006 FACTS -Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the exclusive bargaining representative representative of the Hotel’s employees.  This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal requirements. -after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of  its desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining bargaining agreement.  This was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the employee’s bargaining bargaining agent as their petition for certification election was denied. -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel’ refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union however suddenly went on strike -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The order

- 48 -

Disini

was modified (by a different Secretary) such that reinstatement reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll. -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll reinstatement” reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement reinstatement with back wages of union members.

ISSUE 1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and not for all the employees of the Hotel. 2) WON the strike conducted by the Union was illegal. 3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should be given back wages

HELD 1) No. -As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. -The Union’s petition for certificate election was denied by the DOLE. The DOLE. The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the majority of the employees of  petitioner, hence, it could not demand from petitioner the right to bargain collectively in their behalf  -Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in behalf of "its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code. -the CA ruled that “what [respondent] will be achieving is to divide the employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file rank-and-file employees of [petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not  disadvantage, e, because if the members are at a serious disadvantag same shall be allowed, employees who are non-union members will be economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and conditions of work” - Petitioner’s refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike.  TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority union 2) yes. -as was mentioned, the first ground mentioned by the Union- the Hotel’s refusal to bargain- was not a valid ground to stage the strike. -The second ground – that petitioner prevented or intimidated intimidated some workers from joining the union before, during or after the strike – was correctly discredited by the appellate court.. Since it is the union who alleges that unfair labor practices were committed by the Hotel, the burden of  proof is on the union to prove its allegations by substantial evidence. “the facts and the evidence did not establish events [sic] least a rational basis why the union would [wield] a strike based on alleged unfair labor practices it did not even bother to substantiate”. substantiate”. -It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of private sector employees to strike is not absolute. Thus Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution, provides: SECTION 3. x x x It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike

in accordance with law…”

-Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted activities which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike illegal.

Labor Law 2

A2010

Evidence show s that some of the workers-strikers who joined the strike indeed committed illegal acts – blocking the free ingress to and egress from the Hotel, holding noise barrage, threatening guests, and the like.  TOPICS: right to engage in concerted activities-limitations 3) No. -The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an economic strike on the principle that "a fair day’s wage" accrues only for a "fair day’s labor. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended. "when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against unfair labor practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.” -The Court ruled that “only those members of the union union who did not commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should be reinstated but without back wages”  TOPIC: illegal strikes- burden of economic loss

SAN MIGUEL CORP. V MANDAUE 467 SCRA 107 Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005 Facts -CA affirmes affirmes DOLE Undersecret Undersecretary ary for Labor Relations, Relations, Rosalinda Rosalinda Dimapilis Dimapilis-Bald -Baldoz, oz, ordering ordering the immediate immediate conduct conduct of a certifica certification tion election among the petitioner’s rank-and-file employees. - Federa Federatio tion n of Free Free Worker Workers s (FFW/ (FFW/ respon responden dent) t) filed filed a petiti petition on for  certification election with with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. VII. It sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. The following documents were attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Charter Certificate certifying certifying that respondent as of that date was duly certified as a local or chapter of FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of respondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and attested attested by its President, President, Wilfred V. Sagun; Sagun; (3) a list of respondent respondent’s ’s officers and their respective addresses, again prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun; (4) a certification signifying that respondent had just been organized and no amount had yet been collected from its members, signed signed by respondent’s respondent’s treasurer treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez Rodriguez and attested attested by Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the Mandaue Packaging Products Plants and Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun. -SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is not listed or included in the roster of legitimat legitimate e labor organization organizations s based on the certification certification issued by the Officer-In-Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII, Atty. Jesus B. Gabor. -Respo -Responde ndent nt submit submitted ted to the Bureau Bureau of Labor Labor Relati Relations ons the same same docu docume ment nts s earl earlie ierr atta attach ched ed to its its peti petiti tion on for for cert certif ific icat atio ion. n. The The accompanying letter, signed by respondent’s president Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in compliance with the requirements for  the creation creation of a local/ local/cha chapt pter er pursua pursuant nt to the the Labor Labor Code Code and its Imple Implemen mentin ting g Rules; Rules; and it was hoped hoped that that the submis submissio sions ns would would facilitate facilitate the listing listing of respondent respondent under the roster roster of legitimate legitimate labor  organizations.The Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter No. ITD. IARFBT ARFBT-05 -058/9 8/98, 8, certif certifyin ying g that that from from 30 July July 1998, 1998, respon responden dentt has acquired legal personality as a labor organization/worker’s association, it having submitted all the required documents. Issues 1. When did the union acquire legal personality? 2. Whether or not the inclusion of the two alleged supervisory employees in appellee union’s membership amounts to fraud, misrepresentation, or  false statement within the meaning of Article 239(a) and (c) of the Labor  Code. 3. Whether or not subsequent developments change the disposition of the case Held 1. 15 June 1998, the date the complete documents were submitted.

- 49 -

Disini

The issuance of the certificate of registration by the Bureau or  Regi Region onal al Offi Office ce is not not the the oper operat ativ ive e act act that that vest vests s lega legall personality upon a local/chapter under Department Order No. 9. Such Such lega legall pers persona onali lity ty is acqu acquir ired ed from from the the fili filing ng of the the complete documentary requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule Rule VI. VI. Admit Admitted tedly, ly, the manner manner by which which respon responden dentt was deemed to have acquired legal personality by the DOLE and the Cour Courtt of Appe Appeal als s was was not not in stri strict ct conf confor ormi mity ty with with the the provisions of Department Order No. 9. Thus, in order to ascertain ascertain when respondent respondent acquired legal person personali ality, ty, we only only need need to determ determine ine on what what date date the Regional Office or Bureau received the complete documentary requ requir irem emen ents ts enum enumer erat ated ed under under Sect Sectio ion n 1, Rule Rule VI of  Department Order No. 9. There is no doubt that on 15 June 1998, or the date respondent filed its petition for certification election, attached thereto were respondent’s constitution, the names and addresses addresses of its officers, officers, and the charter certificate certificate issued by the national union FFW. The first two of these documents were duly certified under under oath by respondent’s secretary Bathan Bathan and attested to by president Sagun. What about the lack of documents documents containing containing the by-laws? by-laws? Not needed so long as it is part of the union’s constitution. An examination of respondent’s constitution reveals it sufficiently compre comprehen hensiv sive e in establ establish ishing ing the necess necessary ary rules rules for its operation. Article IV establishes the requisites for membership in the local/chapter. Articles V and VI name the various officers and what their respective functions are. The procedure for election of these officers, including the necessary vote requirements, is provided for in Articl Article e IX, while while Articl Article e XV deline delineate ates s the proced procedure ure for for the impeachment of these officers. Article VII establishes the standing commit committe tees es of the local/ local/cha chapte pterr and how their their member members s are appointed. Article VIII lays down the rules for meetings of the union, including including the notice notice and quorum requireme requirements nts thereof. Article X enumer enumerate ates s with with parti particul culari arity ty the the rules rules for union union dues, dues, specia speciall assessme assessments, nts, fines, and other payments. payments. Article Article XII provides the general rule for quorum in meetings of the Board of Directors and of  the members of the local/chapter, and cites the applicability of the Robert’s Rules of Order[43] Order[43] in its meetings. And finally, Article XVI XVI governs governs and institutes institutes the requisites for the amendment amendment of the constitution. The Court likewise sees no impediment in deeming respondent as having acquired legal personality as of 15 June 1998, the fact that it was the local/chapter itself, and not the FFW, which submitted the documents required under Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9. The evident rationale why the rule states that it is the federation or national union that submits said documents to the Bureau or Regional Office is that the creation of the local/chapter is the sole prerogative of the federa federatio tion n or nation national al union, union, and not of any other entity entity.. Cert Certai ainl nly, y, a puta putati tive ve loca local/ l/ch chap apte terr cann cannot ot,, with withou outt the the imprimatur of the federation or national union, claim affiliation with the larger unit or source its legal personality therefrom. In the ordinary course, it should have been FFW, and not respondent, which should have submitted the subject documents to the Regional Regional Office. Office. Nonetheless Nonetheless,, there is no good reason to deny legal personality or defer its conferral to the local/chapter  if it is evident at the onset that the federation or national union itself itself has alread already y through through its own means means establ establish ished ed the local/chapter. In this this case, case, such such is eviden evidenced ced by the the Charte Charter  r  Certificate dated 9 June 1998, issued by FFW, and attached to the petition petition for certificat certification ion election. election. The Charter Charter Certifica Certificate te expressly expressly state states s that that respon responden dentt has been been issued issued the said said certif certifica icate te “to “to operate as a local or chapter of the [FFW]”. The Charter Certificate expressly acknowledges FFW’s intent to establish respondent as of 9 June June 1998. 1998. This This being being the the case, case, we consid consider er it permi permissi ssible ble for  respondent to have submitted the required documents itself to the Regional Regional Office, Office, and proper proper that respondent’s respondent’s legal personalit personality y be deemed deemed existen existentt as of 15 June June 1998, 1998, the date the the comple complete te documents were submitted. 2. No, it does not. Under the law, a managerial employee is “one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management

Labor Law 2

A2010

policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.” A supervisory employee is “one who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommends managerial actions if the exercise exercise of such recommendator recommendatory y authority authority is not merely routinary routinary or  clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment.’” Finally, “all employees not falling within the d efinition of managerial or supervisory employee are considered considered rank-and-file employees”. employees”. It is also well-settled well-settled that the actual functions of an employee, not merely his job title, are determinative in classifying such employee as managerial, supervisory or  rank rank and file. file. Good Good faith faith is presum presumed ed in all repres represent entati ations, ons, an essential element of fraud, false statement and misrepresentation in order for these to be actionable is intent to mislead by the party making the representation. In this case, there is no proof to show that Bathan, or appellee appellee union for that matter, intended intended to mislead mislead anyone anyone.. If this this was appell appellee ee union’ union’s s intenti intention, on, it would would have have refrained from using a more precise description of the organization instead of declaring that the organization is composed of ‘rank and file file monthl monthlies ies’. ’. Hence, Hence, the charge charge of fraud, fraud, false false statem statement ent or  misrepresentation cannot be sustained. Even if  they are supervisory employees, no action can be done that emasculates the right to self-organization and the promotion of free trade unioni unionism. sm. We take take admini administr strati ative ve notice notice of the realit realities ies in union union organi organizin zing, g, during during which which the organi organizer zers s must must take take their their chanc chances, es, oftent oftentime imes s unawar unaware e of the fine fine distin distincti ctions ons betwee between n manage manageria rial, l, supervisory and rank and file employees. The grounds for cancellation of  union registration are not meant to be applied automatically, but indeed with utmost discretion. Where a remedy short of cancellation is available, that remedy should be preferred. In this case, no party will be prejudiced if  Bathan were to be excluded from membership in the union. The vacancy he will thus create can then be easily filled up through the succession provision of appellee union’s constitution and by-laws. What is important is that there is an unmistakeable intent of the members of appellee union to exercise their right to organize. We cannot impose rigorous restraints on such right if we are to give meaning to the protection to labor and social justice clauses of the Constitution. 3. No, it does not affect the case. The allegation that the bargaining unit that respondent sought to repres represent ent is no longer longer the the same same becaus because e of the dynamic dynamic nature nature of  petiti petitione oner’s r’s busine business ss,, a lot of change changes s having having occurr occurred ed in the work work enviro environme nment, nt, and that that four four of respon responden dent’s t’s office officers rs are no longer  longer  connected connected with petitioner petitioner have no effect on the Court’s ruling that a certification election should be immediately conducted with respondent as one of the available choices. Petitioner’s bare manifestations adduce no reason why the certification election should not be conducted forthwith. If  there are matters that have arisen since the filing of the petition that serve to delay or cancel the election, these can be threshed out during the preelection conferences. Neither is the fact that some of respondent’s officers have since resigned from petitioner of any moment. The local/chapter  retains a separate legal personality from that of its officers or members that that remain remains s viable viable notwit notwithst hstand anding ing any turnov turnover er in its office officers rs or  members. DISPOSITION WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

LAGUNA V OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 457 SCRA 730 CALLEJO; April 29, 2005 NATURE Petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS - May 3, 1999 - Laguna Laguna Autoparts Autoparts Manufactur Manufacturing ing Corporati Corporation on Obrero Obrero Pilipino-LA Pilipino-LAMCOR MCOR Chapter filed a petition petition for certifica certification tion election election with the DOLE. In its petition, petition, it noted noted its registrati registration on certificate number along with the registration certificate number of  chapter affiliate. The petition alleged that the union was composed of all all rank rank-a -and nd-f -fil ile e empl employ oyee ees, s, that that the the barg bargai aini ning ng unit unit is

Disini

- 50 -

unorganized and that there had been no certification election for the past 12 months prior to the filing of the petition. - Laguna Autoparts moved to cancel the certification election becaus because e the the union union was not consid considere ered d a legiti legitimat mate e labor  labor  organi organizat zation ion for for failur failure e to show show that that it had complied complied with with registrat registration ion requirement requirements s such as submissio submission n of required required documents to the Bureau of Labor Relations. - Med-Arbiter Bactin dismissed the certification election petition because of the union’s lack of personality. DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas reversed Bactin’s Bactin’s order. This was affirmed by the CA. - The CA stressed that a local or chapter need not be regi regist ster ered ed to beco become me a legi legiti tima mate te labo labor  r  organization. It pointed out that a local or chapter  acquires acquires legal personalit personality y as a labor organization organization from the date of filing of the complete documents. - The CA noted noted that it was the employer employer which which offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election among its regular rank-andfile employees. It opined that this must not be so for  the choice of a collective bargaining agent was the sole concern of the employees, and the employer  should be a mere bystander. ISSUE/S 1. WON the union is a legitimate labor organization 2. WON the the chapte chapter’s r’s legal legal perso personal nality ity can be attacked collaterally in an election action HELD 1. YES Ratio A local or chapter need not be independently registered to acquire legal personalit personality. y. A local/cha local/chapter pter constituted constituted in accord accordanc ance e with with Sectio Section n 1 of Rule Rule 6 shall shall acquir acquire e legal legal personality from the date of filing of the complete documents enumerated. Reasoning  The task of determining whether the local or chapter has submitted the complete documentary requirements is lodged with the Regional Office or the BLR, as the case may be. The records of the case show that the respondent respondent union submitted submitted the said documents documents to the regional office and was issued a certification. 2. NO Ratio Reasoning  - It may not be subject to a collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing the chapter, as prescribed in Section 5, Rule 5 of the implementing rules of Book Book 5 whic which h stat states es:: “The “The labo laborr orga organi niza zati tion on or work worker ers’ s’ associ associati ation on shall shall be deemed deemed regist registere ered d and vested vested with with legal legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personalit personality y cannot cannot thereafte thereafterr be subject subject to collateral  collateral  attack but may be questioned only in an independent petition for  cancellation in accordance with these Rules. Rules .[” - The pronouncement of the Labor Relations Division Chief, that the respondent union acquired a legal personality with the submission of  the complete documentary requirement, cannot be challenged in a petition for certification election. Disposition Petition is denied. No costs.

TAGAYTARY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB, INC. V TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION 395 SCRA 699 CARPIO-MORALES; CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003 NATURE Petition Petition for Certiorari Certiorari under under Rule 45 THIGCI assaili assailing ng CA decision decision denying its petition petition to annul annul the Department Department of  Labor and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and December 29, 1998

Labor Law 2

A2010

- 51 -

Disini 467 SCRA 107

FACTS - October October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Tagaytay Highlands Highlands Employees Employees Union Union (THEU), Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor organization said to represent represent majority majority of the rank-andrank-and-file file employees employees of   THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV - November 27, 1997 > opposed petition for certification election because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of  superviso supervisors, rs, resigned resigned,, terminat terminated ed and absent absent without without leave 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 deni denial al and and with withdr draw awal al of some some of its its empl employ oyee ees s from from participating participating in the petition.  THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid valid affiliat affiliation ion and inclusion inclusion in the roster of legitima legitimate te labor 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 enjo enjoy y the the righ rights ts acco accord rded ed to a legi legiti tima mate te orga organi niza zati tion on..  Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09, autom automati atical cally ly order order the conduc conductt of a certi certifi ficat cation ion election. Janua January ry 28, 1998 1998 > DOLE DOLE Med-A Med-Arbi rbiter ter Anasta Anastacio cio Bactin Bactin ordered the holding of a certification election election - DOLE Resolution of November 12, 1998 1 > setting aside the  June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election. MFR denied denied - CA - denied THIGCI ’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. 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. allegations.

Issue: WON question of legitima legitimacy cy would would affect affect the certifica certification tion election Held: Held: YES - Pizza Hut v. Ledesma which held that: "The "The Labo Laborr Code Code requ requir ires es that that in orga organiz nized ed and and unor unorga gani nize zed d establishments, a petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. The acquisition of rights by any union or  labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for certification election, first and foremost, depends on whether whether or not the labor  labor  organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization. In the case before before us, the Med-Arbit Med-Arbiter er summarily summarily disregarded disregarded the petiti petitione oner’s r’s prayer prayer that that the former former look look into into the legiti legitimac macy y of the respondent Union by a sweeping declaration that the union was in the possession of a charter certificate so that for all intents and purposes, Sumas Sumasakl aklaw aw sa Mangga Manggagaw gawa a sa Pizza Pizza Hut (was) (was) a legiti legitimat mate e organization"

2. Action Action or Denial Denial of of Applica Application tion and Remedy SAN MIGUEL CORP. V. MANDAUE Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005

Facts -CA affirmes DOLE Undersecretary Undersecretary for Labor Relations, Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, ordering the immediate conduct of a certification election among the petitioner’s rank-and-file employees. - Federation of Free Workers (FFW/ respondent) filed a petition for  certification election with with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. VII. It sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. petitioner. The following following documents documents were attached attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Charter Certificat Certificate e certifyin certifying g that respondent as of that date was duly certified as a local or chapter of  FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of respondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and attested by its President, Wilfred V. Sagun; Sagun; (3) a list list of respon responden dent’s t’s office officers rs and their their respec respectiv tive e addresses, again prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun; (4) a certification signifying that respondent had just been organized and no amount had yet been collected collected from its members, members, signed by respondent’s treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and attested by Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the Mandaue Mandaue Packaging Packaging Products Plants and Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun. -SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is not listed or  included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations based on the certification issued by the Officer-In-Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII, Atty. Jesus B. Gabor. -Respondent submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations the same docume documents nts earlie earlierr attac attached hed to its petiti petition on for certif certifica icatio tion. n. The accompany accompanying ing letter, letter, signed signed by respondent respondent’s ’s president president Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in compliance with the requirements for the creation of a local/chapter pursuant to the Labor  Code Code and its Imple Implemen mentin ting g Rules; Rules; and it was hoped that that the submissions would facilitate the listing of respondent under the roster  of legiti legitimat mate e labor labor organi organizat zation ions.T s.The he Chief Chief of Labor Labor Relati Relations ons Division of DOLE Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of  Creation of Local/Chapter No. ITD. I-ARFBT-058/98, certifying that from 30 July 1998, respondent has acquired legal personality as a labor organization/worker’s association, it having submitted all the required documents. Issues 1. When did the union acquire legal personality? 2. Whethe Whetherr or not the inclus inclusion ion of the two two allege alleged d superv superviso isory ry employ employees ees in appell appellee ee union’ union’s s member membershi ship p amount amounts s to fraud fraud,, misrepresentation, or false statement within the meaning of Article 239(a) and (c) of the Labor Code. 3. Whether or not subsequent developments change the disposition of the case Held 1. 15 June 1998, the date the complete documents were submitted. The issuance of the certificate of registration by the Bureau or  Regi Region onal al Offi Office ce is not not the the oper operat ativ ive e act act that that vest vests s lega legall personality upon a local/chapter under Department Order No. 9. Such Such lega legall pers persona onali lity ty is acqu acquir ired ed from from the the fili filing ng of the the complete documentary requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule Rule VI. VI. Admit Admitted tedly, ly, the manner manner by which which respon responden dentt was deemed to have acquired legal personality by the DOLE and the Cour Courtt of Appe Appeal als s was was not not in stri strict ct conf confor ormi mity ty with with the the provisions of Department Order No. 9. Thus, in order to ascertain ascertain when respondent respondent acquired legal person personali ality, ty, we only only need need to determ determine ine on what what date date the Regional Office or Bureau received the complete documentary requ requir irem emen ents ts enum enumer erat ated ed under under Sect Sectio ion n 1, Rule Rule VI of  Department Order No. 9. There is no doubt that on 15 June 1998, or the date respondent filed its petition for certification election, attached thereto were respondent’s constitution, the names and addresses addresses of its officers, officers, and the charter certificate certificate issued by the national union FFW. The first two of these documents were duly certified under under oath by respondent’s secretary Bathan Bathan and attested to by president Sagun. What about the lack of documents documents containing containing the by-laws? by-laws? Not

Labor Law 2

A2010

needed so long as it is part of the union’s constitution. An examinati examination on of respondent respondent’s ’s constituti constitution on reveals reveals it sufficientl sufficiently y comprehensive in establishing the necessary rules for its operation. Article IV establishes the requisites for membership in the local/chapter. Articles V and VI name the various officers and what their respective functions are. The procedure for election of these these officers, including the necessary vote requirements, is provided for in Article IX, while Article XV delineates the procedure for the impeachment of these officers. Article VII establishe establishes s the standing committees committees of the local/cha local/chapter pter and how their  members are appointed. Article VIII lays down the rules for meetings of  the union, including the notice and quorum requirements thereof. Article X enum enumer erat ates es with with part partic icul ular arit ity y the the rule rules s for for unio union n dues dues,, spec specia iall assessments, fines, and other payments. Article XII provides the general rule for quorum in meetings of the Board of Directors and of the members of the local/chapter, and cites the applicability of the Robert’s Rules of  Order[43] in its meetings. meetings. And finally, Article XVI XVI governs and institutes institutes the requisites for the amendment of the constitution. The Court likewise sees no impediment in deeming respondent as having acquired legal personality as of 15 June 1998, the fact that it was the local/chapter itself, and not the FFW, which submitted the documents documents required under Section 1, Rule VI of Department Department Order  No. No. 9. The evid eviden entt rati ration onal ale e why why the the rule rule stat states es that that it is the the federation federation or national national union that submits submits said documents documents to the Bureau or Regional Office is that the creation of the local/chapter is the sole prerogative of the federation or national union, and not of  any other entity. Certainly, a putative local/chapter cannot, without the imprimatur of the federation or national union, claim affiliation with the larger unit or source its legal personality therefrom. In the the ordina ordinary ry course course,, it should should have been been FFW, FFW, and not respondent, which should have submitted the subject documents to the Regional Office. Nonethele Nonetheless, ss, there is no good reason reason to deny legal personality or defer its conferral to the local/chapter if it is evident at the onset that the federation federation or national national union itself has already already through its own means established the local/chapter. In this case, such is evidenced by the Charter Certificate dated 9 June 1998, issued by FFW, and attached to the petition for certification election. The Charter  Certifica Certificate te expressly expressly states that respondent respondent has been issued the said certificate “to operate as a local or chapter of the [FFW]”. The Charter  Certificate expressly acknowledges FFW’s intent to establish respondent as of 9 June 1998. This being the case, we consider it permissible for  respon responden dentt to have have submit submitted ted the requir required ed docume documents nts itself itself to the Region Regional al Office Office,, and proper proper that that respon responden dent’s t’s legal legal person personalit ality y be deemed existent as of 15 June 1998, the date the complete documents were submitted. 2. No, it does not. Under the law, a managerial employee is “one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or and/or to hire, transfer, transfer, suspend, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, discharge, assign or  discipline employees.” A supervisory employee is “one who, in the interest of the employ employer, er, effect effective ively ly recomm recommend ends s manage manageria riall action actions s if the exercise exercise of such recommendator recommendatory y authority authority is not merely routinary routinary or  clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment.’” Finally, “all employees not falling within the d efinition of managerial or supervisory employee are considered considered rank-and-file employees”. employees”. It is also well-settled well-settled that the actual functions of an employee, not merely his job title, are determinative in classifying such employee as managerial, supervisory or  rank rank and file. file. Good Good faith faith is presum presumed ed in all repres represent entati ations, ons, an essential element of fraud, false statement and misrepresentation in order for these to be actionable is intent to mislead by the party making the representation. In this case, there is no proof to show that Bathan, or appellee appellee union for that matter, intended intended to mislead mislead anyone anyone.. If this this was appell appellee ee union’ union’s s intenti intention, on, it would would have have refrained from using a more precise description of the organization instead of declaring that the organization is composed of ‘rank and file file monthl monthlies ies’. ’. Hence, Hence, the charge charge of fraud, fraud, false false statem statement ent or  misrepresentation cannot be sustained. Even if  they are supervisory employees, no action can be done that emasculates the right to self-organization and the promotion of free trade unioni unionism. sm. We take take admini administr strati ative ve notice notice of the realit realities ies in union union organi organizin zing, g, during during which which the organi organizer zers s must must take take their their chanc chances, es, oftent oftentime imes s unawar unaware e of the fine fine distin distincti ctions ons betwee between n manage manageria rial, l, supervisory and rank and file employees. The grounds for cancellation of 

Disini

- 52 -

union registration are not meant to be applied automatically, but indeed with utmost discretion. Where a remedy short of cancellation is available, that remedy should be preferred. In this case, no party will be prejudiced if Bathan were to be excluded from membership in the union. The vacancy he will thus create can then be easily filled up through the succession provision of appellee union’s constitution and by-laws. What is important is that there is an unmistakeable intent of the members of appellee union to exercise their right to organize. We cannot impose rigorous restraints on such right if we are to give meaning meaning to the protectio protection n to labor and social social justice justice clauses of the Constitution. 3. No, it does not affect the case. The allegation allegation that the bargaining bargaining unit that respondent respondent sought to represent is no longer the same because because of the dynamic dynamic nature of petitioner’s business, a lot of changes having occurred in the work environment, and that four of respondent’s officers are no longer connected with petitioner have no effect on the Court’s ruling that a certifica certification tion election should be immediatel immediately y conducted conducted with respon responden dentt as one of the availa available ble choice choices. s. Petiti Petitione oner’s r’s bare bare manifestat manifestations ions adduce adduce no reason reason why the certifica certification tion election election should not be conducted forthwith. If there are matters that have arisen since the filing of the petition that serve to delay or cancel the elec electi tion on,, thes these e can can be thre thresh shed ed out out duri during ng the the prepre-el elec ecti tion on conferences. Neither is the fact that some of respondent’s officers have have sinc since e resi resign gned ed from from peti petiti tion oner er of any any mome moment nt.. The The local/chap local/chapter ter retains a separate separate legal personalit personality y from that of its officers or members that remains viable notwithstanding any turnover  in its officers or members. DISPOSITION WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

UMALI V LOVINA 86 Phil 313 PADILLA; April 29, 1950 NATURE Petition for writ of mandamus FACTS - 201 employ employees ees of the Jai Jai Alai Alai Corpor Corporati ation on of the the Philip Philippin pines es organi organized zed thems themselv elves es into into an associ associati ation on as the "Indep "Independ endent ent Employees Union". They filed with the Department of Labor a copy of  its constitution and by-laws. - Its President wrote a letter to the Secretary of Labor requesting immedi immediate ate and favora favorable ble action action on the pendin pending g applic applicati ation on for  regist registrat ration ion of their their labor labor organi organizat zation ion.. On the the same same date, date, the Secretary of Labor wrote a letter to the President of the Jai Alaistas Union of Employees, a registered and licensed union, granting it an extension of time to hold an election under the supervision of the Department of Labor, and warning the President of the union that should the election be not held within the time granted, he would be compel compelled led to regist register er and issue issue a permit permit to the Indep Independ endent ent Employees Union. -Despite the failure of the Jai Alaistas Union of Employees to hold a general general election and the promise of the Secretary Secretary of Labor that shou should ld such such an elec electi tion on be not not held held,, he woul would d regis registe terr the the Independent Employees Union the following day, the said secretary has refused and still refuses to register the application and to issue a permit permit to the the Indepe Independe ndent nt Emplo Employee yees s Union Union to operat operate e as a legitimate labor organization. - responden respondentt justifies justifies his failure failure to register register and to issue issue permit appl applie ied d for for upon upon the the follo followi wing ng grou ground nds: s: (1) (1) that that he has has not not inve invest stig igat ated ed the the acti activi viti ties es,, real real aims aims,, and and purp purpos oses es of the the Independent Employees Union, as required of him by section 3 of  Commonwealth Act 213, due to the failure of the petitioner's union or  its officials officials to accomplish accomplish and submit submit to him the mimeographed mimeographed questionnai questionnaire re required required to be filled out by the labor union applicant; applicant; (2) that there is no fixed period provided for in Commonwealth Act 213, 213, within within which which he as Secret Secretary ary of Labor Labor must must comple complete te his

Labor Law 2

A2010

investigation and act upon the application; and (3) that he is clothed the discretion to issue or not the permit applied for. ISSUE/S 1. WON the Secretary’s refusal is justified HELD 1. No. Disposition There being no lawful reason for the respondent to refuse the registration of the application for the petitioner's union and permission to operate as a legitimate labor organization; it being the duty of the respondent to register the application and issue the permit upon payment of the required fee, as provided for in section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 213, the investigation to be conducted by him, as required by law, having been conducted conducted and completed completed,, as may be inferred from his official official state statemen ments ts in connec connectio tion n therew therewith ith,, the conclu conclusio sion n in connec connectio tion n therew therewith ith,, the conclu conclusio sion n is inesc inescapa apable ble that that he has neglec neglected ted the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins him to perform as a duty resulting from his office, and that such neglect unlawfully excludes the petitioner's union from the use and enjoyment of a right to which it is entitled. It appearing further that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the writ prayed for should be, as is hereby, granted, without costs.

VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION V ESTRELLA 82 SCRA 280 FERNANDO; FERNANDO; March 31, 1978 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - there was a CBA between ALU and Vassar Industries which expired. Before it expired, 111 of the 150 employees of the firm disaffiliated from the labor org and formed their own union. They filed an application for  registration of their union. - respondent Estrella, then Acting Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, refused to register petitioner Vassar Industries Employees Union “on the ground that there is already a registered collective bargaining agent in the company.” ISSUES 1. What is the appropriate remedy for the applicant union? HELD 1. The union should be registered. Reasoning  As long as the applicant union complies with all the legal requireme requirements nts for registration, registration, it becomes becomes the BLR’s ministeri ministerial al duty to register the union. Therefore the petitioner Union should be registered in this case. Then it can be part of a certification election to decide who would would be the the exclus exclusive ive bargai bargainin ning g repres represent entati ative ve of the worker workers. s. (Philippine Labor Alliance Council v BLR: Once the fact of disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, a certification election is the most expeditiou expeditious s way of determining determining which labor organizat organization ion is to be the exclusive bargaining representative.) Until the appropriate bargaining representative is chosen and a new CBA is concluded, the interim CBA which was entered into earlier  and has favora favorable ble terms terms for for the worke workers rs of Vassa Vassarr Indus Industri tries es shall shall continue in full force and effect. This is to assure that both social justice and the protection to labor provisions would be effectively implemented without sanctioning an attempt to frustrate the exercise of this court’s  jurisdiction in a pending case. Disposition writ of certiorari is granted. Bureau of Labor Relations is ordered ordered to conduct conduct a certifica certification tion election with petitioner petitioner labor union, union, Vassar Industries Labor Union, and private respondent labor union ALU, participating therein to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers employed in Vassar Industries. Immediately executory.

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V LAGUESMA (Nagkakaisang-Lakas (Nagkakaisang-Lakas ng Manggagawa) Manggagawa) 271 SCRA 593

Disini

- 53 -

KAPUNAN; April 18, 1997 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS - July July 9, 1993: 1993: Nagkak Nagkakais aisang ang Lakas Lakas ng Mangg Manggaga agawa wa (NLM) (NLM)-Katipunan (respondent Union) filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor in behalf of the rank and file employees of the Progressive Development Corporation (Pizza Hut). - August 20, 1993: Progressive (petitioner) filed a verified Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification and misrepresentation in the respondent respondent Union's registration registration making it void and invalid. invalid. Among the bases of fraud was the fact that while the application for  registration of the charter was supposed to have been approved in the organi organizat zation ional al meetin meeting g held held on June June 27, 1993, 1993, the chart charter  er  certifica certification tion issued by the federatio federation n KATIPUNA KATIPUNAN N was dated June 26, 1993 or one (1) day prior to the formation of the chapter, and that the Constitution and by Laws submitted in support of its petition were not properly acknowledged and notarized. - Augu August st 30, 30, 1993 1993:: Prog Progres ressi sive ve file filed d a Peti Petiti tion on seek seekin ing g the the cancellation of the Union's registration on the grounds of fraud and falsificat falsificatio. io. Motion was likewise likewise filed by petitioner petitioner with the MedArbiter Arbiter requestin requesting g suspension suspension of proceeding proceedings s in the certifica certification tion election case until after the prejudicial question of the Union's legal personalit personality y is determine determined d in the proceedings proceedings for cancellation cancellation of  registration. - In an Order dated September 29, 1993, Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdull Abdullah ah direct directed ed the holdin holding g of a certif certifica icati tion on electi election on among among petitioner's rank and file employees. - On appe appeal al to the the offi office ce of the the Secr Secret etar ary y of Labo Labor, r, Labo Labor  r  Undersecr Undersecretary etary Bienvenido Bienvenido E. Laguesma Laguesma in a Resolutio Resolution n dated dated December 29, 1993 denied the same. ISSUE/S 1. WON after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization, recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations merely merely become becomes s a minist ministeri erial al funct function ion.. (Acti (Action on and Denial Denial of  Application and Remedy) HELD 1. NO Ratio Registrat Registration ion requireme requirements nts specifical specifically ly afford afford a measure measure of  protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends. Such requirements are a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of  workers are engaged directly affect the public interest and should be protected. Reasoning  Art. Art. 234. 234. Requireme Requirements nts of registrat registration ion.. - Any Any appl applic ican antt labo labor  r  organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and and priv privil ileg eges es gran grante ted d by law law to legi legiti tima mate te labo labor  r  organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements xxx. (financial reports, names of officers, names of members, P50.00 filing fee) - The Med-Arbiter summarily disregarded the petitioner's prayer that the former look into the legitimacy of the respondent Union by a sweeping sweeping declaration declaration that the union was in the possessio possession n of a charter certificate so that "for all intents and purposes, Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut (was) a legitimate labor organization." - The requirements embodied in Art 234 are intended as preventive meas measure ures s agai agains nstt the the comm commis issi sion on of frau fraud. d. Afte Afterr a labo labor  r  organizat organization ion has filed the necessary papers and documents documents for  registration, it become becomes s mandat mandatory ory for the Bureau Bureau of Labor  Labor  Relations to check if the requirements under Article 234 have been sedulously complied with. - Any action taken by the Bureau of Labor Relations is made in consonance with the mandate of the Labor Code, which, it bears emphasis, emphasis, specifically specifically requires requires that the basis for the issuance issuance of a certificate of registration should be compliance with the requirements

Labor Law 2

A2010

for recognition under Article 234. - The Court's conclusion should not be misconstrued as impairing the local union's right to be certified as the employees' bargaining agent in the petitioner's establishment. establishment. The Court is merely saying saying that the local union must first comply with the statutory requirements in order to exercise this right. REMEDY: REMEDY: It would have been more prudent prudent for the Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter and public respondent to have granted petitioner's request for the suspension of proceedings in the certification election case, until the issue of the legality of the Union's registration shall have been resolved. resolved. Failure of the Med-Arbit Med-Arbiter er and public responden respondentt to heed the request request constitut constituted ed a grave abuse of discretion. - The grounds ventilated in cancellation proceedings in accordance with Article 239 of the Labor Code constitute a grave challenge to the right of  respondent Union to ask for certification election. The Med-Arbiter should have looked into the merits of the petition for cancellation before issuing an order calling for certification election EFFECT EFFECT,, PENDI PENDING NG PETIT PETITION ION,, CANCEL CANCELLAT LATION ION TRADE TRADE UNION UNION REGISTRATION REGISTRATION (P.24) - Once Once a labor labor organi organizat zation ion attain attains s the status status of a legiti legitima mate te labor  labor  organization it begins to possess all of the rights and privileges granted by law to such organizations. - Registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer confer no legitimacy legitimacy upon a labor organization organization irregularly irregularly recognize recognized. d. Under such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, organization, acquires acquires no rights, rights, particular particularly ly the right to ask for  certification election in a bargaining unit. The invalidity of respondent Union's registration would negate its legal personality to participate in certification election.

Disposition Petition is granted and remanded to Med-Arbiter.

3. Colla Collater teral al Attack Attack TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS V TAGAYTAY GOLF CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION 395 SCRA 699 CARPIO-MORALES; CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003 NATURE Petition Petition for Certiorar Certiorarii under Rule 45 THIGCI assailing assailing CA decision decision denying its petition to annul the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Resolutions of November 12, 1998 and December 29, 1998 FACTS - October October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Tagaytay Highlands Highlands Employees 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 > opposed petition for certification election because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it includ included ed the names names and signat signature ures s of superv superviso isors, rs, resign resigned, ed, terminate terminated d and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, 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 were actual actual rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e employ employees ees of THIGCI THIGCI.. Also, Also, some 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. THEU THEU assert asserted ed that that it compli complied ed with with all the the requir requireme ements nts for valid valid affiliatio affiliation n and inclusion inclusion in the roster of legitimate legitimate labor organizations 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

- 54 -

Disini

enjoy the the rights accorded to a legitimate organization. Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section Section 11, Rule Rule XI of DOLE DOLE Depart Departmen mentt Order Order No. 09, automatically order the conduct of a certification election. - January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin Bactin ordered the holding of a certification election - DOLE Resolution of November 12, 1998 1 > setting aside the June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for certification election. MFR denied - CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. 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-e employer-employ mployee ee relationsh relationship ip and petitioner  petitioner  failed to adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations. Issue: Issue: WON the composition of the union can be subject to collateral attack Held: NO - After a certifica certificate te of registratio registration n is issued issued to a union, its legal person personali ality ty cannot cannot be subjec subjectt to collat collatera erall attack attack.. It may be questi questione oned d only only in an indepe independe ndent nt petiti petition on for cancel cancellat lation ion in accord accordanc ance e with with Secti Section on 5 of Rule V, Book Book IV of the "Rules "Rules to Implement Implement the Labor Code" (Implemen (Implementing ting Rules) Rules) which section reads: Sec. 5. Effect of registration. registration . The labor organizati organization on or workers’ associatio association n shall be deemed deemed registered registered and vested vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules.

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V LAGUESMA LAGUESMA (Nagkakaisang-Lakas (Nagkakaisang-Lakas ng Manggagawa) 271 SCRA 593 KAPUNAN; April 18, 1997 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS - July July 9, 1993: 1993: Nagkak Nagkakais aisang ang Lakas Lakas ng Mangg Manggaga agawa wa (NLM) (NLM)-Katipunan (respondent Union) filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor in behalf of the rank and file employees of the Progressive Development Corporation (Pizza Hut). - August 20, 1993: Progressive (petitioner) filed a verified Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification and misrepresentation in the respondent respondent Union's registration registration making it void and invalid. invalid. Among the bases of fraud was the fact that while the application for  registration of the charter was supposed to have been approved in the organi organizat zation ional al meetin meeting g held held on June June 27, 1993, 1993, the chart charter  er  certifica certification tion issued by the federatio federation n KATIPUNA KATIPUNAN N was dated June 26, 1993 or one (1) day prior to the formation of the chapter, and that the Constitution and by Laws submitted in support of its petition were not properly acknowledged and notarized. - Augu August st 30, 30, 1993 1993:: Prog Progres ressi sive ve file filed d a Peti Petiti tion on seek seekin ing g the the cancellation of the Union's registration on the grounds of fraud and falsificat falsificatio. io. Motion was likewise likewise filed by petitioner petitioner with the MedArbiter Arbiter requestin requesting g suspension suspension of proceeding proceedings s in the certifica certification tion election case until after the prejudicial question of the Union's legal personalit personality y is determine determined d in the proceedings proceedings for cancellation cancellation of  registration. - In an Order dated September 29, 1993, Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdull Abdullah ah direct directed ed the holdin holding g of a certif certifica icati tion on electi election on among among petitioner's rank and file employees. - On appe appeal al to the the offi office ce of the the Secr Secret etar ary y of Labo Labor, r, Labo Labor  r  Undersecr Undersecretary etary Bienvenido Bienvenido E. Laguesma Laguesma in a Resolutio Resolution n dated dated

Labor Law 2

A2010

Disini

- 55 -

December 29, 1993 denied the same. ISSUE/S 1. WON after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization, recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations merely becomes becomes a ministeria ministeriall function. function. (Action and Denial Denial of Applicatio Application n and Remedy) HELD 1. NO Ratio Regist Registrat ration ion requir requireme ements nts specif specifica ically lly afford afford a measur measure e of  protectio protection n to unsuspecting unsuspecting employees employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union fund funds s or use use the the labo laborr orga organi niza zati tion on for for ille illegi giti tima mate te ends ends.. Such Such requir requireme ements nts are a valid valid exerci exercise se of the police police power, power, becaus because e the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of workers are engaged directly affect the public in terest and should be protected. Reasoning  Art. 234. Requirements of registration. registration . - Any applicant labor organization, associati association on or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal person personalit ality y and shall shall be entitl entitled ed to the rights rights and privil privilege eges s granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of  the certificate of registration based on the following requirements xxx. (financial (financial reports, reports, names of officers, officers, names of members, members, P50.00 filing fee) - The Med-Arbiter summarily disregarded the petitioner's prayer that the former look into the legitimacy of the respondent Union by a sweeping declaration that the union was in the possession of a charter certificate so that "for all intents and purposes, Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut (was) a legitimate labor organization." - The requirements requirements embodied embodied in Art 234 are intended as preventiv preventive e measures against the the commission of fraud. After a labor organization has filed the necessary papers and documents for registration, it becomes mand mandat ator ory y for for the the Bure Bureau au of Labo Laborr Rela Relati tions ons to chec check k if the the requirements under Article 234 have been sedulously complied with. - Any Any acti action on take taken n by the the Bure Bureau au of Labo Laborr Rela Relati tion ons s is made made in conso consonan nance ce with with the the manda mandate te of the Labor Code, Code, which, which, it bears bears empha emphasis sis,, specif specifica ically lly requir requires es that that the basis basis for the issuan issuance ce of a certificate of registration should be compliance with the requirements for  recognition under Article 234. - The Court's conclusion should not be misconstrued as impairing the local union's right to be certified as the employees' bargaining agent in the petitioner's establishment. establishment. The Court is merely saying saying that the local union must first comply with the statutory requirements in order to exercise this right. REMEDY: REMEDY: It would have been more prudent prudent for the Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter and public respondent to have granted petitioner's request for the suspension of proceedings in the certification election case, until the issue of the legality of the Union's registration shall have been resolved. resolved. Failure of the Med-Arbit Med-Arbiter er and public responden respondentt to heed the request request constitut constituted ed a grave abuse of discretion. - The grounds ventilated in cancellation proceedings in accordance with Article 239 of the Labor Code constitute a grave challenge to the right of  respondent Union to ask for certification election. The Med-Arbiter should have looked into the merits of the petition for cancellation before issuing an order calling for certification election EFFECT EFFECT,, PENDI PENDING NG PETIT PETITION ION,, CANCEL CANCELLAT LATION ION TRADE TRADE UNION UNION REGISTRATION REGISTRATION (P.24) - Once Once a labor labor organi organizat zation ion attain attains s the status status of a legiti legitima mate te labor  labor  organization it begins to possess all of the rights and privileges granted by law to such organizations. - Registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer confer no legitimacy legitimacy upon a labor organization organization irregularly irregularly recognize recognized. d. Under such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, organization, acquires acquires no rights, rights, particular particularly ly the right to ask for  certification election in a bargaining unit. The invalidity of respondent Union's registration would negate its legal personality to participate in certification election. Disposition Petition is granted and remanded to Med-Arbiter.

4. Rights of Legitimate Organization

Labor

ACEDERA V INTL. CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES 395 SCRA 103 CARPIO-MORALES; January 13, 2003 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - Petitioners Jerry Acedera, et al. are employees of International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and are officers/members of Associ Associate ated d Port Port Check Checkers ers & Worker Workers s UnionUnion-Int Intern ernati ationa onall Container Terminal Services, Inc. Local Chapter (APCWU-ICTSI), a labo laborr orga organi niza zati tion on duly duly regi regist ster ered ed as a loca locall affi affili liat ate e of the the Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union (APCWU). - In early 1997, ICTSI went on a retrenchment program and laid off  its on-call employees. This prompted the APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice notice of strike strike.. The disput dispute e respec respectin ting g the retren retrench chmen mentt was resolved by a compromise settlement while another issue with regard to the computation of wages was referred to the LA. - Acedera, et al. filed with the LA a Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene. The LA denied their Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion for Intervention upon a finding that they are already well represented by APCWU. NLRC affirmed. CA dismissed their petition for certiorari. ISSUE 1. WON the CA erred in ruling that the petitioners have no legal right to intervene and that their i ntervention is a superfluity. HELD 1. NO Ratio For a member of a class to be permitted to intervene in a representative action, fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the representative must be proven. It must be based on facts borne on record. Mere assertions do not suffice. Reasoning Petitioners-appellants Reasoning  Petitioners-appellants anchor their right to intervene on Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 1 of which reads: Section 1. Who may intervene.- A person who has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an office officerr thereo thereoff may, may, with with leave leave of court, court, be allowe allowed d to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervent intervention ion will unduly delay or prejudice prejudice the adjudicati adjudication on of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s right may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. - They, They, howeve however, r, failed failed to consid consider, er, in additi addition on to the rule on intervention, the rule on representation, thusly: Sec. 3. Representatives as parties.- Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case case and shall shall be deemed deemed to be the the real real party party in intere interest st.. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor executor or administr administrator ator,, or a party party authorized authorized by law or these Rules. . . - A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under Art 242(a) of the Labor Code which provides that a union may act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargai bargainin ning. g. This This author authority ity includ includes es the the power power to repres represent ent its members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA. That APCWU acted in a representative capacity “for and in behalf of  its Union members and other employees similarly situated,” the title of the case filed by it at the LA’s Office so expressly states. - While a party acting in a representative capacity, such as a union,

Labor Law 2

A2010

may be permitted permitted to intervene in a case, ordinarily, ordinarily, a person person whose interests are already represented will not be permitted to do the same except except when there there is a sugges suggestio tion n of fraud fraud or collus collusion ion or that that the representative will not act in good faith for the protection of all interests represented by him. - Petitioners cite the dismissal of the case first by the LA, and later by the CA. The dismissal of the case does not, however, by itself show the existence of fraud or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of  APCWU APCWU.. There There must must be clear clear and convin convincin cing g eviden evidence ce of fraud fraud or  collusion or lack of good faith independently of the dismissal. - Petitioners likewise express their fear that APCWU would not prosecute the case diligently because of its “sweetheart relationship” with ICTSI. There is nothing on record, however, to support this alleged relationship. Disposition Petition is hereby DENIED.

PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT, INC. V MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION 493 SCRA 195 CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006 FACTS -Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the exclusive bargaining bargaining representativ representative e of the Hotel’s Hotel’s employees employees.. This petition petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal requirements. -after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the employee’s bargaining agent as their petition for certification election was denied. -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel’ refusal to bargain bargain and for acts of unfair unfair labor practices. practices. NCMB summoned summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union however suddenly went on strike -Secr -Secreta etary ry of DOLE DOLE assume assumed d jurisd jurisdict iction ion and ordere ordered d compul compulsor sory y arbitration pursua pursuant nt to art. art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union Union member members s were were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees employees return. The order was modified (by a different different Secretary) such that reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll. -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages of union members. ISSUE WON the strike conducted by the Union was illegal. HELD Yes. Yes. -as was mentioned, the first ground mentioned by the Union- the Hotel’s refusal to bargain- was not a valid ground to stage the strike. -The second ground – that petitioner petitioner prevented prevented or intimidated intimidated some workers from joining the union before, during or after the strike – was correctly discredited by the appellate court.. Since it is the union who alleges alleges that unfair unfair labor practices practices were committed committed by the Hotel, the burden of proof is on the union to prove its allegations by substantial evidence. “the facts and the evidence did not establish events [sic] least a rational basis why the union would [wield] a strike based on alleged unfair  labor practices it did not even bother to substantiate”. -It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of private sector employees to strike strike is not absolute. absolute. Thus Section Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution, Constitution, provides: SECTION 3. x x x It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law…” -Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted activities which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike illegal. Evidence show s that some of the workers-stri workers-strikers kers who joined joined the strike indeed committed illegal acts – blocking the free ingress to and egress from the Hotel, holding noise barrage, threatening guests, and the like. TOPICS: right to engage in concerted activities-limitations

- 56 -

Disini CORNISTA V NLRC (CARPIO). 504 SCRA 659 GARCIA; October 17, 2006

NATURE Review on certiorari of the consolidated decisions of the CA FACTS - In 1983 1983,, the the Phil Philip ippin pine e Vete Vetera rans ns Bank Bank was was plac placed ed unde under  r  receiv receivers ership hip.. The liquid liquidato atorr termin terminate ated d all the the employ employees ees and commenced payment of separation pay and other benefits to the terminated employees. - In 1992, 1992, Congre Congress ss author authorize ized d the the reopen reopening ing of the Bank. A Rehabi Rehabilit litati ation on Commit Committee tee was create created d to select select and organi organize ze manpower. The Union charged the Bank with unfair labor practices and prayed for the immediate reinstatement of the Bank's former  employees. -Labor -Labor Arbit Arbiter er Carpio Carpio dismis dismisse sed d the case. case. NLRC NLRC revers reversed ed and ordered the immediate reinstatement of all Union members. - Bank appealed to the SC. While appeal was pending, the Bank and the the Unio Union, n, thro throug ugh h its its offi office cers rs,, ente entere red d into into a comp compro romi mise se agreement, which was ratified by a substantial majority of the Union’s members. members. Carpio Carpio approved approved the agreement. agreement. Parties Parties moved to dismiss cases pending in SC. As other employees opposed motion to dismiss, SC denied said motion. ISSUES 1. WON the employees have the right to be reinstated to their former  employment with the Bank upon its rehabilitation 2. WON the Compromise Agreement was validly entered into by the Bank and the Union HELD 1. NO - The forcible closure of the Bank by operation of law permanently severed severed the employer employer-empl -employee oyee relationship relationship between between it and its employees. The Bank's subsequent rehabilitation did not, by any test of reason, "revive" what was already a dead relationship between the petitioners and the Bank. - Had Congress intended that separated employees be rehired and given priority priority in the hiring of new employees, employees, it would have clearly stated this in R.A. No. 7169. The fact that it did not only shows its clear clear legislati legislative ve intent intent to give the new bank a free free hand hand in the selection and hiring of i ts new staff. - Giving in to petitioners' demand of wholesale reinstatement with back wages, bonuses, holiday pay, vacation and sick leave benefits would be a fatal blow to the very intention of R.A. No. 7169 to rehabilita rehabilitate te the Bank. The payment payment of such substantial substantial amounts would definitely further dissipate the remaining assets of the Bank and cripple its finances even as, at this point, the Bank is barely making making a profit profit under the weight weight of its presen presentt liabil liabiliti ities, es, and ultimately ultimately make impossible impossible its desired desired rehabilitat rehabilitation. ion. This clearly clearly contravenes the intent and spirit of R.A. No. 7169 2. NO Ratio A compromise agreement, once approved, has the effect of  res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent, forgery, fraud, misrepresentation and coercion, none of which exists in this case. Reasoning  - A labor union's function is to represent its members. It can file an action action or enter enter into into compro compromis mise e agreem agreement ents s on behalf behalf of its members - Union is a closed shop union. For this reason, it was the only one with with legal legal author authority ity to negoti negotiate ate,, trans transact act,, and enter enter into into any agreement with the Bank. The Compromise Agreement was ratified by 282 Union members members representing representing a majority majority of its entire 529 membership. The ratification of the Compromise Agreement by the majority of the Union members necessarily binds the minority. - The submission of the Compromise Agreement on joint motion of  the parties for approval by the Labor Arbiter cured whatever defect the signing of the agreement in the absence of the Labor Arbiter 

Labor Law 2

A2010

- 57 -

would have caused. - Furthermore, petitioners cannot belatedly reject or repudiate their acts of  accepting the monetary consideration under the compromise agreement, to the prejudice of the Bank. They are now estopped from questioning the validity of the Compromise Agreement. Dispositive Petition DENIED.

5. Effect Effect of Non-regi Non-registrat stration ion PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY INC. V. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 242 SCRA 99 FELICIANO; March 1, 1995 NATURE Special civil action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari. FACTS - Union, which is newly organized and affiliated w/ a federation, filed Petition for direct direct certification or for for certification election. election. Company said that the Union is not legitimate bec it failed to submit books of account w/ BLR at time it was registered. - Med Arbiter Arbiter dismiss dismissed ed Union’s Union’s petition. petition. DOLE Underse Undersecret cretary ary set aside Med Arbiter’s order, ordering the holding of a certification election. Petition is now before SC. - SC issued issued TRO, but this notwithstandi notwithstanding, ng, certific certification ation election was conducted.

-

ISSUE/S WON DOLE Undersecretary committed grave abuse of discretion HELD 1. YES Ratio The requirements of registration of legitimate labor organizations are an exerci exercise se of the police police power power of the State, State, design designed ed for the protection of workers against potential abuse by unions. Registration is a condition sine qua non for acquisition of legal personality by a labor organization and the exercise of rights and privileges granted by law. Reasoning It Reasoning  It is immaterial that the Union was organized for less than a year before its application for registration registration w/ BLR. Accounting books must be submitted even if they contain n o detailed entries. The Union must submit submit its books of accoun accountt before before it may demand demand recognition by the Company as exclusive bargaining agent of members. Disposition Petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.

SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC V LAGUESMA 324 SCRA 425 QUISUMBING: QUISUMBING: February 2, 2000 NATURE:

-

Special civil action for certiorari  for certiorari and and prohibition

FACTS:

-

-

Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., ( SRBI, for brevity) is a duly-registered banking institution with principal office in Cebu City and a branch in Mandaue City. Private respondent SRBI Association of Professional, Supervisory, Office, and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor organization affiliate affiliated d with the Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines Philippines (TUCP). On October 8, 1993, the DOLE Regional Office in Cebu City grante granted d Certif Certifica icate te of Regist Registrat ration ion to APSO APSOTEU TEU-TU -TUCP, CP, hereafter referred to as the union. On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for certification electi election on of the superv superviso isory ry employ employees ees of SRBI. SRBI. It allege alleged, d,

-

-

-

Disini among among others, others, that: (1) APSOTEU-TUCP APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor  organizati organization on duly-regis duly-registered tered with the Labor Departmen Department; t; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more supervisory employees; (3) a majority majority of these these employees employees supported supported the petition: (4) there was no existing existing collective collective bargaining bargaining agreement agreement (CBA (CBA)) betw betwee een n any any unio union n and and SRBI SRBI;; and and (5) (5) no certification election had been held in SRBI during the past 12 months prior to the petition. On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the union' union's s petiti petition. on. It sought sought to preven preventt the holdin holding g of a certif certifica icatio tion n electi election on on two ground grounds. s. First , that that the members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial or  confidential employees. Second , the Association of Labor  Unions-Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines or ALUTUCP was representing the union. The union filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 1, 1993. It argued that its members were not managerial employees but merely supervisory employees. On December 9, 1993, the Med-Arbiter denied petitioner's motion to dismiss. SRBI appealed the Med-Arbiter's decision to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The appeal was denied for lack of merit. The certification election was ordered. On June 16, 1994, the Med-Arbiter scheduled the holding of the certification election for June 29, 1994. On June 17, 1994, SRBI filed with the Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter an urgent motion to suspend proceedings. The Med-Arbiter  deni denied ed the the same. ame. SRBI RBI the then filed iled a moti otion for  reconsideration. Two days later, the Med-Arbiter cancelled the certification election scheduled for June 29, 1994 in order to address the motion for reconsideration. The Med-Ar Med-Arbit biter er later later denied denied petiti petitione oner's r's motion motion for  reconsideration SRBI appealed the order of denial to the DOLE Secretary Petiti Petitione onerr proce proceede eded d to file file a petiti petition on with with the DOLE Regional Office seeking the cancellation of the respondent union's union's registrat registration. ion. It averred averred that the APSOTEU-T APSOTEU-TUCP UCP members were actually managerial employees who were prohibited by law from joining or organizing unions. DOLE Undersecret Undersecretary ary denied SRBI's SRBI's appeal appeal for lack of  merit. merit. He ruled that APSOTEU-T APSOTEU-TUCP UCP was a legitimat legitimate e labor organization. It was fully entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election. He also held that until and unless a final order is issued cancelling APSOTEU-TUCP's registration certificate, it had the legal legal right right to repres represent ent its member members s for collec collectiv tive e bargaining purposes. SRBI moved for reconsideration of the Undersecretary's decision

ISSUE/S: (1) WON the members of the respondent union are managerial employees employees and/or and/or highly-plac highly-placed ed confident confidential ial employees, employees, hence prohibited prohibited by law from joining joining labor organization organizations s and engaging in union activities (2) (2) WON WON the the MedMed-Ar Arbit biter er may may vali validly dly orde orderr the the hold holdin ing g of a certification election HELD: 2. NO Reasoning  - Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code defines the terms terms "managerial employee" and "supervisory employees" as follows: Art. 212. Definitions (m) "Manager "Managerial ial employ employee" ee" is one who is vested vested with with powe powers rs or prer prerog ogat ativ ives es to lay lay down down and and exec execut ute e management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge discharge,, assign assign or discipline discipline employees. employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of  the employer, employer, effectiv effectively ely recommen recommend d such managerial managerial

Labor Law 2

A2010

actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or cleric clerical al in nature nature but requires requires the use of indepe independe ndent nt   judgment judgment.. All employees employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of  - Petitioner submitted submitted detailed job descriptions descriptions to support its contention that the union members are managerial employees and/or confidential employees proscribed from engaging in labor activities. In the present case, however, petitioner failed to show that the employees in question were were vest vested ed with with mana manage geri rial al powe powers rs.. At best best they they only only had had recommendatory powers subject to evaluation, review, and final decision by the bank's managemen management. t. The job description description forms forms submitted submitted by petitioner petitioner clearly clearly show that the union members members in question question may not transf transfer, er, suspen suspend, d, lay-of lay-off, f, recall, recall, discha discharge rge,, assign assign,, or discip disciplin line e employees. Moreover, the forms also do not show that the Cashiers, Accountants, and Acting Chiefs of the Loans Department formulate and exec execut ute e mana manage geme ment nt poli polici cies es whic which h are are norm normal ally ly expec expecte ted d of  management officers. 2. YES Reasoning 

-

One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive exclusive representativ representative e of all employees employees in an appropriat appropriate e bargaining bargaining unit for purposes purposes of collectiv collective e bargaining. bargaining. Having complied complied with the requireme requirements nts of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Labor Code Code manda mandates tes that that a certif certifica icatio tion n elect election ion shall shall automatically be automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of  a petition by a legitimate labor organization.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed.

6. Canc Cancel ella lati tion on of Unio Union n Cert Certif ific icat ate e Registration IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF THE UNION REGISTRATION OF AIR PHILIPPINES FLIGHT ATTENDANTS ASSOCIATION And AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. BLR [AIR PHILS FLIGHT ATTENDANTS ASSOCIATION] TINGA; June 22, 2006 Nature: Nature: Certiorari under Rule 45 FACTS: FACTS: - The case initially centered on the union registration of respondent respondent Air  Philippines Flight Attendants Association (APFLAA), which was issued a Certificate of Registration by the DOLE. After the Med-Arbiter rendered a ruling ordering the holding of a certification election, such election was held, with majority of the votes cast in favor of APFLAA. APC filed filed a Petition Petition for for De-Certif De-Certificat ication ion and Cancell Cancellation ation of Union Union Registration against APFLAA with the DOLE alleging that APFLAA could not be regist registere ered d as a labor labor organiz organizati ation, on, as its its composi compositio tion n consis consisted ted of “a mixtur mixture e of superv superviso isory ry and rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e flight flight attendants.” Particularly, APC alleged that flight attendants holding the position of “Lead Cabin Attendant,” which according to it is supervisory in character, were among those who comprised APFLAA. - The DOLE-NCR dismissed said petition and held that A245 of the LC, which states that supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in labor organizations organizations of rank-andrank-and-file file employees, employees, does not provide provide a ground for cancellation of union registration, which is instead governed by Article 239 of the Labor Code. - BLR denied the appeal, affirming affirming the rationale of the DOLE-NCR. - CA also dismissed because APC had “failed to avail of the remedy of a prior prior MFR” MFR” before before the filing of the certi certiora orari ri petiti petition, on, which which step, step, it stres stressed sed,, is a “condi “conditio tion n sine sine qua non to the filing filing of a petiti petition on for  certiorari.” Denied the MR as well for being defective.

- 58 -

Disini

ISSUE: ISSUE : WON the Union’ Union’ registra registratio tion n may be cancel cancelled led as it is composed of a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees (and also, WON Lead Cabin Attendant Attendants s are indeed supervisory supervisory employees) HELD: HELD: NO. APC did not impute on APFLAA such misrepresentation of the character necessitated under A239 (a) and (c) of the Labor  Code. Reasoning: Reasoning: - APC merely argued that APFLAA was not qualified to become a legitimate labor organization by reason of its mixed composition of  rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e and super supervis visory ory employ employees ees;; and that that APFLA APFLAA A comm commit itte ted d misr misrep epre rese sent ntat atio ion n by maki making ng it appe appear ar that that its its composition was composed purely of rank-and-file employees. - SPI Technologies Incorporated v. DOLE: the Court observed that A245 of the LC, the legal basis for the petition petition for cancellation cancellation,, merely merely prescribe prescribed d the requireme requirements nts for eligibility eligibility in joining joining a union and and did did not not pres prescr crib ibe e the the grou ground nds s for for canc cancel ella lati tion on of unio union n registration.[ - Tagayt Tagaytay ay Highla Highlands nds Intern Internati ationa onall Golf Golf Club Club v. Tagayt Tagaytay  ay  Highlands Highlands Employees Employees Union: Union: “[t] “[t]he he incl inclus usio ion n in a unio union n of  disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or  fraud fraud under the circumstanc circumstances es enumerated enumerated in Sec (a) and (c) of  A239 LC.” - Clearly then, for the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough enough to establ establish ish that that the rank-a rank-and-f nd-fil ile e union union includ includes es ineligible employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code, 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  amend amendme ment nts s ther theret eto, o, the the minu minute tes s of rati ratifi fica cati tion on,, or in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of offi office cers, rs, the the list list of vote voters rs,, or fail failur ure e to subm submit it thes these e documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR. -Consisten -Consistentt with jurisprudence, jurisprudence, the rule under A245 barring  supervisory employees from joining the union of rank-and-file empl employ oyee ees s is not not a grou ground nd for for canc cancel ella lati tion on of unio union n registration. Dispositive: Dispositive: Petition is DENIED.

LAGUNA AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURING CORP. V SECRETARY, DOLE 457 SCRA 730 CALLEJO; April 29, 2005 NATURE Petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS - May 3, 1999 - Laguna Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation Obre Obrero ro Pili Pilipi pino no-L -LAM AMCO COR R Chap Chapte terr file filed d a peti petiti tion on for  for  certification election with the DOLE. DOLE. In its petition, it noted its registrat registration ion certificat certificate e number number along with the registrat registration ion certificate number number of chapter affiliate. affiliate. The petition alleged that the union was composed of all rank-and-file employees, that the bargaining unit is unorganized and that there had been no certification election for the past 12 months prior to the filing of  the petition. - Laguna Autoparts moved to cancel the certification election becaus because e the the union union was not consid considere ered d a legiti legitimat mate e labor  labor  organi organizat zation ion for for failur failure e to show show that that it had complied complied with with registrat registration ion requirement requirements s such as submissio submission n of required required documents to the Bureau of Labor Relations.

Labor Law 2

A2010

- Med-Arbite Med-Arbiterr Bactin Bactin dismissed dismissed the certifica certification tion election election petition petition because of the union’s lack of personality. personality. DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas reversed Bactin’s Bactin’s order. This was affirmed by the CA. CA. - The CA stressed that a local or chapter need not be registered to become a legitimate labor organization. It poin pointe ted d out out that that a loca locall or chap chapte terr acqu acquir ires es lega legall personality as a labor organization from the date of filing of the complete documents. - The CA noted that it was the employer which offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election election among among its regular regular rank-andrank-and-file file employees employees.. It opin opined ed that that this this must must not be so for the the choi choice ce of a collective collective bargaining bargaining agent was the sole concern concern of the empl employ oyee ees, s, and and the the empl employ oyer er shou should ld be a mere mere bystander. ISSUE/S 1. WON the union is a legitimate labor organization 2. WON the chapter’s chapter’s legal personalit personality y can be attacked attacked collaterally in an election action HELD 1. YES Ratio A local or chapter chapter need not be independent independently ly registered registered to acquire legal personality. A local/chapter constituted constituted in accordance with Section 1 of Rule 6 shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of the complete documents enumerated. Reasoning  The task of determining whether the local or chapter has submitted the complete documentary requirements is lodged with the Regional Office or  the BLR, as the case may be. The records of the case show that the respondent union submitted the said documents to the regional office and was issued a certification. 2. NO Ratio Reasoning  - It may not be subject to a collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing the chapter, as prescribed in Section 5, Rule 5 of the implementing rules of Book 5 which states: “The labor organization or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personalit personality y cannot cannot thereafte thereafterr be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only in an independent   petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. Rules .[” - The pronouncement pronouncement of the Labor Relations Division Division Chief, that the respondent union acquired a legal personality with the submission of the complete documentary requirement, cannot be challenged in a petition for  certification election. Disposition Petition is denied. No costs.

TABLANTE-TUNGOL V NORIEL FERNANDO; AUG 23 1978 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS Petiti Petitione oner, r, after after two unsucc unsuccess essful ful attem attempts pts to preven preventt collec collectiv tive e bargaining with respondent union, filed this certiorari proceeding alleging that public respondents should have cancelled the registration and permit of respondent labor organization as it had engaged in an illegal strike. It based its contention on P.D. No. 823 and Article 239 of the New Labor  Code that cancellation of registration follows from "any activity prohibited by law." The Solic Solicito itorr Genera General, l, in his Commen Commentt claime claimed d that that the the argume argument nt proferred was false and misleading as the law should not be interpreted to includ include e an illegal illegal strike strike engage engaged d into into by any union. union. The phrase phrase 'or  otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law' should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by a union that par takes of the nature of a labor labor contra contract ctor or or 'cabo' 'cabo' system system and respon responden dentt union union is not

Disini

- 59 -

engaged in any such activity. Subsequently, petitioner and private respondent filed a joint motion to dismiss alleging that they have threshed-out their respective disputes. ISSUE WON public respondents should have cancelled the registration and permit of private respondent labor organization as private respondent labor union had engaged in an illegal strike HELD NO. For expediency, we quote in entirety the aforesaid Article relied upon by the Petitioner for cancellation of the registration and permit of the the union union:: 'Artic 'Article le 239. 239. Ground Ground for cancel cancellat lation ion of union union registration. registration. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of  union registration: . . . (e)  Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited  by law . Suppletory to the above provision is Section 6 (c) of Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, which reads as follows: 'Section 6. Denial of Registration of local unions - The Regional Office may deny the application for registration on any of the following grounds: . . . (c) Engaging in the "cabo" system or other illegal practices.' It is a fact that [Association of Democratic Labor Organization] is not a labor labor contract contractor or or is it engage engaged d in the 'cabo' 'cabo' system system or is it otherwise engaged in any activity of such nature which is prohibited by law. law. The above above-qu -quote oted d articl article e shoul should d not be interp interpret reted ed or  construed to include an illegal strike engaged into by any union. This is so because because the phrase phrase 'or otherwise otherwise engaging engaging in any activity activity prohib prohibite ited d by law' law' should should be const construe rued d to mean mean such such activi activity ty engaged into by a union that par takes of the nature of a labor  contractor or 'cabo' system. The law does not intend to include in the said phrase illegally declared strike simply because strike per se is legal. Also, if the law intends to include illegally declared strike, the same same could could have have been been expres expressly sly placed placed there therein in as had been previously previously done in Preside Presidential ntial Decree Decree No. 823." Clearly, Clearly, an an awareness of the relevance of the maxims noscitur  a sociis and ejusdem generis ought to have cautioned counsel for petitioner to shy away from this approach. Dispositive Petition dismissed 

ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION V. LAGUESMA 254 SCRA 565 PANGANIBAN; March 11, 1996 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 FACTS -The Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization (ADFLO) filed an application application for registrat registration ion as a national national federatio federation n alleging, alleging, among others that it has twelve (12) affiliates -After proper evaluation of its application and finding ADFLO to have complied with the requirements for registration pursuant to Articles 234 and 237 of the Labor Code, the Bureau (of Labor Relations) issued issued a Certif Certifica icate te of Regist Registrat ration ion No. 1139911399-FED FED-LC -LC to the the federation. -The Confederation of labor and Allied Social Services (CLASS) filed a petition for the cancellation of the Registration Certificate issued to ADFLO. -The Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), through Director Pura FerrerCalleja, rendered a Decision cancelling the registration of ADFLO. -BLR -BLR Direct Director or Pura Pura Ferrer Ferrer-Ca -Calle lleja, ja, withou withoutt first first ruling ruling on the admiss admissibi ibilit lity y of the exhibi exhibits ts of CLASS CLASS and withou withoutt any furthe further  r  hearing, rendered an order affirming the cancellation ISSUE 1. WON decisi decision on cancel cancellin ling g the regist registrat ration ion of petiti petitione onerr was rendered in violation of the due process clause

Labor Law 2

A2010

HELD 1. YES. YES. Ratio Under Section 1, Article II of our Constitution, "(n)o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law . . ." and under Article 238 of the Labor Code,"(t)he certificate of registration of any legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, shall be canceled by the Bureau if it has reason to believe, after due hearing , that the said labor organizatio organization n no longer meets meets one or more of the requirements requirements herein prescribed." Reasoning  The cancel cancellat lation ion of a certif certifica icate te of regist registrat ration ion is the equivalent of snuffing out the life o f a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses - as a rule - its rights under the Labor Code. Under  the circumstances, petitioner was indisputably entitled to be heard before a judgment could be rendered cancelling its certificate of registration. In David vs. Aguilizan, it was held that a decision rendered without any hearing is null and void. Disposition Petition GRANTED

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V LAGUESMA (Nagkakaisang-Lakas (Nagkakaisang-Lakas ng Manggagawa) Manggagawa) 271 SCRA 593 KAPUNAN; April 18, 1997 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS - July 9, 1993: Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan (responde (respondent nt Union) Union) filed filed a petition petition for certification certification election election with the Department of Labor in behalf of the rank and file employees of the Progressive Development Corporation (Pizza Hut). - August August 20, 1993: Progress Progressive ive (petitioner) (petitioner) filed a verified verified Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification and misrepresentation in the respondent Union's registration making it void and invalid. Among the bases of fraud was the fact that while the application for registration of the charter charter was supposed supposed to have been approved approved in the organizationa organizationall meeting meeting held on June 27, 1993, the charter charter certific certification ation issued by the federation KATIPUNAN was dated June 26, 1993 or one (1) day prior to the formation formation of the chapter, chapter, and that the Constitution Constitution and by Laws submitted in support of its petition were not properly acknowledged and notarized. - August 30, 1993: Progressive filed a Petition seeking the cancellation of  the Union's registration on the grounds of fraud and falsificatio. Motion was was like likewi wise se file filed d by peti petiti tion oner er with with the the MedMed-Ar Arbi bite terr requ reques esti ting ng suspension of proceedings in the certification election case until after the prejudicial question of the Union's legal personality is determined in the proceedings for cancellation of registration. - In an Order Order dated dated Septe Septembe mberr 29, 1993, 1993, Med-A Med-Arbi rbiter ter Rasida Rasidali li C. Abdullah directed the holding of a certification election among petitioner's rank and file employees. - On appeal to the office of the Secretary of Labor, Labor Undersecretary Bienvenido Bienvenido E. Laguesma Laguesma in a Resolution Resolution dated December December 29, 1993 denied the same.

- 60 -

Disini

association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personalit personality y and shall be entitled entitled to the rights and privileges privileges grante granted d by law to legiti legitimat mate e labor labor organi organizat zation ions s upon upon issuan issuance ce of the certif certifica icate te of regist registrat ration ion based based on the following following requirement requirements s xxx. (financial (financial reports, reports, names of  officers, names of members, P50.00 filing fee) - The Med-Arbiter summarily disregarded the petitioner's prayer that the former look into the legitimacy of the respondent Union by a sweeping sweeping declaration declaration that the union was in the possessio possession n of a charter certificate so that "for all intents and purposes, Sumasaklaw sa Manggagawa sa Pizza Hut (was) a legitimate labor organization." - The requirements embodied in Art 234 are intended as preventive meas measure ures s agai agains nstt the the comm commis issi sion on of frau fraud. d. Afte Afterr a labo labor  r  organizat organization ion has filed the necessary papers and documents documents for  registration, it become becomes s mandat mandatory ory for the Bureau Bureau of Labor  Labor  Relations to check if the requirements under Article 234 have been sedulously complied with. - Any action taken by the Bureau of Labor Relations is made in consonance with the mandate of the Labor Code, which, it bears emphasis, emphasis, specifically specifically requires requires that the basis for the issuance issuance of a certificate of registration should be compliance with the requirements for recognition under Article 234. - The Court's conclusion should not be misconstrued as impairing the local union's right to be certified as the employees' bargaining agent in the petitioner's establishment. establishment. The Court is merely saying that the local union must first comply with the statutory requirements in order  to exercise this right. REMEDY: It would have been more prudent for the Med-Arbiter and public public respon responden dentt to have have grante granted d petiti petitione oner's r's reques requestt for the suspension of proceedings in the certification election case, until the issue issue of the legalit legality y of the the Union's Union's registra registrati tion on shall shall have have been been resolved. Failure of the Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter and public respondent to to heed the request constituted a grave abuse of discretion. - The grounds ventilated in cancellation proceedings in accordance with Article 239 of the Labor Code constitute a grave challenge to the right of respondent Union to ask for certification election. The MedArbite Arbiterr shoul should d have have looked looked into the merits merits of the petition petition for  cancellation before issuing an order calling for certification election EFFECT, PENDING PETITION, CANCELLATION TRADE UNION REGISTRATION REGISTRATION (P.24) - Once a labor organization attains the status of a legitimate labor  organizat organization ion it begins begins to possess all of the rights rights and privileges privileges granted by law to such organizations. - Regist Registrat ration ion based based on false false and fraudu fraudulen lentt statem statement ents s and documents confer no legitimacy upon a labor organization irregularly recognized. Under such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, acquires no rights, particularly the right to ask for certification election in a bargaining unit. The invalidity of respondent Union's registration would negate its legal personality to participate in certification election.

Disposition Petition is granted and remanded to Med-Arbiter.

ISSUE/S 1. WON after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization, recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations merely becomes becomes a ministeria ministeriall function. function. (Action and Denial Denial of Applicatio Application n and Remedy)

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS V TAGAYTAY GOLF CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION 395 SCRA 699

HELD 1. NO Ratio Regist Registrat ration ion requir requireme ements nts specif specifica ically lly afford afford a measur measure e of  protectio protection n to unsuspecting unsuspecting employees employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union fund funds s or use use the the labo laborr orga organi niza zati tion on for for ille illegi giti tima mate te ends ends.. Such Such requir requireme ements nts are a valid valid exerci exercise se of the police police power, power, becaus because e the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of workers are engaged directly affect the public in terest and should be protected. Reasoning  Art. 234. Requirements of registration. registration . - Any applicant labor organization,

NATURE Petition for Certiorari under under Rule 45 THIGCI THIGCI assailing CA decision deny denyin ing g its its peti petiti tion on to annu annull the the Depa Depart rtme ment nt of Labo Laborr and and Emplo Employm yment ent (DOLE) (DOLE) Resolut Resolution ions s of Novemb November er 12, 1998 1998 and December 29, 1998

CARPIO-MORALES; January 22, 2003

FACTS - October 16, 1997 > Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU), Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Local Chapte Chapterr No. 776, a legiti legitimat mate e labor labor organi organizat zation ion said said to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a

Labor Law 2

A2010

petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV - November 27, 1997 > opposed petition for certification election because the list of union members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it includ included ed the names names and signat signature ures s of superv superviso isors, rs, resign resigned, ed, terminate terminated d and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, 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 were actual actual rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e employ employees ees of THIGCI THIGCI.. Also, Also, some 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. THEU THEU assert asserted ed that that it compli complied ed with with all the the requir requireme ements nts for valid valid affiliatio affiliation n and inclusion inclusion in the roster of legitimate legitimate labor organizations 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 the rights accorded accorded to a legitimate legitimate organiza organization. tion. Therefore, Therefore, the the Med-A Med-Arbi rbiter ter should, should, pursua pursuant nt to Articl Article e 257 of the Labor Labor Code Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09, automatically order the conduct of a certification election. - January January 28, 1998 > DOLE Med-Arbiter Med-Arbiter Anastacio Anastacio Bactin Bactin ordered the holding of a certification election - DOLE Resolution of November 12, 1998 1 > setting aside the June 4, 1998 Resolution Resolution dismissing dismissing the petition for certificati certification on election. MFR denied - CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. 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 emplo employer yer-em -emplo ployee yee relati relations onship hip and petiti petitione onerr failed failed to adduce adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations. Issue: Issue: WON the composition of the union can be subject to collateral attack Held: Held: . NO - 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 in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book IV of the "Rules to Implement the Labor Code" (Implementing Rules) which section reads: Sec. Sec. 5. Effect Effect of registrat registration ion.. The labor labor organi organizat zation ion or worker workers’ s’ associ associati ation on shall shall be deemed deemed regist registere ered d and veste vested d with with legal legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be ques questi tion oned ed only only in an inde indepe pend nden entt peti petiti tion on for  for  cancellation in accordance with these Rules.

3.5

3.6

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF UNION—PROHIBITION AND REGUULATION – 269-271 UNION NION-M -MEM EMB BER RELAT ELATIO IONS NS

1. Natur Nature e of Relat Relation ionshi ship p HEIRS OF CRUZ V. CIR (SANTIAGO RICE MILL) 30 SCRA 917 TEEHANKEE; TEEHANKEE; Dec. 27, 1969 NATURE Special civil action for certiorari  for  certiorari  FACTS

Disini

- 61 -

-Thi -This s is a case case involv involvin ing g unio union n offi office cers rs who who ente entere red d into into a compromise concerning backwages of member-employees with the employer. -Petitioners are the retained lawyers of the Santiago Labor Union who question question responden respondentt Court's Court's approval approval of respondent respondent firm's settlement of the union members' judgment claims with the union boar board d of direc directo tors rs,, with withou outt thei theirr know knowle ledg dge e and and cons consen ent, t, notwithst notwithstandin anding g their duly recorded recorded attorneys attorneys'' lien, and over the objection of a board member that the union board had no a uthority to compromise or quit-claim the judgment rights of the union members. -Petitioners are forty-nine (49) claimants-members of the Santiago Labo Laborr Unio Union n who who assa assail il resp respon onde dent nt Cour Court' t's s appr approv oval al of the the questioned settlement, without their authority as the real parties in interest, and who denounce the settlement as unconscionable and having been entered into by the majority of the union board "under  circ circum umst stan ance ces s of frau fraud, d, dece deceit it,, misr misrep epre rese sent ntat atio ion n and/ and/or  or  concealment, especially where a member of the Court has actively used his official and personal influence to effect the settlement which is manifestly manifestly unjust unjust to laborers who by reason reason of their financial financial disadvantages in a conflict with their employers need all the aid of  the Court for their protection, consonant with law, justice and equity." ISSUE 2. WON the real parties in interest are the union members members who have initiated initiated and institute instituted d this petition petition as against the limited limited and formal personality of the respondent labor union to represent them when so authorized by their collective will HELD 2. YES. YES. Ratio The union is but an agent of the individual workers and it has the duty to inform the members of the labor matters entrusted to it. Reasoning The Reasoning  The employer may rely on the authority of the union to bring the union members especially especially in collectiv collective e bargaining bargaining where the matters to be discussed are still to be observed but this case is an exception. What is sought here are backwages and other b enefits alread already y earned earned.. Autho Authorit rity y for the union union to waive waive this this right right to backwages must be express. In a compromise or settlement, the individual union members are the real judgment creditors and are the real parties in interest. Disposition CIR order SET ASIDE..

2. Constitu Constitution tion and By-Laws By-Laws

SAN MIGUEL CORP. V. MANDAUE Tinga ; Aug. 16, 2005 467 SCRA 107 Facts -CA affirmes DOLE Undersecretary Undersecretary for Labor Relations, Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, ordering the immediate conduct of a certification election among the petitioner’s rank-and-file employees. - Federation of Free Workers (FFW/ respondent) filed a petition for  certification election with with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. VII. It sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the petitioner. petitioner. The following following documents documents were attached attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Charter Certificat Certificate e certifyin certifying g that respondent as of that date was duly certified as a local or chapter of  FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of respondent prepared by its Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and attested by its President, Wilfred V. Sagun; Sagun; (3) a list list of respon responden dent’s t’s office officers rs and their their respec respectiv tive e addresses, again prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun; (4) a certification signifying that respondent had just been organized and no amount had yet been collected collected from its members, members, signed by respondent’s treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and attested by Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the

Labor Law 2

A2010

Mandaue Packaging Products Plants and Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun. -SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is not listed or included in the roster of legitimat legitimate e labor organization organizations s based on the certification certification issued by the Officer-In-Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII, Atty. Jesus B. Gabor. -Respo -Responde ndent nt submit submitted ted to the Bureau Bureau of Labor Labor Relati Relations ons the same same docu docume ment nts s earl earlie ierr atta attach ched ed to its its peti petiti tion on for for cert certif ific icat atio ion. n. The The accompanying letter, signed by respondent’s president Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in compliance with the requirements for  the creation creation of a local/ local/cha chapt pter er pursua pursuant nt to the the Labor Labor Code Code and its Imple Implemen mentin ting g Rules; Rules; and it was hoped hoped that that the submis submissio sions ns would would facilitate facilitate the listing listing of respondent respondent under the roster roster of legitimate legitimate labor  organizations.The Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter No. ITD. IARFBT ARFBT-05 -058/9 8/98, 8, certif certifyin ying g that that from from 30 July July 1998, 1998, respon responden dentt has acquired legal personality as a labor organization/worker’s association, it having submitted all the required documents. Issues 1. When did the union acquire legal personality? 2. Whether or not the inclusion of the two alleged supervisory employees in appellee union’s membership amounts to fraud, misrepresentation, or  false statement within the meaning of Article 239(a) and (c) of the Labor  Code. 3. Whether or not subsequent developments change the disposition of the case Held 1. 15 June 1998, the date the complete documents were submitted. The issuance issuance of the certific certificate ate of regist registrat ration ion by the Bureau Bureau or  Regional Office is not the operative act that vests legal personality upon upon a local/ local/cha chapte pterr under under Depart Departmen mentt Order Order No. 9. Such Such legal legal personality is acquired from the filing of the complete documentary requiremen requirements ts enumerated enumerated in Section Section 1, Rule VI. Admittedl Admittedly, y, the manner by which respondent was deemed to have acquired legal personality by the DOLE and the Court of Appeals was not in strict conformity with the provisions of Department Order No. 9. Thus Thus,, in orde orderr to asce ascert rtai ain n when when respo respond nden entt acqu acquir ired ed lega legall personality, we only need to determine on what date the Regional Office or Bureau received the complete documentary requirements enumerated under Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9. There is no doubt that on 15 June 1998, or the date respondent filed its its peti petiti tion on for for cert certif ific icat atio ion n elec electi tion on,, atta attach ched ed ther theret eto o were were respondent’s constitution, the names and addresses of its officers, and the charter certificate issued by the national union FFW. The first first two of these these docume documents nts were duly duly certif certified ied under oath oath by respondent’s secretary Bathan and attested to by president Sagun. What about the lack o f documents containing the by-laws? Not needed so long as it is part of the union’s constitution. An examinati examination on of respondent respondent’s ’s constituti constitution on reveals reveals it sufficientl sufficiently y comprehensive in establishing the necessary rules for its operation. Article IV establishes the requisites for membership in the local/chapter. Articles V and VI name the various officers and what their respective functions are. The procedure for election of these these officers, including the necessary vote requirements, is provided for in Article IX, while Article XV delineates the procedure for the impeachment of these officers. Article VII establishe establishes s the standing committees committees of the local/cha local/chapter pter and how their  members are appointed. Article VIII lays down the rules for meetings of  the union, including the notice and quorum requirements thereof. Article X enum enumer erat ates es with with part partic icul ular arit ity y the the rule rules s for for unio union n dues dues,, spec specia iall assessments, fines, and other payments. Article XII provides the general rule for quorum in meetings of the Board of Directors and of the members of the local/chapter, and cites the applicability of the Robert’s Rules of  Order[43] in its meetings. meetings. And finally, Article XVI XVI governs and institutes institutes the requisites for the amendment of the constitution. The Court likewise sees no impediment in deeming respondent as having acquired legal personality as of 15 June 1998, the fact that it was the local/chapter itself, and not the FFW, which submitted the documents documents required under Section 1, Rule VI of Department Department Order  No. No. 9. The evid eviden entt rati ration onal ale e why why the the rule rule stat states es that that it is the the federation federation or national national union that submits submits said documents documents to the

- 62 -

Disini

Bure Bureau au or Regi Region onal al Offi Office ce is that that the the crea creati tion on of the the local/chapter is the sole prerogative of the federation or national unio union, n, and and not not of any any othe otherr enti entity ty.. Cert Certai ainl nly, y, a putat putativ ive e local/chapter cannot, without the imprimatur of the federation or  national union, claim affiliation with the larger unit or source its legal personality therefrom. In the ordinary course, it should have been FFW, and not respondent, which should have submitted the subject documents to the Regional Regional Office. Office. Nonetheless Nonetheless,, there is no good reason to deny legal personality or defer its conferral to the local/chapter  if it is evident at the onset that the federation or national union itself itself has alread already y through through its own means means establ establish ished ed the local/chapter. In this this case, case, such such is eviden evidenced ced by the the Charte Charter  r  Certificate dated 9 June 1998, issued by FFW, and attached to the petition petition for certificat certification ion election. election. The Charter Charter Certifica Certificate te expressly expressly state states s that that respon responden dentt has been been issued issued the said said certif certifica icate te “to “to operate as a local or chapter of the [FFW]”. The Charter Certificate expressly acknowledges FFW’s intent to establish respondent as of 9 June June 1998. 1998. This This being being the the case, case, we consid consider er it permi permissi ssible ble for  respondent to have submitted the required documents itself to the Regional Regional Office, Office, and proper proper that respondent’s respondent’s legal personalit personality y be deemed deemed existen existentt as of 15 June June 1998, 1998, the date the the comple complete te documents were submitted. 2. No, it does not. Under the law, a managerial employee is “one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign assign or discipline discipline employees.” employees.” A supervisor supervisory y employee employee is “one who, who, in the intere interest st of the employ employer, er, effect effective ively ly recomm recommend ends s managerial actions if the exercise of such recommendatory authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of  independent judgment.’” Finally, “all employees not falling within the definition definition of managerial managerial or superviso supervisory ry employee employee are considered considered rank-and-f rank-and-file ile employees”. employees”. It is also well-settled well-settled that the actual actual functions of an employee, not merely his job title, are determinative in classifying such employee as managerial, supervisory or rank and file. Good faith is presumed in all representations, an essential element of fraud, false statement and misrepresentation in order  for these these to be actionabl actionable e is inten intentt to mislead mislead by the party making the representation. In this case, there is no proof to show that Bathan, or appellee union for that matter, intended to mislead anyone. If this was appellee union’s intention, it would have refrained from using a more precise description of the organi organizat zation ion inste instead ad of declar declaring ing that that the organi organizat zation ion is composed of ‘rank and file monthlies’. Hence, the charge of  frau fraud, d, fals false e stat statem emen entt or misr misrep epre rese sent ntat atio ion n cann cannot ot be sustained. Even if they if  they are supervisory employees, no action can be done that emasculates the right to self-organization and the promotion of free trade unionism. We take administrative notice of the realities in union organizing organizing,, during during which which the organizers organizers must take their chances, chances, oftentim oftentimes es unaware unaware of the fine distincti distinctions ons between between managerial managerial,, supe superv rvis isor ory y and and rank rank and and file file empl employ oyee ees. s. The The grou ground nds s for  for  cancel cancellat lation ion of union union regist registrat ration ion are not meant meant to be applie applied d automatically, but indeed with utmost discretion. Where a remedy short of cancellation is available, that remedy should be preferred. In this case, no party will be prejudiced if Bathan were to be excluded from membership in the union. The vacancy he will thus create can then be easily filled up through the succession provision of appellee union’s constitution and by-laws. What is important is that there is an unmistakeable intent of the members of appellee union to exercise their right to organize. We cannot impose rigorous restraints on such right if we are to give meaning to the protection to labor and social  justice clauses of the Constitution. 3. No, it does not affect the case. The allegation allegation that the bargaining bargaining unit that respondent respondent sought to represent is no longer the same because because of the dynamic dynamic nature of petitioner’s business, a lot of changes having occurred in the work environment, and that four of respondent’s officers are no longer connected with petitioner have no effect on the Court’s ruling that a certifica certification tion election should be immediatel immediately y conducted conducted with

Labor Law 2

A2010

resp respon onde dent nt as one one of the the avai availa lable ble choic choices es.. Peti Petiti tion oner er’s ’s bare bare manifestations adduce no reason why the certification election should not be conducted forthwith. If there are matters that have arisen since the filing of the petition that serve to delay or cancel the election, these can be threshed out during the pre-election conferences. Neither is the fact that some of respondent’s officers have since resigned from petitioner of any moment. The local/chapter retains a separate legal personality from that of its office officers rs or member members s that that remain remains s viable viable notwit notwithst hstand anding ing any turnover in its officers or members. DISPOSITION WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

3. Issues A. Admi Admissi ssion on and and Dis Disci cipl plin ine e of  of  Members UST FACULTY UNION V BITONIO 318 SCRA 185 PANGANIBAN; November 16, 1999 NATURE Special civil action in the Supreme Supreme Court. Certiorari. FACTS - Union announced a general assembly to elect next union officers. - TRO was issued by med-arbiter enjoining them from conducting election. - UST held a general faculty assembly, assembly, attended by both union members and non-members. non-members. Here, appellants were elected elected as new union officers by acclamation and clapping of hands. - Appellees filed instant petition to seek injunctive relief and to nullify results of election. - Bitonio upheld med-arbiter and said said election was void. He rejected contention that it was a legitimate exercise of right to self organization ISSUE/S 1. Basis of right to self-organization self-organization (p5 of outline) outline) / Workers with right of  self-organization (p6 of outline) 2. Admission and discipline of members members (p10 of outline) 3. Voters list (p11 of outline) outline) HELD 1. Ratio Self-organization is a fundamental right to form, join or assist labor  organizations for  collectiv collective e bargaining, bargaining, mutual aid and protection protection.. Whether employed for a definite period or not, employee shall be considered as such, beginning on 1st day of service, for purposes of  membership in a labor union. union. Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join. Reasoning The Reasoning  The election can’t be considered as exercise of right to selforganization because the petitioners’ frustration over the performance of  the respondents could not justify the method they chose to impose their  will on the union. 2. Ratio The union’s union’s constituti constitution on and by-laws embody a covenant covenant between a union and its members and constitute the fundamental law governing the members’ rights and obligations. Reasoning The Reasoning The election was tainted tainted by irregularities. The general faculty assembly was not the the proper forum for the the election. Also, the grievances of the petitioners could have been brought up and resolved in accordance with the procedure laid down by the union’s CBL and by the Labor Code. 3. Ratio The union election is pursuant to union’s constitution and by-laws and right to vote is enjoyed only by union members. On the other hand, a certification election is the process of determining, through secret ballot, the sole and executive bargaining agent of the employees and all

- 63 -

Disini

employees employees belonging to the appropriate appropriate bargaining bargaining unit can vote. Verily, union affairs cannot be decided decided in a non-union activity. Reasoning The Reasoning The election held was not a union election because the procedure in the CBL was not followed. It was also not a certification election because representation representation was not the issue. issue. The participation of non-union members in the election aggravated its irregularity.

SALUNGA V CIR (NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL) 21 SCRA 216 CONCEPCION; September 27, 1967 NATURE Appeal from a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations FACTS -Petitioner is an employee of San Miguel Brewery Inc., which, on October 2, 1959, entered with the Union, into a collective bargaining agreement. -Section 3 of the CBA reads: The company agrees to require as a condition of employment of those workers covered by this agreement who either are members of the UNION on the date of the signing of  this agreement, or may join the UNION during the effectivity of this agreement, that they shall not voluntarily resign from the UNION earlier than thirty (30) days before the expiry date of this agreement as provided in Article XIII hereof, provided, however, that nothing herein herein contai contained ned shall shall be constr construed ued to requir require e the the compan company y to enforce any sanction whatsoever against any employee or worker  who fails to retain his membership in the UNION as hereinbefore state stated, d, for any cause cause other other than than volunt voluntary ary resign resignati ation on or nonnonpaymen paymentt of regula regularr union union dues dues on the part of said said employ employee ee or  worker. -On August 18, 1961, petitioner tendered his resignation from the Union, which accepted it and transmitted it to the Company, with a request for the immediate implementation of said section 3. -The -The Compan Company y having having inform informed ed him that that his aforem aforement ention ioned ed resignation would result in the termination of his employment, in view of said section, petitioner wrote to the Union, on August 31, 1961, a letter withdrawing or revoking his resignation -On September 8, 1961, the Union told the Company that petitioner's membership could not be reinstated and insisted on his separation from the service, conformably with the stipulation above-quoted. -On Septem September ber 20, 1961, 1961, the the Union Union reiter reiterate ated d its reques requestt for  implement implementation ation of said section 3, for which reason, reason, on September  September  22, 1961, the Company notified petitioner that, in view of said letter  and the aforementioned section, he had to be terminated -Petitioner sought help from the Union’s national president, but to no avail -On October 11, 1961, petitioner notified the PAFLU that he was appealing to its supreme authority, the PAFLU National Convention and requested that action on his case be deferred until such time as the Convention shall have acted on his appeal. A letter of the same date date and tenor tenor was sent, sent, also, also, by the petition petitioner er to the the Union. Union. Furthermore, he asked the Company to maintain the status quo, quo, in the meantime. This notwithstanding, at the close of the business hours, hours, on October October 15, 1961, petitioner petitioner was discharged discharged from the employment of the Company -Petitioner filed with the CIR a complaint for unfair labor practice -CIR found for petitioner but reversed itself upon MFR ISSUE WON petitioner was dismissed due to an unfair labor practice on the part of the Union HELD Yes. Although, Although, generally, generally, a state state may not compel compel ordinary ordinary associ associati ations ons to admit admit theret thereto o any given given indivi individua dual, l, membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a privilege, the rule is qualified in respect of labor unions

voluntary voluntary becaus because e matter of  holding a

Labor Law 2

A2010

monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given locality, or as regards a particular employer with which it has a closed-shop agreement. -The -The reason reason is that that the closed closed shop shop and the union union shop shop cause cause the admission requirements of trade union to become affected with the public intere interest. st. Likewi Likewise, se, a closed closed shop, shop, a union union shop, shop, or maint maintena enance nce of  membership clauses cause the administration of discipline by unions to be affected with the public interest. -Consequent Consequently, ly, it is well settled settled that such unions are not entitled entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for membership, and a closed-shop provision provision would not justify the employer employer in dischargi discharging, ng, or a union in insist insisting ing upon upon the discharg discharge e of, an employ employee ee whom whom the the union union thus thus refuses to admit to membership, without any reasonable ground therefor. Needless to say, if said unions may be compelled to admit new members, who have the requisite qualifications, with more reason may the law and the courts exercise the coercive power when the employee involved is a long long standi standing ng union union member member,, who, who, owing owing to provoc provocati ations ons of union union office officers, rs, was impell impelled ed to tender tender his resign resignati ation, on, which which he forthw forthwith ith withdrew or revoked. Surely, he may, at least, invoke the rights of those who seek admission for the first time, and can not arbitrarily arbitrarily he denied denied readmission. -Havin -Having g been been denied denied readmi readmiss ssion ion into into the Union Union and having having been been dismissed from the service owing to an unfair labor practice on the part of  the Union, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as member of the Union and to his former or substantially equivalent position in the Company, without prejudice to his seniority and/or rights and privileges, and with back pay, which back pay shall be borne exclusively by the Union. Disposition The appealed resolution of the CIR is reversed

B. Rete Retent ntio ion n of Memb Member ersh ship ip C. Discipline VILLAR V INCIONG 121 SCRA 44 GUERRERO; GUERRERO; April 20, 1983 NATURE Petition for review by certiorari FACTS - Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, Union-PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization which was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. They then signed a joint resolution resolution which stated stated that they were disaffiliatin disaffiliating g themselves as members of the PAFLU, and were not further authorizing PAFLU to represent them in any CBA. - During a special meeting of the Union, a Resolution was approved which called called for for the the invest investiga igatio tion n of all the the petiti petitione oners rs for "conti "continuo nuousl usly y maligning, libelling and slandering not only the incumbent officers but even the union itself and the federation" and for causing divisiveness. - The union security clause was reincorporated in the new CBA: “any members who shall resign, be expelled, or shall in any manner cease to be a memb member er of the the UNIO UNION, N, shal shalll be dism dismis issed sed from his his employment upon written request of the UNION to the Company.” - Petitioners contend that their acts do not constitute disloyalty as these are in the exercise of their constitutional right to self-organization. - The PAFLU President then rendered a decision finding them guilty of the charges and expelling them from the Union and as a consequence the Management of the employer is hereby requested to terminate them from their employment in conformity with the security clause. ISSUE/S 1. WON PAFLU had the authority authority to investigat investigate e the petitioners petitioners and, therea thereaft fter, er, expel expel them them from from the roll of member membershi ship p of the Amigo Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU 2. WON the petitioners were entitled to disaffiliate from the Union HELD 1.YES Ratio That PAFLU had the authority authority to investigat investigate e petitioner petitioners s on the charges filed by their co-employees in the local union and after finding them guilty as charged, to expel them from the roll of membership of the

Disini

- 64 -

Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated. And pursuant to the security clause of the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old CBA, PAFLU was justified in applying said security clause. UNION-MEMBER UNION-MEMBER RELATIONS: Discipline Issues Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for that matter, is the right right of self-p self-pres reserv ervati ation. on. When When member members s of a labor labor union, union, therefore therefore,, sow the seeds of dissension dissension and strife strife within within the union; when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity equity,, as well well as the dictates dictates of law and justic justice, e, theref therefore ore,, compel compellin ling g manda mandate te the adopti adoption on by the labor labor union union of such such correc correctiv tive e and remedi remedial al measur measures es in keepin keeping g with with its laws laws and regulations, for its preservation and continued existence; lest by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall. 2. YES Ratio Although they are entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new organization of their own, they must, however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA. Reasoning  Disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association ordained by the Constituti Constitution. on. But this Court has laid down the ruling that a closed closed shop shop is a valid valid form form of union union security security,, and such provisi provision on in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of  freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. Local Union Disaffiliation: Rule - Legality act - Disaffiliation There are two hundred thirty four (234) union members in the Amigo Employees Employees Union-PAFLU, Union-PAFLU, and only 96 signed signed the "Sama-Samang  Kapasiyahan."  They constituted a small minority for which reason they could not have successfully disaffiliated the local union from PAFLU. PAFLU. It can be inferred inferred that the majority majority wanted the union to remain remain an affili affiliate ate of PAFLU PAFLU.. The action action of the majority majority must, must, therefore, prevail over that of the minority members. Disposition The Order appealed from affirming the joint decision of  the OIC granti granting ng cleara clearance nce to termin terminate ate petiti petitione oners rs as well well as dismissing their complaint with application for preliminary injunction, is hereby AFFIRMED.

D. Due Pr Process cess Ru Rules les BUGAY V KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR 4 SCRA 487 BAUTISTA ANGELO, February 23, 1962 NATURE Appeal from decision of lower court FACTS -Bugay was the former auditor of the union. He delivered documents to the management, as ordered by the union secretary without the approval of the union, which the management used to charge the union president with falsification of documents. Charges for disloyalty and conduct unbecoming a union member were filed against Bugay, the union held investigations even without Bugay’s presence (thus, no chance to defend himself), and his expulsion was not submitted to the different chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws. -Bugay -Bugay filed a charge charge for unfair labor practice against the union before the CIR which ordered his reinstatement as union member  and restoration restoration of all his rights and privileges privileges.. SC affirmed. affirmed. Bugay also filed claim for moral damages which the lower court dismissed based on lack of cause of action. ISSUES 1. WON Bugay had a cause of action (WON it can be shown that the

Labor Law 2

A2010

union officers acted in bad faith in expelling him from the union to grant MD) 2. WON Bugay was afforded due process HELD 1. YES Reasoning. The main basis of appellant's action is his claim that because of the unfair labor practice committed by the officers of defendant union as found by the Court of Industrial Relations and the Supreme Court he has suffered moral damages because of the mental anguish, anxiety, social social humiliati humiliation on and besmirche besmirched d reputation reputation he has been subjected subjected among the thousands of employees of the Manila Railroad Company. The CIR and the SC have found that his expulsion was illegal because of the irregularities committed in his investigation. 2. NO Reasoning . In the investigation held and in the board meeting where the committe committee’s e’s report report recommen recommending ding Bugay’s Bugay’s expulsion expulsion was approved, approved, Bugay was not present. The committee assigned to summon him failed to serve notice upon him because he was in Lucena. However, proceedings still continued continued anent the absence absence of Bugay. Bugay. Also, Also, the union by-laws provided that majority of the chapters should act on the expulsion within 10days but only 2 did so, therefore, his expulsion was irregular and he is still a member of the union. Disposition. WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside. The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, With costs against defendant.

E. Elec Electtion ion Offic fficer ers s 1. Vote Voters rs List List TANCINCO V CALLEJA 157 SCRA 203

UST FACULTY UNION V BITONIO 318 SCRA 185 PANGANIBAN; November 16, 1999 NATURE Special civil action in the Supreme Supreme Court. Certiorari. FACTS - Union announced a general assembly to elect next union officers. - TRO was issued issued by med-ar med-arbit biter er enjoin enjoining ing them them from from conduc conductin ting g election. - UST UST held held a general general faculty faculty assembly assembly,, attend attended ed by both both union union members and non-members. non-members. Here, appellants were elected elected as new union officers by acclamation and clapping of hands. - Appellees filed instant petition to seek injunctive relief and to nullify results of election. - Bitonio upheld upheld med-arbiter med-arbiter and said election election was void. He rejected rejected contention that it was a legitimate exercise of right to self organization ISSUE/S

Admission and discipline of members (p10 of outline)

HELD

Ratio   The union’s union’s consti constitut tution ion and by-la by-laws ws embod embody y a

cove covena nant nt betw betwee een n a unio union n and and its its memb member ers s and and constitute constitute the fundament fundamental al law governing governing the members’ members’ rights and o bligations. Reasoning   The electi election on was tainted tainted by irregul irregularit arities. ies. The gener general al facult faculty y assem assembly bly was was not the proper proper forum forum for the election. Also, the grievances grievances of the petitioners could have been

Disini

- 65 -

brought up and resolved in accordance with the procedure laid down by the union’s CBL and by the Labor Code.

2. Disqu Disquali alific ficati ation on Candidate MANALAD V TRAJANO 174 SCRA 322 Regalado, J.: June 28, 1989 FACTS -Petitioners were disqualified from running in the election of officers in their union; the order was set aside on appeal b y Trajano, Director  of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). Petitioners won over private responden respondents; ts; the latter latter filed a petition petition assailing the decision decision on appeal. appeal. -The Court Court promulgat promulgated ed a resolution: resolution: (1) to dismiss dismiss the petition petition (2) vacate all offices, offices, including including acting president president private responden respondentt Babula Babula and turn over union management management to BLR (3) order the holding of a special election supervised by the NCR Labor  Office, which private respondents later won. -A petition was filed asking to hold private respondents in contempt for failure to turn over management of the union, disqualify them and invalidate votes cast in their favor, electing those with the 2 nd highest votes, or hold a new election. Meanwhile, the terms of the offices in question had expired. ISSUE (disqualification of candidate) WON private respondent candidates should be disqualified HELD NO. As observed by respondent Trajano, the submission that Babula failed failed to complet completely ely turn turn over over manage managemen mentt of the union to the undersigned is within the competence and authority of the Supreme Court to pass upon considering that the mandate for such a turn-over  came from the Court. Before the alleged disobedient party may be cited for contempt, the allegations must be clearly established, which peti petiti tion oner ers s fail failed ed to do. do. On the the cont contra rary ry,, resp respon onde dent nts s have have satisfactorily answered the averments thereon. -In any case, it would be pointless to annul expired terms. Even if the disqualification is justified, petitioners cannot be declared the winners simply because they received the second highest number of votes. Absent Absent overriding overriding considerati considerations ons to the contrary, contrary, the will of the majority in the latter elections should be respected; where people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded of  forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. This case is DISMISSED for being moot and academic 

3. Expul Expulsio sion n Remedy Remedy KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP (KMP) vs. TRAJANO 134 SCRA 236 RELOVA; Jan 21 1985 NATURE Petition to review FACTS - A petition was filed for for the expulsion of the union officers of KMP on the ground of alleged falsification and misrepresentation. - Public Public respond respondent ent Directo Directorr Trajan Trajano o of the Burea Bureau u of Labor  Relations directed the said Union to hold and conduct, pursuant to its constitution and by-laws and under the supervision of the Bureau of  Labor Relations, Relations, a general general membership membership meeting, meeting, to vote for or  against the expulsion or suspension of the herein petitioner union officers.

Labor Law 2

A2010

ISSUE WON the proper remedy against erring union officers is not referendum but union expulsion HELD YES. Ratio The remedy against erring union officers is not referendum but union expulsion. Reasoning  If herein union officers (also petitioners) were guilty of the alleged acts imputed against them, said public respondent pursuant to Article 242 of the New Labor Code and in the light of Our ruling in Duyag vs. Inciong, should have meted out the appropriate penalty on them, i.e., to expel them from the Union, as prayed for, and not call for a referendum to decide the issue.

Disini

- 66 -

Reasoning  The decision is sustained for failure of the record to disclose any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Director in finding that the elections was tainted with irregularities and therefore invalid. Undue haste, lack of adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting and absence of the dates of balloting attended the elections. 2. NO Reasoning The Reasoning  The resolutiion does not bear the signature of at leasT 2/3 of the members of the council, contrary to the requirements of  the union constitution and by-laws. the resolution increasing union dues dues is they' they're re struc struck k down down as illega illegall and void, arbit arbitrar rary y and oppressive. Disposition Petition is dimissed.

However, the alleged falsification and misrepresentation of herein union officers were not supported by substantial evidence. The fact that they disbursed the amount of P1,278.00 from Union funds and later on was disallowed for failure to attach supporting papers thereon did not of itself  constitut constitute e falsifica falsification tion and/or and/or misrepres misrepresentat entation. ion. The expenditur expenditures es appeared to have been made in good faith and the amount spent for the purpose purpose mentioned mentioned in the report, report, if concurred concurred in or accepted accepted by the members, are reasonable. DISPOSITION Resolutio Resolution n SET ASIDE and the petition for expulsion expulsion of herein herein union officers is DISMISSED for having been rendered moot and academic by the the elec electi tion on of here herein in unio union n offi office cers rs in the the gene genera rall memb member ersh ship ip meeting/election.

4. Elec Electi tion on Vali Valid d RODRIGUEZ V DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS 165 SCRA 239 NARVASA; August 31, 1988 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari (consolidated). FACTS - The disputes disputes concern concern the validity of the general general elections elections for union officers and increase in union dues. - In PLDT, the fees to submit submit candidacy drastically drastically increases. although some still paid the frees, complaints were filed with the Bureau of Labor  Relations for its invalidation as excessive, prohibitive and arbitrary. - Elections for provinces of Visayas and Mindanao were held on dates different from those specified by the Legislative Council. The validity of  the elections were challenged on the grounds of lack of due notice and adequate ground rules. - Med-Arbiter abdullah heard the cases and rendered judgment denying petitions to nullify the elections as well as the motion for contempt, but invalidated the increaseof filing fees for for certificates of candidacies. the OIC of Labor Relations Relations overturned overturned the judgment. The elections elections were nullifies for lack of notice to candidates and voters, failure to disseminate the election ground rules and disregard of the temporary restraining order  of the Med-Arbiter. - Due to the proceedings assailing the validity of the elections pending before before the Burea Bureau u of Labor Labor Relati Relations ons,, the the old office officers rs contin continued ued to exercise exercise the functions functions of their respective respective offices. offices. the legislativ legislative e council council increased the union dues from P21-P50 a month. - Dir of Labor Relations rendered a decision revering that of the medarbiter by ordering te cessation of the collection of the P29 increase aned return the amounts already collected. ISSUE/S 1. WON the general elections for union officers is valid 2. WON the increase of the union dues is valid HELD 1. YES

F.

Majo Majorr Po Policy icy Ma Matter tter

HALILI VS CIR 136 SCRA 112 MAKASIAR; April 30, 1985 NATURE Motion to cite Atty. Benjamin C. Pineda, Ricardo Capuno and Manila Bank in contempt contempt FACTS 136 The original original cases involve involve disputes disputes about the claims claims for  overti overtime me of more more than than five five hundre hundred d bus drivers drivers and conductors of Halili Halili Transit. The disputes were eventually eventually sett settle led d when when the the cont conten endi ding ng part partie ies s reac reache hed d an Agreement wherein the Union shall withdraw and dismiss with prejudice the case that they have filed before the CIR in exchange for some parcel of land and negotiable checks (P 25,000). 137 The parcel parcel of land was eventually eventually register registered ed in the name of the Union and the cases filed were disposed.

138

The Union, through through Atty. Benjamin C. Pineda, Pineda, filed filed an urgent urgent motion motion with with the the Minist Ministry ry of Labor Labor and Employment requesting for authority to sell and dispose of  the property. property. The motion motion was granted. granted. A prospective prospective buyer, the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, inc. expressed its misgivings misgivings on the authority authority of the Union to sell the property so Atty. Pineda Pineda filed a motion with with the Supreme Cour Courtt requ reques esti ting ng for for auth author orit ity y to sell sell the the prop proper erty ty.. Howeve However, r, Atty. Atty. Pineda, Pineda, without without authori authority ty from the Supreme Court but relying on the earlier authority given him by the Ministry Ministry of Labor, filed another urgent motion with the latter, praying that the Union be authorized to sell the lot to the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. and to make make arrang arrangeme ements nts with with it such such that that paymen paymentt will will be advanced for the real estate taxes inclusive of penalties, attorney' attorney's s lien which is equivalent equivalent to a thirty-fiv thirty-five e percent percent (35%) of the total purchase price, and home developer's developer's fee of P69,000.00. Apparently, the prospective purchaser  had decided to withdraw its objection regarding the Union's authority to sell. So, the sale was finally consummated and Atty. Pineda got 35% as attorney’s fee.

139

When Atty. Jose C. Espinas (herein movant and alleged original counsel for the Union) learned of the sale and apport apportion ionmen mentt of the proce proceeds eds from from past past Union Union president president Amado Lopez, he requested requested Labor Arbiter to allow him to look into the records of the case. He questions the legality of the orders which authorized the sale of the awarded property and the distribution of the proceeds from such purchase purchase as well as the Attorney’s Attorney’s fee that Atty. Atty. Pineda received. 140 Atty. Atty. Espinas Espinas claims that he is the original original counsel. counsel. while Atty. Pineda replied by saying that he handled the said case ALONE.

Labor Law 2 ISSUE: 1.

A2010

WON Att Atty. y. Pined Pineda a should should be be held held in conte contempt mpt of of court court..

HELD: YES When Atty. Pineda appeared appeared for the Union in these cases, he was was stil stilll an assoc associa iate te of the the law law firm firm of Atty Atty.. Espi Espina nas. s. Yet, Yet, his appearance carried the firm name “B.C. Pineda and Associates," giving the impression that he was the principal lawyer in these cases when in truth, he was merely an associate associate to the Espinas firm. When he left the law firm for a year, Atty. Pineda continued handling the case with the arrangement that he would report the developments to the Espinas firm. When Atty. Pineda rejoined the Espinas firm in 1968, he did not reveal to his partner partners s (he was made made the most senior senior partne partner) r) that that he had a retainer's contract with the union. Only the officers of the Union knew of  the contract. contract. Atty. Atty. Pineda joined the law firm of Atty. Espinas Espinas in 1965 when these cases were pending resolution. He always held office in the firm's place at Puyat Building, Escolta until 1974, except in 1966 to 1967 when he transferred to the Lakas ng Manggagawa Offices. During this one-year stint at the latter office, When he rejoined the law firm in 1968, he continued working on these cases and using the Puyat Building office as his address address in the pleadings. entered into on January 1, 1967 which allegedly took effect in 1966. He stayed with the law firm until 1974 and still did not divulge the 1967 retainer's retainer's contract. contract. The alleged alleged retainer's retainer's contract between Atty. Pineda and the Union appears anomalous and even even illega illegall as well well as unethi unethical cal consid consideri ering ng thatthat- the contra contract ct was executed only between Atty. Pineda and the officers of the Union chosen by about 125 member members s only. only. It was not a contra contract ct with the the genera generall membership, only 14% of the total membership of 897 was represented. Thus, Thus, withou withoutt notice notice to the other other lawyer lawyers s and partie parties, s, Atty. Atty. Pineda Pineda commenced the proceeds before the NLRC with the filing of a motion and manifestation wherein he asked for authority to sell the property.  Atty. Pineda made the Union officers believe that he would be the one to pay the fees of Attys. Espinas and Lopez for which reason, the 35% increased fees was approved by the Union's board in good faith. The Union likewise confirms that Atty. Pineda came into the picture only when he was assigned by Atty. Espinas in, 1965 to execute the CIR decision which, thru Atty. Espinas handling, was upheld by this Court in L-24864 in 1968. The Union officers were aware that Atty. Espinas was the principal  counsel counsel even after Atty. Pineda's assignment. assignment. They also knew of the original contract for 20% attorney's fees which was increased to 35% by    Atty. Atty. Pineda upon the arrangeme arrangement nt that with the increase, increase, he would  answer answer for the the payme payment nt of Attys Attys.. Espina Espinas s and Lopez' Lopez' fees fees and for  necessary representation expenses. Thus, based on these these malicious malicious actions actions and fraudulent fraudulent misrepresent misrepresentations ations,, Atty. Atty. Pineda Pineda must be held liable. Dispositive WHEREFORE, ATTY. BENJAMIN PINEDA IS HEREBY FOUND GUILTY OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR WHICH HE IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT IN THE MANILA CITY JAIL UNTIL THE THE ORDE ORDERS RS OF THIS THIS COUR COURT T DATE DATED D SEPT SEPTEM EMBE BER R 1 AND AND SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 13, 1983 ARE COMPLIED WITH. ATTY. ATTY. BENJAMIN BENJAMIN PINEDA IS ALSO DIRECTED DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE DISBARRED UNDER RULE 138 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT.

G. Union Fu Funds 1. Sour Sourcece-Pay Paymen ment-A t-Atty ttys s Fees PACIFIC BANKING CORP. V CLAVE 128 SCRA 112 AQUINO; March 7, 1984 NATURE Petition for Certiorari

- 67 -

Disini

FACTS - There There had been been negot negotiat iation ions s betwee between n the Pacifi Pacific c Bankin Banking g Corpor Corporati ation on and the Pacifi Pacific c Banki Banking ng Corpor Corporati ation on Employ Employees ees Organization (PABECO) for a CBA for 1979 to 1981. Because of a deadlo deadlock, ck, the Minist Minister er of Labor Labor assum assumed ed jurisd jurisdict iction ion over over the controversy and rendered a decision directing the parties to execute a CBA in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in his decision. - The union was represented in the negotiations by its president Paug, allegedly assisted as consultant by Umali, Jr., the president of  the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) with which it was formerly affiliated. Lawyer Saavedra's earliest recorded participation in the case was on July 15 and 27, 1979 when he filed a motion for  reconsideration and a supplemental motion. No action was taken on said motions. - The parties appealed to the Office of the President. The CBA negotiations were resumed. The union president took part in the second second phase of the negotiations. negotiations. Saavedra Saavedra filed a memorandu memorandum. m. The Office of the President issueddirected the parties to execute a CBA containing the terms and conditions of employment embodied in the resolution. - Even before the formalization of the CBA, Saavedra filed in the case his notice of attorney 's lien. - The union officials requested the bank to withhold around P345,000 out of the total benefits as ten percent attorney's fees of Saavedra. At first, the bank interposed no objection to the request in the interest of harmonious labor-management relations. - For nearly a year, the Office of the President in four resolutions wrestled with the propriety of Saavedra's ten percent attorney's fees. ISSUES WON the the deduct deduction ion from from the the moneta monetary ry benef benefits its awarde awarded d in a collective bargaining agreement the attorney's fees of the lawyer who assisted the union president in negotiating the agreement is legal. RULING - NO. The case is covered squarely by the mandatory and explicit prescription of article 222 which is another guarantee intended to protect protect the employee employee against against unwarrante unwarranted d practices practices that would diminish his compensation without his knowledge and consent. - "ART. "ART. 242. 242. Rights Rights and and conditi conditions ons of memb members ership hip in a labor  labor  organi organizat zation ion.. - The follow following ing are the rights rights and condit condition ions s of  membership in a labor organization: "(n) No special special assessm assessment ent or other other extraordi extraordinary nary fees fees may be levied upon the members of a labor organization unless authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. The secretary of  the organization shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be attested to by the president;. "(o) Other than for mandatory mandatory activities activities under the the Code, no special asse assess ssme ment nt,, atto attorn rney ey's 's fees fees,, nego negoti tiat atio ion n fees fees or any any othe other  r  extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction - Saavedra is entitled to the payment of his fees but article 222 ordain ordains s that that union union funds funds shoul should d be used used for that purpos purpose. e. The amount of P345,000 does not constitute union funds. It is money of  the employ employees ees.. The union, union, not the emplo employe yees, es, is obliga obligated ted to Saavedra. Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The resolutions dated August 12 and December 15, 1980 and April 13, 1981 are reversed and set asid aside. e. The The ques questi tion oned ed amou amount nt of abou aboutt P345 P345,0 ,000 00,, with with its its increm increment ents, s, if any, any, should should be paid paid by the bank direct directly ly to its employees.

2. Exami Examina natio tion n Books Books

Labor Law 2

A2010

DUYAG V INCIONG 98 SCRA 522 Aquino, J.; July 5, 1980 NATURE Appeal from the decision of the Director of Labor Relation FACTS - This case is about the removal of private respondents as union officers due to alleged irregularities and anomalies in the administration of the affairs of the union. - The Medarbiter ordered the expulsion of the union officers for  violations of the constitution of the Union and the refund of the dues illega illegally lly exact exacted ed from from union union member members. s. The Direct Director or of Labor  Labor  Relations, however, reversed the ruling of the medarbiter in so far  as the expulsion is concerned taking the position that it is only the membe membersh rship ip of the Union Union which which can remove removed d its officers officers and claiming that the issue is a political question. ISSUE/S WON the dismissal of the labor union officers is valid HELD Yes. Ratio: The Director of Labor Relations erred in holding that, as a matter of  policy policy,, the tenur tenure e of union union office officers, rs, being being a "polit "politica icall questi question" on" is, generally, a matter outside his Bureau's jurisdiction and should be passed upon by the union members themselves. After After hearin hearing g and even even withou withoutt submit submittin ting g the matter matter to the union union members, erring union officials may be removed by the Director of Labor  Relations as clearly provided in article 242. That paragraph provides that any violat violation ion of the rights rights and condit condition ions s of union union member membershi ship, p, as enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (p) of Article 242, "shall be a ground for  cancellati cancellation on of union registration registration or expulsion expulsion of officer officer from office, office, whichever is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of all the members of a union or any member or members specially concerned may report such violation to the Bureau (of Labor Relations). The Bureau shall have the power power to hear hear and decide decide any reported reported violatio violation n to mete the the appropriate penalty". Reasoning: The labor officials should not hesitate to enforce strictly the law and regulations governing trade unions even if that course of action would curtail the so-called union autonomy and freedom from government interference. For the protection of union members and in order that the affairs of the union may be administered honestly, labor officials should be vigilant and watchful in monitoring and checking the administration of union affairs. Laxity, permissiveness, neglect and apathy in supervising and regulating the activities of union officials would result in corruption and oppression. Internal safeguards within the union can easily be ignored or swept aside by abusive, arrogant and unscrupulous union officials to the prejudice of  the members. It is necessary and desirable that the Bureau of Labor Relations and the Ministry of Labor should exercise close and constant supervision over  labor unions, particularly the handling of their funds, so as to forestall abuses and venalities. Disposition: WHEREFORE, (1) that portion of the decision of the medarbiter, arbiter, removing removing respondents respondents Manalad, Manalad, Leano and Puerto Puerto as union officers, is affirmed. (Respondent Amparo is no longer an officer of the union.)

3. Unio Union n Dues Dues RODRIGUEZ V DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS 165 SCRA 239 NARVASA; August 31, 1988 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari (consolidated).

- 68 -

Disini

FACTS - The disputes concern the validity of the general elections for union officers and increase in union dues. - In PLDT, PLDT, the the fees fees to subm submit it candi candida dacy cy drasti drastica call lly y increase increases. s. although although some still still paid the frees, frees, complaint complaints s were were file filed d with with the the Bure Bureau au of Labo Laborr Rela Relati tion ons s for for its its invalidation invalidation as excessive, prohibitive and arbitrary. - Elections for provinces of Visayas and Mindanao were held on dates different from those specified by the Legislative Council. The validity of the elections were challenged on the grounds of lack of due notice and adequate ground rules. - Med-Ar Med-Arbit biter er abdul abdulla lah h heard heard the cases cases and render rendered ed  judgment denying petitions petitions to nullify the elections as well as the motion for contempt, contempt, but invalida invalidated ted the increaseof  increaseof  filing fees for for certificates of candidacies. the OIC of Labor Relations Relations overturned overturned the judgment judgment.. The elections elections were nullifies for lack of notice to candidates candidates and voters, failure to disseminate the election ground rules and disregard of the temporary restraining order of the Med-Arbiter. - Due to the proceed proceeding ings s assai assaili ling ng the validi validity ty of the elections pending before the Bureau of Labor Relations, the old office officers rs contin continued ued to exerci exercise se the funct function ions s of their their respective offices. the legislative council increased the union dues from P21-P50 a month. - Dir of Labor Relations rendered a decision revering that of  the med-arbiter by ordering te cessation of the collection of  the P29 increase aned return the amounts already collected.

ISSUE/S 1. WON the general elections for union o fficers is valid 2. WON the increase of the union dues is valid

HELD 1. YES Reasoning   The The decisi decision on is sustai sustained ned for failur failure e of the record to disclose any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Director in finding that the elections was tainted with irregulari irregularities ties and therefore therefore invalid. invalid. Undue haste, haste, lack of  adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting and absence of the dates of balloting attended the elections. 2. NO Reasoning The resolutiion does not bear the signature of at leasT 2/3 of the members of the council, contrary to the requireme requirements nts of the union union constitut constitution ion and by-laws. by-laws. the resolution increasing union dues is they're struck down as illegal and void, arbitrary and oppressive. Disposition Petition is dimissed.

H. Source—P ce—Pa ayme yment— Special Assessment PALACOLV FERRER-CALLEJA 182 SCRA 710 GANCAYCO; GANCAYCO; February 26, 1990 FACTS - October 12, 1987 > The president of Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union as the collective collective bargaining bargaining agent of all regular regular salesmen, salesmen, regular regular helpers, and relief relief helpers helpers of the Manila Manila Plant and Metro Manila Manila Sales Sales Office Office of Coca-C Coca-Cola ola Bottle Bottlers rs (Phili (Philippi ppines nes), ), Inc. Inc. submitted to the Company the ratification by the union members of  the new CBA and authorization for the Company to deduct union dues equivalent to P10.00 every payday o r P20.00 every month and, in addition, 10% by way of special assessment, from the CBA lumpsum pay granted to the union members for putting up a cooperative and credit union; purchase vehicles and other items needed for the benefit benefit of the officers officers and the general membership; membership; and for the payment payment for services rendered by union officers, officers, consultan consultants ts and

Labor Law 2

A2010

others with an additional proviso stating that the "matter of allocation ... shall be at the discretion of our incumbent Union President." - This "Authorization and CBA Ratification" was obtained by the Union through a secret referendum held in separate local membership meetings on various dates. The total membership of the Union was about 800. Of  this this number number,, 672 member members s origin originall ally y author authorize ized d the 10% specia speciall assessment, while 173 opposed the same. - Subsequent Subsequently ly however, however, one hundred hundred seventy seventy (170) members members of the Union submitted documents to the Company stating that although they have ratified the new CBA, they are withdrawing or disauthorizing the deduction of any amount from their CBA lump sum. Later, 185 other union members submitted similar documents expressing the same intent. These membe members, rs, numberin numbering g 355 in all (170 + 185), 185), added to the original original oppositors oppositors of 173, turned the tide in favor of disauthor disauthorizati ization on for the special assessment, with a total of 528 objectors and a remainder of 272 supporters. - Petitioners assailed the 10% special assessment as a violation of Article 241(o) 241(o) in relation to Article Article 222(b) 222(b) of the Labor Code. Article Article 222(b) 222(b) provides as follows: ART. 222. Appearances 222. Appearances and Fees. (b) No attorney's fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracti contracting ng union; Provided, Provided, however, that attorney' attorney's s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. On the other hand, Article 241(o) mandates that: ART. ART. 241. 241. Righ Rights ts and and condi conditi tion ons s of memb member ersh ship ip in a labo labor  r  organization. xxx xxx xxx (o) Other than for mandatory mandatory activities activities under the Code, no special special asse assess ssme ment nts, s, atto attorn rney ey's 's fees fees,, nego negoti tiat atio ion n fees fees or any any othe other  r  extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. employee. The authorizat authorization ion should should specifica specifically lly state state the amount, amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction ISSUE WON a special assessment can be validly deducted by a labor union from the lump-sum pay of its members, granted under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), notwithstanding a subsequent disauthorization of the same by a majority of the union members HELD NO Doctine N o check-offs from any amount due employees may be effected without individual written authorizations duly signed by the employees specifically stating the amount, purpose, and beneficiary of the deduction (Galvadores v. Trajano). Trajano) . This is in accord with with the constitutional constitutional principle of the State affording full protection to labor. - the failure of the Union to comply strictly with the requirements set out by the law invalidate invalidates s the questione questioned d special special assessmen assessment. t. Substantia Substantiall compliance is not enough in view of the fact that the special assessment will diminish the compensat compensation ion of the union members. members. Their express express consent is required, and this consent must be obtained in accordance with the steps outline outlined d by law, law, which which must must be follow followed ed to the letter. letter. No shortcuts are allowed. Disposition Petiti Petition on is hereby hereby GRANTE GRANTED. D. Coca-C Coca-Cola ola Bottle Bottlers rs (Philippines), Inc. is hereby ordered to immediately remit the amount of  P1,267,86 P1,267,863.39 3.39 to the respective respective union members from whom the said amount was withheld.

GABRIEL V SECRETARY OF LABOR 328 SCRA 247 QUISUMBING; QUISUMBING; March 16, 2000 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari FACTS - Petitioners comprise the Executive Board of the Solidbank Union, while

- 69 -

Disini

the Private Respondents are the members of the u nion. - the union decided to retain the services of an atty Lacsina as union counsel in connection with the negotiations for a new CBA. Thus, the board board called called a genera generall membe membersh rship ip meetin meeting g for this this purpos purpose, e, whereb whereby y majori majority ty of all union union member members s approv approved ed and signed signed a resolution confirming the decision to engage the services of the atty. - the resolution provided that 10% of the total economic benefits that may be secured through the nego will be given to the Atty Lacsina as atty’s fees. It also contained an authorization for Solidbank Corp to check-off the atty’s fees from the payment of benefits to the EEs and turn over the amount to the atty. The bank then complied with the check-off  - private respondents then filed a complaint against the board for  illegal illegal deduction deduction of atty’s atty’s fees. The arbiter arbiter ordered the board to refund the complainants for the illegally deducted anount. The order  was appealed to the Sec. of labor, who in turn ordered that the refund be limited to those union members who have not signified their conformity to the check-off. In an MFR, the secretary affirmed and modified modified that the reimbursement reimbursement should be charged charged to the union’s general fund. Thus, this petition. ISSUE 1. WON the check-off was validly made HELD 1. NO Ratio The Art.24(o) Art.24(o) provides: provides: Other than for mandatory mandatory activitie activities s under the Code, no special assessment, attorney's fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amou amount nt due due to an empl employ oyee ee with withou outt an indi indivi vidu dual al writ writte ten n authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specif specifica ically lly state state the amoun amount, t, purpos purpose e and benefi beneficia ciary ry of the deduction. The check-off, made without valid individual authorizations, cannot be held valid. No deduction can be made from the salaries of the concerned employees other than those mandated by law. Reasoning  Art.2 Art.241 41 has 3 requis requisite ites s for the validi validity ty of specia speciall assessme assessment nt for the union’s incidental incidental expenses, expenses, atty’s atty’s fees, and representation expenses: (1) authorization by a written resolution of  the majority of all members at the general membership membership meeting called called for the purpose; purpose; (2) secretary secretary's 's record of the minutes of the meeting; and (3) individual written authorization for check off duly signed by the EEs concerned. - The General Membership Resolution of the SolidBank Union didn’t satisfy requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence. There were no individual written check off authorizations by the EEs concerned and so the assessment cannot be l egally deducted by the ER. - Palacol v Ferrer-Calleja: express consent of EEs is required, and this consent must be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by law, law, which which must must be follow followed ed to the letter. letter. No shortc shortcuts uts are allowed. - BPIEU-ALU vs. NLRC: Art.222(b) prohibits payment of atty's fees only when it is effected through forced contributions from workers from their own funds as distinguished from the union funds. The purpos purpose e is to preven preventt imposi impositio tion n on the the worker workers s of the duty to individually contribute their respective shares in the fee to be paid the atty for his services on behalf of the union in its negotiations with mgt. The obligation obligation to pay the atty’s fees belongs to the union and cannot cannot be shunted shunted to the workers as their direct responsibilit responsibility. y. Neither the lawyer nor the union itself may require the individual worker to assume the obligation to pay atty’s fees from their own pockets. So categorical is this intent that the law makes it clear that any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void ab initio Disposition Petition is denied.

ABS - CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEE UNION MEMBERS V. ABS - CBN BROADCASTING CORP. 304 SCRA 489 PURISIMA; March 11, 1999

Labor Law 2

A2010

NATURE:Special NATURE:Special civil action for Certiorari ABS-CBN ABS-CBN Superviso Supervisors rs Emloyees Emloyees Union and ABS-CBN ABS-CBN Broadcast Broadcasting ing Corporation signed and a Collective Bargaining Agreement providing for a 10% special assessment for union incidental expenses, attorneys fees and representation expenses. ISSUE: WON the provis provision ions s for the check off regard regarding ing the the 10% special special asse assess ssme ment nt for for unio union n inci incide dent ntal al expe expens nses es,, atto attorn rney eys s fees fees and and representation expenses are valid. HELD: HELD: Yes Article 241 provides for three (3) requisites for the validity of  the special assessment for Union's incidental expenses, attorney's fees and representation expenses namely: 1) authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose; 2) secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting; and 3) indivi individua duall writte written n author authoriza izatio tion n for for checkcheck-off off duly duly signed signed by the employee concerned. After a thorough review of the records on hand, we find that the three three (3) requisites requisites for the validity of the ten percent (10%) special special assess assessmen mentt for Union' Union's s incide incidenta ntall expens expenses, es, attorn attorney' ey's s fees fees and representation expenses were met. It can can be glea gleane ned d that that on July July 14, 14, 1989 1989,, the the ABSABS-CB CBN N Supervisors Employee Union held its general meeting, whereat it was agreed agreed that that a ten perce percent nt (10%) (10%) specia speciall assess assessmen mentt from from the total total economic package due to every member would be checked-off to cover  expenses for negotiation, other miscellaneous expenses and attorney's fees. The minutes of the said meeting meeting were recorded recorded by the Union's Secretary and noted by its President. On May 24, 1991, said Union held its General Membership Meeting, wherein majority of the members agreed that "in as much as the Union had already paid Atty. P. Pascual the amount of P500,000.00, the same must be shared by all the members until this is fully liquidated." Eighty-five (85) members of the same Union executed individual written authorizat authorizations ions for check-off check-off.. There is then, the presumpti presumption on that such check-off check-off authorization authorizations s were executed executed voluntarily voluntarily by the signatori signatories es thereto. Petitioner Petitioners s further further contend that Article Article 241 (n) of the Labor  Code, as amended, amended, on special special assessment assessments, s, contempla contemplates tes a general general meeting after the conclusion of the collective bargaining agreement. Subject Subject Article does not state that the general general membership membership meeting meeting should be called after the conclusion of a collective bargaining agreement. In BPIEU-A BPIEU-ALU, LU, the petitioner petitioners, s, impugned the Order of the NLRC NLRC,, hold holdin ing g that that the the vali validi dity ty of the the five five perc percen entt (5%) (5%) spec specia iall assessment for attorney's fees is contrary to Article 222, paragraph (b) of  the Labor Code, as amended. The court ratiocinated, thus: "The Court reads the aforecited provision as prohibiting the payment of  attorney's fees only when it is effected through forced contributions from the workers from their own funds a distinguished from the union funds. The purpose of the provision is to prevent imposition on the workers of  the duty to individually contribute their respective shares in the fee to be  paid the attorney for his services on behalf of the union in its negotiations with the management. xxx"  However, the public respondent overlooked the fact that in the said case, the deduction of the stipulated five percent (5%) of the total economic benefits under the new collective bargaining agreement was applied only to workers who gave their individual signed authorizations. The Court explained: "xxx And significantly, the authorized deduction affected only the workers who adopted and signed the resolution and who were the only ones from whose benefits the deductions were made by BPI. No similar deductions were taken from the other workers who did not sign the resolution and so were not bound by it."  The inapplicability of Palacol lies in the fact that it has a different factual milieu from the present case. In Palacol, the check-off authorization was declared invalid because majority of the Union members had withdrawn their individual authorizations. In this case, case, the majority of the Union members members gave their individual individual writt written en check check-of -offf author authoriza izatio tions ns for for the ten ten percen percentt (10%) (10%) specia speciall

Disini

- 70 -

assessment. And they have never withdraw their individual written authorizations for check-off. Premises studiedly considered, we are of the irresistable conclusion and, so find, that the ruling in BPIEU-ALU vs. NLRC that 1) the prohibition against attorney's fees in Article 222, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code applies only when the payment of attorney's fees is effected through forced contributions from the workers; and 2) that no deductions must be taken from the workers who did not sign sign the the chec checkk-of offf auth authori oriza zati tion on,, appl applies ies to the the case case unde under  r  consideration.

I.

Mandatory Activity Definition

AMBROCIO VENGCO ET. AL vs. DIR. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO 170 SCRA 155 (1989) MEDIALDEA, J.: NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS -Sometime in the latter part of 1981, the Management of the AngloAmerican Tobacco Corporation and the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation. (FOI-TAF) entered into into a compromise agreement whereby the company will pay to the union members the sum of P150,000.00 for their claims arising from the unpaid unpaid emerge emergency ncy cost cost of living living allowa allowance nce (ECOLA (ECOLA)) and other  other  benefits which were the subject of their compliant before the Ministry of Labor. -Responde -Respondent nt Emmanuel Emmanuel Timbungco (Timbungco, (Timbungco, for short) short) who is the the unio union n pres presid iden entt rece receiv ived ed the the mone money y whic which h was was paid paid in installments. Thereafter, he distributed the amount among the union members. members. Petitioner Petitioners s Ambrocio Ambrocio Vengco, Vengco, Ramon Ramon Moises, Moises, Rafael Rafael Wagas and 80 others (Vengco, et al., for short) who are union members noted that Timbungco was not authorized by the union worker workers s to get the money; money; and that that ten percent percent (10%) of the P150,000.0 P150,000.00 0 had been deducted deducted to pay for attorney' attorney's s fees without their written written authoriza authorization tion in violation violation of Article Article 242(o) 242(o) of the Labor  Code. -Vengco et al. demanded from Timbungco an accounting of how the P150,000.00 was distributed to the members. Timbungco did not give in to their demand. Thus Vengco, et al. filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor. ISSUE Whethe Whetherr or not Timbun Timbungco gco is guilty guilty of illega illegally lly deduct deducting ing 10% attorneys' fees from petitioners' backwages HELD YES. RATIO

-Othe -Otherr than than for for mandat mandator ory y activi activitie ties s under under the Code, Code, no specia speciall assess assessmen ment, t, attorn attorney' ey's s fees, fees, negotiat negotiation ion fees or any other extraord extraordinary inary fees may may be chec checked ked off from from any any amou amount nt due due an employee yee without an individual written autho authoriz rizati ation on duly duly signed signed by an emplo employee yee.. The The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. (Article 241, LC) -A mandatory mandatory activity has been defined defined as a judicial process of  settli settling ng disput dispute e laid laid down down by the law . In the instan instantt case, case, the the amicable settlement entered into by the management and the union

Labor Law 2

A2010

CAN NOT BE CONSIDER CONSIDERED ED AS A MANDATOR MANDATORY Y ACTIVITY ACTIVITY UNDER THE CODE.

Disini

- 71 -

 Jurisdiction-Exhaustion Internal Remedies

REASONING

-The law is explicit. IT REQUIRES THE INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF EACH EMPLOYEE CONCERNED, TO MAKE THE DEDUCTION OF ATTORNEY'S FEES VALID. -Moreover, Book III, Rule VIII, Section II of the Implementing Rules cited by Timbungco Timbungco which dispenses dispenses with the required required written written authorization authorization from the employees concerned does not apply in this case. This provision envi envisi sion ons s a situ situat atio ion n wher where e ther there e is a judi judici cial al or admi adminis nistr trat ativ ive e proceedings for recovery of wages. Upon termination of the proceedings, the law allows allows a deduct deduction ion for attorne attorney's y's fees of 10% from the total amount due to a winning party. In the herein case, the fringe benefits received by the union members consist of back payments of their unpaid emergency cost of living allowances which are totally distinct from their  wages. Allowances are benefits over and above the basic salaries of the employees We have held that such allowances are excluded from the concept concept of salaries salaries or wages. wages. In addition, the payment of the fringe benefits benefits were effected effected through an amicable amicable settlement settlement and not in an administrative proceeding. DISPOSITIVE : ACCORDINGLY, the petition is granted.

CBA Negotiation GALVADORES V TRAJANO 144 SCRA 138 (not yet available)

J.

Union Information Union Officer-Obligation

CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP. LABOR UNION V CONTINENTAL CEMENT 189 SCRA 134 Company was engaged in the manufacture of cement which is a vital industry in which a strike or lockout is prohibited. The union members engaged in a lock-out and strike. Even assuming not engaged in a vital industry, the strike was illegal. It was not in connection with any unresolved unresolved economic economic issue issue in collective collective bargaining bargaining which is the only ground for which a lawful strike can be held as found in Section 7 of the Rules and Regulatio Regulations ns implement implementing ing PD 823. The issue concerned concerned merely the implementation of an arbitration award of the NLRC. Union had a remedy by applying for a writ of execution to enforce that award. The strikers did violate the nostrike policy. They repeatedly defied the orders of the Director of Labor Relations. Officers had the duty to guide their members to respect the law. Instead, they urged them to violate the law and defy the duly constituted authorities. Their responsibility is greater  than that of the members. Their (the officers) dismissal from the service is a just penalty. It is within the power of the NLRC to order the removal of  the officers. In Art. 242, it shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform inform its member members s on provis provision ions s of the the consti constitut tution ion and by-law by-laws, s, collective bargaining agreement, the prevailing labor relations system and all their rights and obligations under existing labor laws. Any violation of  the above rights and conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of an officer from office. The officers misinformed the members and led them into staging an illegal strike.

K.

Enforcement Remedi Remedieses-Pr Proc ocedu edure re Sanctions

and and

Requirements: VILLAR V INCIONG 121 SCRA 44 GUERRERO; April 20, 1983 NATURE Petition for review by certiorari FACTS - Petiti Petitione oners rs were were member members s of the Amigo Amigo Employees Employees UnionUnionPAFLU, PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization which was the existing bargaining bargaining agent of the employees in private private responden respondentt Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. They then signed a joint resolution which stated that they were disaffiliating themselves as members of the PAFLU, and were not further authorizing PAFLU to represent them in any CBA. - During a special meeting of the Union, a Resolution was approved which called called for the investigat investigation ion of all the petitioners petitioners for "continuou "continuously sly maligning, libelling and slandering not only the incumbent officers but even even the the unio union n itse itself lf and and the the fede federa rati tion on"" and and for for caus causin ing g divisiveness. - The union security clause was reincorporated in the new CBA: “any members who shall resign, be expelled, or shall in any manner cease to be a member of the UNION, shall be dismissed from his employment upon written request of the UNION to the Company.” - Petitioners contend that their acts do not constitute disloyalty as these these are in the exercise exercise of their their consti constitut tution ional al right right to selfselforganization. - The PAFLU President then rendered a decision finding them guilty of the the char charge ges s and and expe expell llin ing g them them from from the the Unio Union n and and as a consequence the Management of the employer is hereby requested to terminate them from their their employment employment in conformit conformity y with the security clause. ISSUE/S 1. WON PAFLU had the authority to investigate the petitioners and, thereafter, expel them from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU 2. WON the petitioners were entitled to disaffiliate from the Union HELD 1.YES Ratio That PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners on the charges charges filed by their co-employe co-employees es in the local union and after  findin finding g them them guilty guilty as charge charged, d, to expel expel them them from from the roll of  membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under  the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated. And pursuant to the security clause of the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old CBA, PAFLU was justified in applying said security clause. UNION-MEMBER UNION-MEMBER RELATIONS: Discipline Issues Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for that matter, is the right right of self-p self-pres reserv ervati ation. on. When When member members s of a labor labor union, union, therefore therefore,, sow the seeds of dissension dissension and strife strife within within the union; when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity equity,, as well well as the dictates dictates of law and justic justice, e, theref therefore ore,, compel compellin ling g manda mandate te the adopti adoption on by the labor labor union union of such such correc correctiv tive e and remedi remedial al measur measures es in keepin keeping g with with its laws laws and regulations, for its preservation and continued existence; lest by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall. 2. YES Ratio Although they are entitled to disaffiliate from their union and

Labor Law 2

A2010

form a new organization of their own, they must, however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA. Reasoning Disaffiliation Reasoning Disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association ordained by the Constitution. But this Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form of  union security, and such provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. Local Union Disaffiliation: Rule - Legality act - Disaffiliation There are two hundred thirty four (234) union members in the Amigo Emplo Employee yees s UnionUnion-PA PAFLU FLU,, and only only 96 signed signed the the "Sama-Samang  Kapasiyahan."  They constituted a small minority for which reason they could not have successfully successfully disaffiliate disaffiliated d the local local union from PAFLU. PAFLU. It can be inferred that the majority wanted the union to remain an affiliate of  PAFLU. The action of the majority must, therefore, prevail over that of the minority members. Disposition The Order appealed from affirming the joint decision of the OIC granting clearance to terminate petitioners as well as dismissing their  complaint with application for preliminary injunction, is hereby AFFIRMED.

RODRIGUEZ V DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS 265 SCRA 239 NARVASA; NARVASA; August 3 1, 1988 NATURE Special civil action of certiorari (consolidated). FACTS - The disputes disputes concern concern the validity of the general general elections elections for union officers and increase in union dues. - In PLDT, the fees to submit submit candidacy drastically drastically increases. although some still paid the frees, complaints were filed with the Bureau of Labor  Relations for its invalidation as excessive, prohibitive and arbitrary. - Elections for provinces of Visayas and Mindanao were held on dates different from those specified by the Legislative Council. The validity of  the elections were challenged on the grounds of lack of due notice and adequate ground rules. - Med-Arbiter abdullah heard the cases and rendered judgment denying petitions to nullify the elections as well as the motion for contempt, but invalidated the increaseof filing fees for for certificates of candidacies. the OIC of Labor Relations Relations overturned overturned the judgment. The elections elections were nullifies for lack of notice to candidates and voters, failure to disseminate the election ground rules and disregard of the temporary restraining order  of the Med-Arbiter. - Due to the proceedings assailing the validity of the elections pending before before the Burea Bureau u of Labor Labor Relati Relations ons,, the the old office officers rs contin continued ued to exercise exercise the functions functions of their respective respective offices. offices. the legislativ legislative e council council increased the union dues from P21-P50 a month. - Dir of Labor Relations rendered a decision revering that of the medarbiter by ordering te cessation of the collection of the P29 increase aned return the amounts already collected. ISSUE/S 1. WON the general elections for union officers is valid 2. WON the increase of the union dues is valid HELD 1. YES Reasoning The Reasoning The decision is sustained for failure of the record to disclose any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Director in finding that the elections elections was tainted tainted with irregularities irregularities and therefore therefore invalid. Undue haste, lack of adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting and absence of the dates of balloting attended the elections. 2. NO Reasoning The Reasoning The resolutiion does not bear the signature of at leasT 2/3 of  the members of the council, contrary to the requirements of the union constitution and by-laws. the resolution increasing union dues is they're struck down as illegal and void, arbitrary and oppressive. Disposition Petition is dimissed.

Disini

- 72 -

VERCELES VS BLR 451 SCRA 338 CHICO-NAZARIO; Feb. 15, 2005 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS - Private Private respondents respondents Rodel E. Dalupan, Dalupan, Efren J. De Ocampo, Proces Proceso o Totto, Totto, Jr., Jr., Elizab Elizabeth eth Alarc Alarca, a, and Elvira Elvira S. Manalo Manalo are member members s of the Univer Universit sity y of the East East Emplo Employee yees s Associ Associati ation on (UEEA). - They each received a Memorandum from the UEEA charging them with spreading false rumors and creating disinformation among the member members s of the said said associ associati ation. on. The acts acts of the respon responden dents ts allegedly fall under General Assembly Resolution No. 4, Series of  1979 - they denied the allegations. They stated that any sanction that will be imposed by the committee would be violative of their right to due process. - Ernesto Ernesto Verceles, Verceles, in his capacity capacity as president president of the association, association, through a Memorandum, informed Rodel Dalupan, et al., that their  membership in the association has been suspended and shall take effect immediately upon receipt thereof. Verceles said he was acting upon the disciplinar disciplinary y committe committee’s e’s finding of a prima prima facie case against them. Respondent Uy also received a similar memorandum. - a complaint for illegal suspension, willful and unlawful violation of  UEEA constitution and by-laws, refusal to render financial and other  reports, deliberate refusal to call general and special meetings, illegal holdover of terms and damages was filed by the respondents against herein before DOLE-NCR - a decision was rendered by Regional Director Lim, adverse to petitioners - The petitioners appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations of the DOLE. During the pendency of this appeal an election of officers was held by the UEEA. The appeal, however, was dismissed for lack of  merit. - the petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. ISSUES 1. WON the CA committed an error in u pholding the DOLE-NCR and BLR-DOLE decisions based only on the complaint and answer. 2. WON the CA committed an error in holding the election as invalid and a nullity. 3. WON it was erroneous to uphold the BLR-DOLE’s finding that the suspension was illegal 4. WON the allege alleged d non-ho non-holdi lding ng of meetin meetings gs and alleged alleged nonnonsubmissio submission n of reports reports are moot and academic, academic, and whether whether the decision to hold meetings and submit reports contradict and override the sovereign will of the majority. HELD 1. NO Ratio The Court of Appeals was justified in upholding the DOLENCR and BLR-DOLE decisions based on the complaint and answer. The petitioners’ line of reasoning that since no position papers were submit submitte ted, d, no decisi decision on may may be made made by the adjudicat adjudicating ing body body cannot cannot be accept accepted. ed. As ruled ruled by Region Regional al Direct Director or Lim in his decision, the complaint and the answer thereto were adopted as the partie parties’ s’ positi position on papers papers.. Therea Thereaft fter, er, the case case shall shall be deemed deemed submitted for resolution. Labor laws mandate the speedy disposition of cases, cases, with with the least least attent attention ion to techni technical caliti ities es but withou withoutt sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. In this case, it cannot be said that there was a denial of due process on the part of  the petitioners because they were given all the chances to refute the alle allega gati tions ons of the the priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nts, s, and and the the dela delay y in the the proceedings before the DOLE-NCR was clearly attributable to them. The argume argument nt that that there there was failur failure e to exhaus exhaustt admini administr strati ative ve remedies cannot be sustained. One of the instances when the rule of 

Labor Law 2

A2010

exhaustion of administrative remedies may be disregarded is when there is a violat violation ion of due process. process. In this this case, case, the responde respondents nts have chronicled from the very beginning that they were indefinitely suspended without without the benefit benefit of a formal formal charge sufficient sufficient in form and substance. substance. Therefore Therefore,, the rule on exhaustio exhaustion n of administr administrative ative remedies cannot squarely apply to them. 2. NO Ratio The election of UEEA UEEA officers officers cannot acquire a semblance semblance of  legality. legality. First, it was conducte conducted d pursuant pursuant to the aforesaid (erroneous) (erroneous) order of the Regional Director as manifested by the petitioners. Second, it was purposely done to pre-empt the resolution of the case by the BLR and to deprive private respondents their substantial right to participate in the election. Third, petitioners cannot be allowed to take an inconsistent position to later on claim that the election was held because it was already due while previously declaring that it was made in line with the order of  the Regional Director, for this would go against the principle of fair play. Thus, while the BLR was wrong in affirming the order of the Regional Director for the immediate holding of election, it was right in nullifying the election of officers. It was simply improper for the petitioners to implement the said order which was then one of the subjects of their appeal in the BLR. To hold otherwise would be to dispossess the BLR of its inherent power to control the conduct of the proceedings of cases pending before it for resolution. 3. NO Ratio Petiti Petitione oners rs have have failed failed to show show that that the findin findings gs of facts facts and conclusions of law of both the DOLE-NCR and BLR-DOLE were arrived at with grave abuse of discretion or without substantial evidence. A careful review review of the pleadings pleadings reveals that the decision decision and resolutions resolutions of the concerned agencies were correctly anchored in law and on substantial evidence. 4. NO Ratio The passag passage e of Genera Generall Assem Assembly bly Resolu Resolutio tion n No. 10 and Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, which supposedly cured the lapses committed by the association’s officers and reiterated the approval of the general membership of the acts and collateral actions of the association’s office officers rs canno cannott redeem redeem the the petiti petitione oners rs from from their their predic predicam ament ent.. The obligation to hold meetings and render financial reports is mandated by UEEA’ UEEA’s s consti constitut tution ion and by-law by-laws. s. Prompt Prompt compli complianc ance e in render rendering ing financial reports together with the holding of regular meetings with the submission of the minutes thereon with the BLR-DOLE and DOLE-NCR shall negate any suspicion of dishonesty on the part of UEEA’s officers. This This is not only only true rue with ith UEEA EEA, but but likew ikewis ise e with ith oth other  unions unions/as /assoc sociat iation ions, s, as this this matte matterr is imbued imbued with with public public intere interest st.. Undeniably, transparency in the official undertakings of union officers will bolster genuine trade unionism in the country. DISPOSITION The Decision and Resolution of the CA affirmed.

DIAMONON v DOLE (LAGUESMA) 327 SCRA 282 De Leon; March 7, 2000 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - petitioner Diamonon filed 2 complaints before the DOLE after being removed from his capacity as vice president of the unions NACUSIP and PACIWU. In his first complaint, he questioned the validity of his removal from office and in the second, he accused both the national treasurer and national president of NACUSIP and PACIWU (private respondents) for  want wanton on viol violat atio ion n of the the Cons Consti titu tuti tion on and and By-L By-Law aws s of both both orgs orgs,, unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds and also, abuse of  authority. - the 1 st complaint was decided in his favor, his removal was declared null and void. The 2nd complaint was dismissed for lack of personality in view of his removal from the offices he held. Diamonon appealed but public respondent Laguesma, as undersecretary of DOLE, held that petitioner’s failure to show, in his complaint, that the administrative remedies provided for in the constitution and by-laws of both unions have been exhausted or 

- 73 -

Disini

such remedies are not available, was fatal. With his MFR denied, Diamonon filed this case. ISSUE WON respondent Laguesma acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. HELD No. Ratio When the Constituti Constitution on and By-Laws of Unions Unions dictate dictate the remedy remedy for intern internal al disput dispute, e, they they should should be resort resorted ed to before before recourse recourse can be made to the appropriate appropriate administrative administrative or judicial judicial body. - A party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue i t to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention. Reasoning Not Reasoning Not only did petitioner fail to comply with Section 2, Rule VIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code but also the record reveals that neither did he exhaust the remedies set forth by the Consti Constitut tution ion and by-law by-laws s of both both unions unions.. In the Nation National al Conven Conventio tion n of PACIW PACIWU U and NACUSI NACUSIP, P, nothin nothing g was heard heard of  petitioner petitioner’s ’s complaint complaint against against private private respondent respondents s on the latter’s latter’s alleged unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds. His failur failure e to seek seek recour recourse se before before the the Nation National al conven conventio tion n on his compla complaint int agains againstt privat private e respon responden dents ts taints taints his action action with with prematurity. Disposition Petition DISMISSED. DISMISSED.

Remedy KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP (KMP) vs. TRAJANO 134 SCRA 236 RELOVA; Jan 21 1985 NATURE Petition to review FACTS - A petition was filed for for the expulsion of the union officers of KMP on the ground of alleged falsification and misrepresentation. - Public Public respond respondent ent Directo Directorr Trajan Trajano o of the Burea Bureau u of Labor  Relations directed the said Union to hold and conduct, pursuant to its constitution and by-laws and under the supervision of the Bureau of  Labor Relations, Relations, a general general membership membership meeting, meeting, to vote for or  against the expulsion or suspension of the herein petitioner union officers. ISSUE WON WON the the prop proper er reme remedy dy agai agains nstt erri erring ng unio union n offi office cers rs is not not referendum but union expulsion HELD YES. Ratio The remedy against erring union officers is not referendum but union expulsion. Reasoning  If herein union officers (also petitioners) were guilty of  the allege alleged d acts acts impute imputed d agains againstt them, them, said said public public respon responden dentt pursuant to Article 242 of the New Labor Code and in the light of Our  ruling in Duyag vs. Inciong, should have meted out the appropriate penalty penalty on them, i.e., i.e., to expel them from the Union, Union, as prayed prayed for, and not call for a referendum to decide the issue. However, the alleged falsification and misrepresentation of herein union officers were not supported by substantial evidence. The fact that they disbursed the amount of P1,278.00 from Union funds and later later on was disall disallowe owed d for failur failure e to attach attach suppor supportin ting g papers papers ther thereo eon n did did not not of itse itself lf cons consti titu tute te fals falsif ific icat atio ion n and/ and/or  or  misrepresentation. The expenditures appeared to have been made in good faith and the amount spent for the purpose mentioned in the report, if concurred in or accepted by the members, are reasonable.

Labor Law 2

A2010

DISPOSITION Resolutio Resolution n SET ASIDE and the petition for expulsion expulsion of herein herein union officers is DISMISSED for having been rendered moot and academic by the the elec electi tion on of here herein in unio union n offi office cers rs in the the gene genera rall memb member ersh ship ip meeting/election.

3.7

1.

UNION AFFILIATION LOCAL AND PAREN PARENT T UNION UNION RELAT RELATION IONS— S—ILO ILO Convention No. 87, Art. 5

Affiliation: Purpose of Nature of  Relations Purpose PHIL SKYLANDERS INC V NLRC (PAFLU) 375 SCRA 369 BELLOSILLO; Jan 31, 2002

NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS 375 375 Nov Nov 1993 1993,, the the Phil Philip ippi pine ne Skyl Skylan ande ders rs Empl Employ oyee ees s Asso Associ ciat atio ion n (PSEA), a local labor union affiliated with the Philippine Association of  Free Free Labo Laborr Unio Unions ns (PAF (PAFLU LU)) Sept Septem embe berr (PAF (PAFLU LU), ), won won in the the certification election conducted among the rank and file employees of  Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested the result of the election before the Secretary of Labor. 376 376 Seve Severa rall mont onths later later,, pend pendin ing g settl ettlem emen entt of the the cont contro rove vers rsy, y, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation citing as reason PAFLU's suppos supposed ed delibe deliberat rate e and habitu habitual al dereli derelict ction ion of duty duty toward toward its members. 377 377 PSEA PSEA sub subse sequ quen entl tly y affi affili liat ated ed its itsel elff with with the the Nat Natio iona nall Cong Congre ress ss of Worker Workers s (NCW), (NCW), change changed d its name name to Philip Philippin pine e Skylan Skylander ders s Employees Association - National Congress of Workers (PSEA-NCW), and allowed the former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected officers PSEA-NCW. 378 On 17 March 1994 PSEA- NC NCW ente re red into a collective bargaining agreement with PSI which was immediately registered with DOLE. 379 379 PAFL PAFLU U Secre Secreta tary ry Gen Gener eral al Sera Serafi fin n Ayros Ayroso o wrote wrote Mar Maril iles es C. C. Romulo requesting a copy of PSI's audited financial statement. Ayroso explained that with the dismissal of PSEA-WATU's election protest the time time was ripe for the the partie parties s to enter enter into into a collec collectiv tive e bargai bargainin ning g agreem agreement ent.. PSI PSI throug through h its person personnel nel manage managerr Franci Francisco sco Dakila Dakila denied the request citing as reason PSEA's disaffiliation from PAFLU and its subsequent affiliation with NCW. 380 380 PAFL PAFLU U thro throug ugh h Sera Serafi fin n Ayro Ayroso so fil filed ed a com compl plai aint nt for for unf unfai airr labo labor  r  practice practice against against PSI, PSI, its president president Mariles Romulo and personnel personnel manager Francisco Dakila. PAFLU amended its complaint by including the elected officers of PSEA-PAFLU as additional party respondents. 381 381 Labo Laborr Arbit Arbiter er dec decla lare red d PSEA PSEA's 's disa disaff ffil ilia iati tion on fro from m PAFL PAFLU U inva invali lid d and held PSI, PSEA-PAFLU and their respective officers guilty of unfair  labor practice. 382 382 NLRC NLRC uph uphel eld d the the Deci Decisi sion on of of the the Lab Labor or Arb Arbit iter er and and conj conjec ectu ture red d that since an election protest questioning PSEA-PAFLU's certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent was pending resolution before the Secretary of Labor, PSEA could not validly separate from PAFLU, join another national federation and subsequently enter into a collective bargaining agreement with its employer-company ISSUE/S WON PSEA, which is an independent independent and separate separate local union, may validly validly disaffiliat disaffiliate e from PAFLU pending the settlement settlement of an election election protest questioning its status as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank and file employees

Disini

- 74 -

HELD  YES.  YES . The pendency of an election protest involving both the mother  federation and the local union did not constitute a bar to a valid disaffiliation. Reasoning In Reasoning In Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc. the SC upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and existence to the national federation to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their members. The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by collective action, the common bargaining power of local unions for  the effective enhancement and protection of their interests. Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own interests subject to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the national federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought such affiliation into existence. Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against those of a national federation, those of the former  must be preferred. Parenthetically though, the desires of the mother  federation to protect its locals are not altogether to be shunned. It will however be to err greatly against the Constitution if the desires of the federation would be favored over those of its members. If it were otherw otherwise ise,, inste instead ad of protec protectio tion, n, there there would would be disreg disregard ard and neglect of the lowly workingmen. Disposition Petition is granted.

Nature Relationship FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORP V NLRC, NLU-TUCP, LERUM 00 SCRA 00 PURISIMA; PURISIMA; NOV 16, 1999 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - National National Labor Union-Trad Union-Trade e Union Congress Congress of the Philippines Philippines (NLU-TUCP) filed w/ the Ministry of Labor and Employment, in behalf  of its local chapter, the Filipino Pipe Workers Union-National Labor  Union Union (FPWU(FPWU-NLU NLU), ), a notice notice of strike strike signed signed by its nation national al presid president ent,, Atty. Atty. Lerum, Lerum, against against Filipi Filipino no Pipe and Foundr Foundry y Corp Corpor orat atio ion n (Fil (Fil Pipe Pipe), ), alle allegi ging ng unio union n bust bustin ing g and and nonnonimplementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. - A conciliation conference was set, but before the conciliation was done, the FPWU-NLU staged a strike. -Fil Pipe filed petition to declare the strike illegal and for damages against FPWU-NLU, NLU-TUCP and Lerum. Later, Fil Pipe moved to dismiss the complaint against FPWU-NLU. -Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal, and ordered NLU-TUCP to pay damages. Lerum was absolved. Appeals were filed. -NLRC set aside decision for lack of merit in so far as NLU-TUCP and Lerum is concerned. -Filipino Pipe: NLRC erred in declaring that NLU-TUCP and Lerum are not primarily primarily responsible, responsible, and that the company has lost its cause of action. They argued that the responsibility for the damages allegedly sustained by petitioner company on account of the illegal strike, should be borne by NLU-TUCP and Lerum, for having directly participated in aiding and abetting the illegal strike. Also, that FPWUNLU is a mere agent of respondent NLU-TUCP, because FPWUNLU, a local union, cannot act as the principal of respondent NLUTUCP, TUCP, a mother mother federation, federation, because it is not a legitimat legitimate e labor  organization. ISSUES 1. WON the strike was illegal 2. WON NLU-TUCP and Lerum are primarily responsible HELD

Labor Law 2

A2010

1. YES -1st, the strike staged by FPWU-NLU was baseless. 2 nd, the union failed to serve the company a copy of the notice of strike (see Sec 3 Rule XXII, Book V, Implementing Rules). 3 rd, the strike strike blatantly blatantly disregar disregarded ded the prohibitio prohibition n on the doing of any act which may impede or disrupt disrupt the conciliation proceedings (see Sec 6) 2. NO Ratio The mother union, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate, had the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit of the association, free to serve the common interest of all its members subject only to the restraints restraints imposed by the constitution constitution and by-laws by-laws of the association. The same is true even if the local union is not a legitimate labor organization Reasoning The Reasoning  The direct and primary responsibility for the damages fall on the local union FPWU, being the principal, and not on respondent NLUTUCP, a mere agent of FPWU-NLU which assisted the latter in filing the notice of strike. Being just an agent, the notice of strike filed by Lerum is deemed to have been filed by its principal, the FPWU-NLU. Having thus dismissed the claim for damages against the principal, FPWU-NLU, the action for damages against its agent, respondent NLU-TUCP, and Atty. Lerum, has no more leg to stand on and should also be dismissed. Disposition Petition is dismissed.

Effect-Legal Personality Personality ADAMSON & ADAMSON V CIR (ADAMSON & ADAMSON SUPERVISORY UNION) 127 SCRA 268 GUTIERREZ; January 31, 1984 FACTS - The Adamson & Adamson Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) informed the petitioner Adamson & Adamson about its having organized on the same date that another union, the Adamson and Adamson Inc. Salesmen Association (FFW), also advised Adamson & Adamson that the rank and file salesmen had also formed their own union. - The CIR held that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union Union (FFW) can legally legally represent represent supervisors supervisors of the petitioner  petitioner  corporation notwithstanding the affiliation of the rank and file union of the the same same comp compan any y with with the the same same labo laborr fede federa rati tion, on, the the Federation of Free Workers. - Subsequently and during the pendency of the present petition, the rank rank and file file employ employees ees formed formed their own union, union, naming naming it Adamson and Adamson Independent Workers (FFW). - The The Adam Adamso son n comp company any argu argues es that that the the affi affili liat atio ion n of the the respondent union of supervisors, the salesmen's association and the Adamson and Adamson Independent Worker's Union with the same national federation (FFW) violates Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act because: 1) it results in the indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization, 2) sinc since e respo espond nden entt union nion and and the union nions s of  nonsupervisors in the same company are governed by the the same same cons consti titu tuti tion on and and by-l by-law aws s of the the natio nationa nall federation, in practical effect, there is but one union, 3) it would would result result in the respond respondent ent union's union's losing losing its independence because it becomes the alter ego of the federation federation.. Should Should affiliation affiliation be allowed, allowed, this this would violate violate the requireme requirement nt of separate separateness ness of bargaining bargaining units under Section 12 of the Act because only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. - The respondents on the other hand argue that the supervisory employees of an employer may validly join an organization of the rank rank-a -and nd-f -fil ile e empl employ oyee ees s so long long as the the said said rank rank and and file file employees are not under their supervision.

- 75 -

Disini

ISSUE 1. WON Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) has the legal personalit personality y to superviso supervisors rs of the petitioner petitioner corporation corporation notwithstanding the affiliation of the rank and file union of the same company with the same labor federation 2. WON a superviso supervisor's r's union may affiliate affiliate with a federatio federation n with which unions of rank-and-file employees of the same employer are also affiliated) HELD 1. YES Ratio According to Elisco Elirol Labor Union vs. Nortel  and Liberty  Colton Colton Mills Workers Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills. Inc , the local unions are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer  and their employee-members in the economic struggle for the fruits of joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the association of  the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the same end. Reasoning  - There is nothing in the provisions of the Industrial Peace Act which provides that a duly registered local union affiliating with a national union or federation loses its legal personality, or its independence. - Notwithstanding affiliation, the local union remained the basic unit free to serve the common interest of all its members. 2. YES Ratio The supervisory employees of an employer cannot join any labor organization organization of employees employees under their supervisi supervision on but may validly form a separate organization of their own. Reasoning  - The right of supervisors employees to organize under the Industrial Peace Act carries certain restrictions but the right itself may not be denied or unduly abridged. - In the case of  Elisco Elisco Labot Union vs. Nortel: Nortel: notwithstanding affiliation, the local union remained the basic unit free to serve the common interest of all its members. - The confusion seems to have stemmed from the prefix of FFW after  the name of the local unions in the registration of both. - The inclusion of FFW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates at the time of registrations. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own. Neither can it be construed that their personalities arc so merged with the mother federation that for one difference or another they cannot pursue their own ways ways. Disposition Petition is dismissed.

2. Supe Superv rvis isor or—R —Ran ank k and and File File Union Union Affiliation Rule-Affiliation

ADAMSON & ADAMSON V CIR (ADAMSON & ADAMSON SUPERVISORY UNION) 127 SCRA 268 GUTIERREZ; GUTIERREZ; January 31, 1984 FACTS - The Adamson & Adamson Adamson Inc. Supervis Supervisory ory Union (FFW) informed the petitioner Adamson & Adamson about its having organized on the same date that another union, the Adamson and Adamson Inc. Salesmen Association (FFW), also advised Adamson & Adamson that the rank and file salesmen had also formed their own union.

Labor Law 2

A2010

- The CIR held that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union Union (FFW) can legally legally represent represent supervisors supervisors of the petitioner  petitioner  corporation notwithstanding the affiliation of the rank and file union of the the same same comp compan any y with with the the same same labo laborr fede federa rati tion, on, the the Federation of Free Workers. - Subsequently and during the pendency of the present petition, the rank rank and file file employ employees ees formed formed their own union, union, naming naming it Adamson and Adamson Independent Workers (FFW). - The The Adam Adamso son n comp company any argu argues es that that the the affi affili liat atio ion n of the the respondent union of supervisors, the salesmen's association and the Adamson and Adamson Independent Worker's Union with the same national federation (FFW) violates Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act because: 1) it results in the indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization, 2) sinc since e respo espond nden entt union nion and and the union nions s of  nonsupervisors in the same company are governed by the the same same cons consti titu tuti tion on and and by-l by-law aws s of the the natio nationa nall federation, in practical effect, there is but one union, 3) it would would result result in the respond respondent ent union's union's losing losing its independence because it becomes the alter ego of the federation federation.. Should Should affiliation affiliation be allowed, allowed, this this would violate violate the requireme requirement nt of separate separateness ness of bargaining bargaining units under Section 12 of the Act because only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. - The respondents on the other hand argue that the supervisory employees of an employer may validly join an organization of the rank rank-a -and nd-f -fil ile e empl employ oyee ees s so long long as the the said said rank rank and and file file employees are not under their supervision. ISSUE 1. WON Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) has the lega legall pers person onal alit ity y to supe superv rvis isor ors s of the the peti petiti tion oner er corp corpor orat atio ion n notwithst notwithstandin anding g the affiliation affiliation of the rank and file union of the same company with the same labor federation 2. WON a supervisor's union may affiliate with a federation with which unions unions of rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e employ employees ees of the the same same employ employer er are also also affiliated) HELD 1. YES Ratio According to Elisco Elirol Labor Union vs. Nortel  and Liberty Colton Mills Workers Workers Union v. Liberty Liberty Cotton Cotton Mills. Mills. Inc , the local unions are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employeemembers in the economic struggle for the fruits of joint productive effort of  labor and capital; and the association of the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the same end. Reasoning  - There is nothing in the provisions of the Industrial Peace Act which provides that a duly registered local union affiliating with a national union or federation loses its legal personality, or its independence. - Notwithstanding affiliation, the local union remained the basic unit free to serve the common interest of all its members. 2. YES Ratio The supervisory employees of an employer cannot join any labor  organization of employees under their supervision but may validly form a separate organization of their own. Reasoning  - The right of supervisors employees to organize under the Industrial Peace Act carries certain restrictions but the right itself may not be denied or unduly abridged. - In the case of  Elisco Labot Union vs. Nortel: notwithstanding affiliation, the local union remained the basic unit free to serve the common interest of all its members. - The confusion seems to have stemmed from the prefix of FFW after the name of the local unions in the registration of both. - The inclusion of FFW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates at the time of registrations. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own. Neither can it be construed that their  personalit personalities ies arc so merged with the mother federation federation that for one

- 76 -

Disini

difference or another they cannot pursue their own ways ways. Disposition Petition is dismissed.

ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC. V LAGUESMA 205 SCRA 12 GUTIERREZ; GUTIERREZ; January 6, 1992 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS - The supervisory, administrative personnel, production, accounting and confidenti confidential al employees employees of the petitioner petitioner Atlas Lithograph Lithographic ic Services, Inc. (ALSI) affiliated with private respondent Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino, a national labor organization. - The local union adopted the name Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. Supervisory, Administrative, Personnel, Production, Accounting and Confidential Employees Association or ALSI-SAPPACEA-KAMPIL ALSI-SAPPACEA-KAMPIL - Respondent Kampil-Katipunan filed on behalf of the "supervisors" union a petition for certification election so that it could be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. - The petitioners opposed the private respondent's petition claiming that under Article 245 of the Labor Code the respondent cannot repres represent ent the the superv superviso isory ry employ employees ees for for collec collectiv tive e bargai bargainin ning g purposeles purposeless s because because the private private respondent respondent also represent represents s the rank-and-file employees' union. - The Med-Arbiter issued an order in favor of the private respondent - The petitioners appealed for the reversal of the order. The public respondent, however, issued a resolution affirming the Med-Arbiter's order. - The petitioners, petitioners, in turn, filed a motion motion for reconsiderat reconsideration ion but the same was denied. - Hence, this petition for certiorari. ISSUE WON WON unde underr Arti Articl cle e 245 245 of the the Labo Laborr Code, Code, a loca locall unio union n of  supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation federation of labor organizations organizations of rank-and-f rank-and-file ile employees employees and which national federation actively represents its affiliates in collective bargaining negotiations with the same employer of the supervisors and in the implem implement entati ation on of result resulting ing collec collectiv tive e bargai bargainin ning g agreements. HELD NO. - The interests of supervisors on the one hand, and the rank-and-file employees on the other, are separate and distinct. The functions of  supervisors, being recommendatory in nature, are more identified with with the intere interests sts of the the emplo employer yer.. The perfo performa rmance nce of those those functions may, thus, run counter to the interests of the rank-and-file. - The peculiar role of supervisors is such that while they are not managers, when they recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the discipline or dismissal of subordinates, they identify with the interests of the employer and may act contrary to the interests of the rank-and-file. - The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that a conflict of  interest may arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes. - Membe Members rs of the superviso supervisory ry union union might might refuse refuse to carry carry out discip disciplin linary ary measu measures res agains againstt their their co-mem co-member ber rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e employees employees.. In the area of bargaining, bargaining, their interests interests cannot be considered identical. The needs of one are different from those of the other. Moreover, in the event of a strike, the national federation might influence the supervisors' union to conduct a sympathy strike on the sole basis of affiliation. - The factual issues in the Adamson case are different from the present present case. case. First, First, the rank-and-file rank-and-file employees in the Adamson case case are not direct directly ly under under the superv superviso isors rs who compri comprise se the supervisors' union. In the case at bar, the rank-and file employees are directly under the superviso supervisors rs organized organized by one and the same federation. Second, the national union in the Adamson case did not

Labor Law 2

A2010

- 77 -

Disini

actively represent its local chapters. In the present case, the local union is actively represented by the national federation. In fact, it was the national federation federation,, the KAMPIL-K KAMPIL-KATIP ATIPUNAN UNAN,, which initially filed a petition petition for  certification in behalf of the respondent union. - If the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank and-file or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent represent conflicti conflicting ng interests interests,, then a local supervisors' supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of  rank-and-f rank-and-file ile employees employees where that federation federation actively actively participa participates tes in union activity in the company. - The prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local union of rankand-file and-file is replete replete with jurisprudence jurisprudence.. The Court emphasize emphasizes s that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rankand-file local 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 the case at bar, the supervisors will be comingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit. - Supervisors are not prohibited from forming their own union. What the law prohibits is their membership in a labor organization of rank-and-file employees or their joining a national federation of rank-and-file employees that includes the very local union which they are not allowed to directly  join. Disposition Petition GRANTED.

company are allowed to form a single union, the conflicting interests of these these groups groups impair impair their their relati relations onship hip and advers adversely ely affect affect discipline discipline,, collective collective bargaining bargaining and strikes. strikes. These consequenc consequences es can obtain not only in cases where supervisory and rank-and-file employees employees in the same company belong to a single single union but also where unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employ employees ees of a compan company y are allowed allowed to affili affiliate ate with the the same same national federation. - Atlas   Atlas Lithographic Services Inc. v. Laguesma: To avoid a situation situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting interests, then a local supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of unions of rank-and-file employees where that federation federation actively participates participates in union activities activities in the company. company. Such a situation would obtain only where two conditions concur: First, the rank-and-file employees are directly under the authority of  supervisory employees. Second, the national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company. -The affiliation affiliation of two local local unions unions in a company company with the same national federation is not by itself a negation of their independence since in relation to the employer, the local unions are considered as the principals, while the federation is deemed to be merely their  agent. This conclusion is in accord with the policy that any limitation on the the exerci exercise se by employ employees ees of the right right to self-o self-orga rganiz nizati ation on guaranteed in the Constitution must be construed strictly. Workers should should be allowe allowed d the practi practice ce of this this freed freedom om to the extent extent recognized in the fundamental law.

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE V LAGUESMA 249 SCRA MENDOZA; August 12, 1998

Q: WON the rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM who compose a labor union are directly under the supervisory employees whose own union is affiliated affiliated with the same national national federation federation (Federation of Free Workers) and whether such national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company so as to make the two unions in the same company, in reality, just one union. Ans: Ans: NO. Althou Although gh FFW-DL FFW-DLSUM SUMCCM CCMSU SUC C and anothe anotherr union union composed of rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed indeed affili affiliat ated ed with with the the same same nation national al federa federatio tion, n, the the FFW, petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence showing that the rank-and-file employees composing the other union are directly under the authority of the supervisory employees. - Adamson   Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR: the fact that the two groups of  workers are employed by the same company and the fact that they are affiliated with a common national federation are not sufficient to   justify the conclusion that their organizations are actually just one. Their immediate professional relationship must be established. Disposition Petition dismissed

NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS -DLSUMCCM is a hospital and medical school at Dasmariñas, Cavite. -Pri -Priva vate te resp respon onde dent nt Fede Federa rati tion on of Free Free Work Worker erss-DL DLSU SUMC MCCM CM Supervisory Union Chapter, on the other hand, is a labor organization composed of the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM. FFWDLSUMCCMSUC DLSUMCCMSUC is a recognized local chapter of FFW. The latter filed on behalf behalf of the the forme formerr a petiti petition on for for certif certifica icatio tion n electi election on among among the the supervisory employees of DLSUMCCM. -This petition was opposed by DLSUMCCM on the grounds that several emplo employee yees s who signed signed the petiti petition on for certif certifica icati tion on electi election on were were mana manage geri rial al empl employ oyee ees s and and that that the the FFWFFW-DL DLSU SUMC MCCM CMSU SUC C was was compo compose sed d of both both superv superviso isory ry and rank-a rank-andnd-fil file e employ employees ees in the company. -DOLE Regioin IV med-arbiter issued an order granting union's petition for  certification election. DOLE USec Laguesma affirmed and denied MFR. Hence, this petition for certiorari  for  certiorari .

3. Loca Locall Uni Union on Disa Disaff ffil ilia iati tion on Nature Right Disaffiliation

ISSUE WON unions unions formed formed independent independently ly by superviso supervisory ry and rank-and-f rank-and-file ile employees employees of a company company may validly validly affiliate affiliate with the same national national federation. HELD YES. -Supervisory employees have the right to self-organization as do other  classes of employees save only managerial ones. The framers of the Constitution intended to restore the right of supervisory employees to selforganizat organization ion which had been withdrawn withdrawn from them during the period of  martial law. Thus: -Conformably with the constitutional mandate, Art. 245 of the Labor Code now provides for the right of supervisory employees to self-organization, subject to the limitation that they cannot join an organization of rank-andfile employees. The reason for the segregation of supervisory and rankand-file employees of a company with respect to the exercise of the right to self-o self-orga rganiz nizati ation on is the the differ differenc ence e in their their intere interests sts.. Superv Superviso isory ry employees are more closely identified with the employer than with the rank-and-file employees. If supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a

VOLKSHCEL LABOR UNION V BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS 137 SCRA 42 PHIL. LABOR ALLIANCE COUNCIL V BLR 75 SCRA 162 MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GREENFIELD V RAMOS 326 SCRA 428

Rule-Legality Rule-Legality Act-Disaffiliation Act-Disaffiliation

Labor Law 2

A2010

VILLAR V INCIONG 121 SCRA 44 GUERRERO; GUERRERO; April 20, 1983 NATURE Petition for review by certiorari FACTS - Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, Union-PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization which was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. They then signed a joint resolution resolution which stated stated that they were disaffiliatin disaffiliating g themselves as members of the PAFLU, and were not further authorizing PAFLU to represent them in any CBA. - During a special meeting of the Union, a Resolution was approved which called called for for the the invest investiga igatio tion n of all the the petiti petitione oners rs for "conti "continuo nuousl usly y maligning, libelling and slandering not only the incumbent officers but even the union itself and the federation" and for causing divisiveness. - The union security clause was reincorporated in the new CBA: “any members who shall resign, be expelled, or shall in any manner cease to be a memb member er of the the UNIO UNION, N, shal shalll be dism dismis issed sed from his his employment upon written request of the UNION to the Company.” - Petitioners contend that their acts do not constitute disloyalty as these are in the exercise of their constitutional right to self-organization. - The PAFLU President then rendered a decision finding them guilty of the charges and expelling them from the Union and as a consequence the Management of the employer is hereby requested to terminate them from their employment in conformity with the security clause. ISSUE/S 1. WON PAFLU had the authority authority to investigat investigate e the petitioners petitioners and, therea thereaft fter, er, expel expel them them from from the roll of member membershi ship p of the Amigo Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU 2. WON the petitioners were entitled to disaffiliate from the Union HELD 1.YES Ratio That PAFLU had the authority authority to investigat investigate e petitioner petitioners s on the charges filed by their co-employees in the local union and after finding them guilty as charged, to expel them from the roll of membership of the Amigo Amigo Employees Employees Union-PAFLU Union-PAFLU is clear clear under the constituti constitution on of the PAFLU PAFLU to which which the the local local union union was affiliat affiliated. ed. And pursua pursuant nt to the security clause of the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old CBA, PAFLU was justified in applying said security clause. UNION-MEMBER UNION-MEMBER RELATIONS: Discipline Issues Inherent Inherent in every labor union, or any organization organization for that matter, matter, is the right of self-preservation. When members of a labor union, therefore, sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union; when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity, as well as the dictates of law and  justice, therefore, compelling mandate the adoption by the labor union of  such corrective corrective and remedial measures measures in keeping keeping with its laws and regulations, for its preservation and continued existence; lest by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall. 2. YES Ratio Although they are entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new new orga organiz nizat atio ion n of thei theirr own, own, they they must must,, howe howeve ver, r, suff suffer er the the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA. Reasoning Disaffiliation Reasoning Disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association ordained by the Constitution. But this Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form of  union security, and such provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. Local Union Disaffiliation: Rule - Legality act - Disaffiliation There are two hundred thirty four (234) union members in the Amigo Emplo Employee yees s UnionUnion-PA PAFLU FLU,, and only only 96 signed signed the the "Sama-Samang  Kapasiyahan."  They constituted a small minority for which reason they could not have successfully successfully disaffiliate disaffiliated d the local local union from PAFLU. PAFLU. It

Disini

- 78 -

can be inferred that the majority wanted the union to remain an affiliate of PAFLU. The action of the majority must, therefore, prevail over that of the minority members. Disposition The Order appealed from affirming the joint decision of  the OIC granti granting ng cleara clearance nce to termin terminate ate petiti petitione oners rs as well well as dismissing their complaint with application for preliminary injunction, is hereby AFFIRMED.

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES UNION V TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC 181 SCRA 173 ALEX FERRER V NLRC 224 SCRA 410 PHIL SKYLANDERS INC V NLRC (PAFLU) 375 SCRA 369 BELLOSILLO; Jan 31, 2002 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS 383 Nov 1993, the Philippine Skylanders Employees Associ Associati ation on (PSEA (PSEA), ), a local local labor labor union union affili affiliate ated d with with the the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) September  (PAFLU), won in the certification election conducted among the rank and file employees of Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees Association-WATU (PSEA-WAT (PSEA-WATU) U) immediatel immediately y protested protested the result result of the election election before the Secretary of Labor. 384 Several months later, pending settlement of the controversy, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation citing as reason PAFLU's supposed deliberate and habitual dereliction of  duty toward its members. 385 385 PSEA subs ubsequ equent ently aff affili iliated ated itse itself lf with with the Nati ational onal Congress Congress of Workers Workers (NCW), changed changed its name to Philippine Philippine Skylan Skylander ders s Emplo Employee yees s Associ Associati ation on - Nation National al Congre Congress ss of  Workers (PSEA-NCW), and allowed the former officers of PSEAPAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected officers PSEA-NCW. 386 386 On 17 17 Mar March ch 199 1994 4 PSE PSEAA-NC NCW W ent entered ered int into o a coll collec ecti tive ve bargaining agreement with PSI which was immediately registered with DOLE. 387 387 PAFL PAFLU U Sec Secre reta tary ry Gene Genera rall Ser Seraf afin in Ayro Ayroso so wrot wrote e Mar Maril iles es C. Romulo requesting a copy of PSI's audited financial statement. Ayroso explained that with the dismissal of PSEA-WATU's election protest the time was ripe for the parties to enter into a collective bargai bargainin ning g agreem agreement ent.. PSI PSI throug through h its person personnel nel manage manager  r  Francisco Francisco Dakila denied the request citing as reason reason PSEA's PSEA's disaffiliation from PAFLU and its subsequent affiliation with NCW. 388 388 PAFL PAFLU U thr throu ough gh Sera Serafi fin n Ayr Ayros oso o fil filed ed a com compl plai aint nt for for unfa unfair  ir  labor practice practice against against PSI, PSI, its president Mariles Mariles Romulo Romulo and person personnel nel manage managerr Franci Francisco sco Dakila Dakila.. PAFLU PAFLU amend amended ed its complaint by including the elected officers of PSEA-PAFLU as additional party respondents. 389 389 Labo Laborr Arbi Arbite terr decla declare red d PSEA' PSEA's s disaf disaffi fili liat atio ion n from from PAFL PAFLU U invalid and held PSI, PSEA-PAFLU and their respective officers guilty of unfair labor practice. 390 NLRC uphe ld ld the Deci si sion of the Labor Arbi te ter and conjecture conjectured d that since an election election protest protest questionin questioning g PSEAPSEAPAFLU's certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent was pending resolution before the Secretary of Labor, PSEA could not validly separate from PAFLU, join another national federation and subsequen subsequently tly enter into a collectiv collective e bargaining bargaining agreement with its employer-company ISSUE/S WON PSEA, which is an independent and separate local union, may validly disaffiliate from PAFLU pending the settlement of an election

Labor Law 2

A2010

protest questioning its status as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank and file employees HELD  YES.  YES. The pendency of an election election protest involving involving both the mother  mother  fede federa rati tion on and and the the loca locall unio union n did did not consti constitu tute te a bar bar to a vali valid d disaffiliation. Reasoning In Reasoning In Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc. the SC upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother  federation on the ground that as separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation creation and existence existence to the national national federation to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their  members. members. The sole essence essence of affiliation affiliation is to increase, increase, by collective collective action, the common bargaining power of local unions for the effective enhancement and protection of their interests. Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own interests subject to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the national federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought such affiliation into existence. Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against those of a national federation, those of the former must be preferred. Parenthetically though, the desires of the mother federation to protect its locals are not altogether to be shunned. It will however be to err  greatly against the Constitution if the desires of the federation would be favore favored d over over those those of its member members. s. If it were were otherw otherwise ise,, instea instead d of  protection, there would be disregard and neglect of the lowly workingmen. Disposition Petition is granted.

- 79 -

Disini