TOPIC 12 RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

San Miguel Corp. v MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW

GR No. 152356, 16 August 2005

Principle: 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 or
discipline employees. A supervisory employee is one who, in the interest of the employer, effectively
recommends 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 of managerial or supervisory employee are considered rank-and-file
employees. It is also 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 and file.

GSIS v Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS

GR No. 170132, 6 December 2006

Principle: Employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted and unauthorized
stoppage of work; that the right of government employees to organize is limited to the formation of
unions or associations, without including the right to strike. Public employees going on disruptive
unauthorized absences to join concerted mass actions may be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service.

Diokno v Cacdac
GR No. 168475, 4 July 2007

Principle: BLR shall have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-union and intra-union
conflicts, there should be no more doubt as to its jurisdiction. As defined, an intra-union conflict would
refer to a conflict within or inside a labor union, while an inter-union controversy or dispute is one
occurring or carried on between or among unions.

SAN MIGUEL CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION-PTGWO VS.SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES
UNION, G.R. NO.171153, SEPT. 12, 2007

Principle: The Implementing Rules stipulate that a local or chapter may be directly created by a
federation or national union. A duly constituted local or chapter created in accordance with the
foregoing shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of the complete documents with the BLR.
The issuance of the certificate of registration by the BLR or the DOLE Regional Office is not the operative
act that vests legal personality upon a local or a chapter. Further, the legal personality of a legitimate
labor organization, such as PDMP, cannot be subject to a collateral attack.
DONG SEUNG INC., VS. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, G.R. NO. 162356, APRIL 14, 2008

Principle: All that Article 235 requires is that the secretary’s certification be under oath. It does not
prescribe a specific manner of its notarization. Based on its interpretation of Article 235, the BLR, in its
October 14, 1998 Advisory, allows for the wholesale notarization of a union’s application for registration
and recognizes the effects thereof even on the attachments, including the secretary’s certification.

DEL PILAR ACADEMY ET AL., VS.DEL PILAR ACADEMY EMPLOYEES UNION, G.R. NO. 170112, APRIL 30,
2008

Principle: The collection of agency fees in an amount equivalent to union dues and fees, from employees
who are not union members, is recognized by Article 248(e) of the Labor Code. No requirement of
written authorization from the non-union employees is necessary if the non-union employees accept
the benefits resulting from the CBA. The employee's acceptance of benefits resulting from a collective
bargaining agreement justifies the deduction of agency fees from his pay and the union's entitlement
thereto.

S.S. Ventures v. S.S. Labor Union

One Liner: The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII, Section 3 of the
Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor
Code, shall not be abridged.

Inguillo v. First Philippine Scales

One Liner: While it is recognized that an employee shall have the right to self-organization, it is at the
same time postulated that such rights shall not injure the right of the labor organization to prescribe its
own rules with respect to acquisition or retention of membership.

Sta. Lucia v. SOLE

One Liner: Article 212 (g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as “any union or association of
employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with
employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.”

10. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics Inc. vs. Secretary of DOLE, et al., G.R. No. 183317, December 21, 2009

Registration of union; membership requirement: Article 234 of the Labor Code merely requires a 20%
minimum membership during the application for union registration. It does not mandate that a union
must maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all throughout its existence.
Cancellation of registration of a union: The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of
those who participated in the organizational meeting would not provide a valid reason to cancel a
union’s certificate of registration. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of
union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave
and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members (e.g. misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws
or amendments thereto; the minutes of ratification; or, in connection with the election of officers).

11. General Milling Corp vs. Casio et al., GR No. 149552, March 10, 2010

Validity of closed shop stipulation: It is State policy to promote unionism to enable workers to negotiate
with management on an even playing field and with more persuasiveness than if they were to
individually and separately bargain with the employer. For this reason, the law has allowed stipulations
for “union shop” and “closed shop” as means of encouraging workers to join and support the union of
their choice in the protection of their rights and interest vis-à-vis the employer. Moreover, a stipulation
in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of employees are of equal import as the statutory provisions on
dismissal under the Labor Code, since “a CBA is the law between the company and the union and
compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy to give protection to labor.”

Termination of employment due to closed shop stipulation/union security clause: In terminating the
employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs only to
determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the
enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support
the decision of the union to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause
for terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA.

12. The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. Natl Union of Workers in Hotel etc., GR No. 178296, January 12, 2011

Cancellation of registration of a union: the mere failure to submit or the belated submission of annual
financial reports of the labor union is not sufficient ground to cancel the union’s registration. The
cancellation of registration of labor unions by administrative authorities should only be taken as a last
resort and after exhausting other possibilities with less serious effects on the organization since it
interferes with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association and right of workers to self-
organization. The union members and, in fact, all the employees belonging to the appropriate
bargaining unit should not be deprived of a bargaining agent, merely because of the negligence of the
union officers who were responsible for the submission of the documents to the BLR.

13. Legend International Resorts Ltd., vs. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda, G.R. No. 169754, Feb. 23,
2011

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 is that at the time the union filed the
petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing the cancellation.
14. Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the Phils for Empowerment and
Reforms (SMCC-SUPER) et al., vs. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., G.R. No. 169717, March 16, 2011

The Court ruled that it was not necessary for the charter certificate to be certified and attested by the
local/chapter officers. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership
cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless
such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of
the Labor Code.

15. San Miguel Foods vs. san Miguel Corp Supervisors and exempt Union G.R. No. 146206 August 1,
2011

Certain factors, such as specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of
compensation, and other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of interest.
Payroll master not confidential, human resource assistant and personnel assistant are confidential.

16. BPI., vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao

G.R. No. 164301, October 19, 2011

Doctrine: "Union security" is a generic term which is applied to and comprehends "closed shop," "union
shop," "maintenance of membership" or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees
the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting employment. There is
union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain period for
their continued employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees, who are
union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become members, must
maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they are promoted or
transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is terminated. A closed-shop, on the other hand,
may be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or
their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the
enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in
good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part.

17. Octavio vs. PLDT Comp.

G.R. No. 175492, February 27, 2013

Doctrine: Before e a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a precondition that he
should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within
the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be
exhausted first before the courts judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the courts
judicial intervention is fatal to ones cause of action. By failing to question the Committee Resolution
through the proper procedure prescribed in the CBA, that is, by raising the same before a Board of
Arbitrators, Octavio is deemed to have waived his right to question the same.

18. National Union of Bank Employees vs. Philnabank Employees Association

G.R. No. 174287, Aug.12, 2013

Doctrine: The right of the local members to withdraw from the federation and to form a new local union
depends upon the provisions of the union's constitution, by-laws and charter and, in the absence of
enforceable provisions in the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a local
may sever its relationship with its parent. In the case at bar, there is nothing shown in the records nor is
it claimed by NUBE that PEMA was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there
any conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. This being so, PEMA is not precluded to disaffiliate from
NUBE after acquiring the status of an independent labor organization duly registered before the DOLE.

Takata Phils Corp. vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al.

Two-liner: Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent
(20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. The 20% minimum
requirement pertains to the employees’ membership in the union and not to the list of workers who
participated in the organizational meeting. Since the law does not provide for the required number of
members to attend the organizational meeting, at least the majority of the union members would
already constitute a quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the Constitution and By-
laws of the union.

Takata Phils Corp. vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al.

Two-liner: Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent
(20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. The 20% minimum
requirement pertains to the employees’ membership in the union and not to the list of workers who
participated in the organizational meeting. Since the law does not provide for the required number of
members to attend the organizational meeting, at least the majority of the union members would
already constitute a quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly ratify the Constitution and By-
laws of the union.

Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard vs. BLR, et al

Two-liner: The right to self-organization is not limited to unionism. Workers may also form or join an
association for mutual aid and protection and for other legitimate purposes.

22. HSBC Employees Union vs. NLRC

One-liner: A strike staged without compliance with the requirements of Article 263 of the Labor Code is
illegal, and may cause the termination of the employment of the participating union officers and
members. To warrant the termination of an officer of the labor organization on that basis, the employer
must show that the officer knowingly participated in the illegal strike. An ordinary striking employee
cannot be terminated based solely on his participation in the illegal strike, for the employer must further
show that the employee committed illegal acts during the strike.

23. Hijo Resources Corp.vs. Mejares, GR No. 208986, Jan. 13, 2016
One-liner: The Labor Arbiter, in an illegal dismissal case, is not bound by the ruling of the Med-Arbiter
regarding the existence or non-existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties in the
certification election case. It does not constitute res judicata and could not be a basis in dismissing the
action filed by the employees.

TOPIC 13 RIGHTS OF A LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION

[INSERT DIG’S SARMIENTO]

2. Rivera vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 135547, January 23, 2002

Right to collective bargaining; suspension of CBA; upon the intention of the parties, a close shop or
union shop may still be effective during suspension of the CBA as means of encouraging workers to join
and support the union of their choice in the protection of their rights and interests vis-à-vis the
employer.

3. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140518, December 16, 2004

Payroll reinstatement as exception; As an exception to the general rule of reinstatement, in payroll

reinstatement, there must be a showing of special circumstances rendering actual reinstatement
impracticable, or otherwise not conducive to attaining the purpose of the law in providing for
assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in a labor dispute that affects the
national interest.

4. University of Immaculate Concepcion vs. Sec. Of Labor, G.R. No. 151379, January 14, 2005

Payroll reinstatement; superseding circumstances; superseding circumstances may justify the

application of payroll reinstatement as exception to the rule of actual reinstatement if such
circumstances may exacerbate prevailing situations.

CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER VS NLRC

Doctrine:

A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of an impending dispute in a particular bargaining unit via a
notice of strike. The failure of a union to comply with the requirement of the giving of notice to the
NCMB at least 24 hours prior to the holding of a strike vote meeting will render the subsequent strike
staged by the union illegal.

LIGHT RAILWAY TRANSIT VS VENUS, JR.

Doctrine:

An employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to have
abandoned his work.

SUKHOTAI CUISINE & RESTAURANT VS COURT OF APPEALS

Doctrine:

The effects of such illegal strikes, outlined in Article 264, make a distinction between workers and union
officers who participate therein: an ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere
participation in an illegal strike; a union officer, on the other hand, may be terminated from work when
he knowingly participates in an illegal strike.

PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION VS.PHIL. GLOBAL COMMUNICATION, G.R. NO. 144315, JULY 17, 2006
SOLE can take cognizance of the issue on the legality of the strike notwithstanding the absence of a
proper petition to declare illegality of strike. The authority of the Secretary is plenary and discretionary
to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to national interest includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from
such labor dispute to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the dispute.

GSIS VS.KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GSIS, G.R. NO. 170132, DECEMBER 6, 2006
The right of government employees to organize is limited to the formation of unions or associations
only, without including the right to strike, adding that public employees going on disruptive
unauthorized absences to join concerted mass actions may be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service.

BIFLEX PHILS., INC., LABOR UNION VS. FILFLEX INDUSTRIAL & MFG., CORP., G.R. NO. 155679, DECEMBER
19, 2006
Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to
work, refuse to work and instead join a “Welga ng Bayan" commit an illegal work stoppage. A Union
officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his
employment status.
Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Corp., G.R. No. 154591, March 5, 2007, citing
Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Dacanay, G.R. No. 153665, July 18, 2003

The assumption of jurisdiction by the SOLE over labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or
lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest is in the nature of a police power measure.
Once the SOLE assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute, such jurisdiction should not be interfered with
by the application of the coercive processes of a strike or lockout. Defiance of the assumption order or a
return-to work order by a striking employee, whether a union officer or a member, is an illegal act and,
therefore, a valid ground for loss of employment status.

San Miguel Foods Inc., vs. San Miguel Corp Employees Union-PTGWO, G.R. No. 168569,
October 5, 2007

ULP case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and the NLRC to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the
allegations in the complaint should show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross
violation of the CBA; AND (2) the violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA. In
determining jurisdiction over a case, allegations made in the complaint, as well as those in the position
paper, may thus be considered.

Toyota Motor Phils Workers Asso. Vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158786, October 19, 2007

A strike means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute, in turn, includes any controversy or matter concerning terms
or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of the employer and the employee. The term strike has been
elucidated to encompass not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-
downs, attempts to damage, destroy, or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities.

6 categories of an illegal strike, viz: (I know more than ni sa max sentences but need i.emphasize and
situations constituting illegal strike) (1) [when it] is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as
strike by employees performing governmental functions; or (2) [when it] violates a specific requirement
of law[, such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the requisites of a valid strike]; or (3) [when it] is
declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice
against non-union employees; or (4) [when it] employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective,
such as a widespread terrorism of non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e) of the
Labor Code]; or (5) [when it] is declared in violation of an existing injunction[, such as injunction,
prohibition, or order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or
(6) [when it] is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration
clause.

Yokohama Tire Phils vs. Yokohama Employees Union G.R. No. 159553, December 10, 2007
The OLD RULE regarding certification election was used in this case. Nevertheless, it was reconciled that
both the old and new rules impart that without a final judgment declaring the legality of dismissal,
dismissed employees are eligible or qualified voters in a certification election.

Philippine Airlines vs. Philippine Airlines Employees Association

It is a well-settled doctrine that the benefits of a CBA extend to the laborers and employees in the
collective bargaining unit, including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor
organization.[32] Hence, to be entitled to the benefits under the CBA, the employees must be members
of the bargaining unit, but not necessarily of the labor organization designated as the bargaining agent.
A “bargaining unit” has been defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or
less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, indicates to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and
duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.[33] At this point, the
allegation of petitioner PAL that the non-regular employees do not belong to the collective bargaining
unit and are thus not covered by the CBA is unjustified and unsubstantiated. Where the CBA is clear and
unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties, and compliance therewith is mandated by the
express policy of the law.

Steel Corporation vs. SCP Employees

A union-recognition-strike is when a union stages the strike to compel petitioner to recognize it as the
collective bargaining agent, and such is considered illegal. Even if this Court were to uphold the validity
of respondent's purpose or objective in staging a strike, still, the strike would be declared illegal for
having been conducted in utter defiance of the Secretary's return-to-work order and after the dispute
had been certified for compulsory arbitration. The moment the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction
over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest, such assumption shall have the
effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. The powers granted to the Secretary
under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code have been characterized as an exercise of the police power of the
State, aimed at promoting the public good. While the workers may choose not to obey, they do so at the
risk of severing their relationship with their employer.

Standard Chartered Bank Employees vs. Standard Chartered Bank

The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining unit for rank
and file employees is already well-entrenched in jurisprudence. While Article 245 of the Labor Code
limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees,
jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their
positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees
and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. In Philips Industrial
Development, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court designated personnel staff, in
which human resources staff may be qualified, as confidential employees because by the very nature of
their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of,
persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.

Samma-Likha vs Samma Corporation

A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a "petition," is not litigation, but an investigation of
a non-adversarial and fact-finding character, hence it does not need a certificate of non-forum shopping.
The erroneous inclusion of one supervisory employee in the union of rank-and-file employees does not
prevent the right of the union to file a petition for certification election. Such legal personality cannot
thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation of certificate of registration. Unless petitioner’s union registration is cancelled in
independent proceedings, it shall continue to have all the rights of a legitimate labor organization,
including the right to petition for certification election.

19. Hotel Enterprises of the Phils., (Hyatt Regency) vs. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-
(NUWHRAIN), G.R. No.165756, June 5, 2009
A valid and legal strike must be based on "strikeable" grounds, because if it is based on a "non-
strikeable" ground, it is generally deemed an illegal strike. Corollarily, a strike grounded on ULP is illegal
if no acts constituting ULP actually exist. As an exception, even if no such acts are committed by the
employer, if the employees believe in good faith that ULP actually exists, then the strike held pursuant
to such belief may be legal. As a general rule, therefore, where a union believes that an employer
committed ULP and the surrounding circumstances warranted such belief in good faith, the resulting
strike may be considered legal although, subsequently, such allegations of unfair labor practices were
found to be groundless.

20. Miranda vs. Asian Terminals Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 174316, June 23, 2009
The jurisdiction of shop stewards and the supervisors includes the determination of the issues arising
from the interpretation or even implementation of a provision of the CBA, or from any order or
memorandum, circular or assignments issued by the appropriate authority in the establishment. In fine,
they are part and parcel of the continuous process of grievance resolution designed to preserve and
maintain peace among the employees and their employer. They occupy positions of trust and laden with
awesome responsibilities. Since the Shop Steward is a union position, the controversy surrounding his
recall from his position as Shop Steward becomes a dispute within the union, which the Bureau of Labor
Relations and the Labor Relations Division vests jurisdiction.

21. National Union of Workers in Hotels Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter
vs. SOLE., et. al., G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009.
Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by
the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file employees,
probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative.
The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the
petition for certification election. The law refers to "all" the employees in the bargaining unit. All they
need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the "bargaining unit." The provision in the CBA
disqualifying probationary employees from voting cannot override the Constitutionally-protected right
of workers to self-organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules
on certification elections and jurisprudence thereon.

A. SORIANO AVIATION VS.EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF A. SORIANO AVIATION ET AL.

G.R. NO. 166879, AUG. 14, 2009
One-Liner: Well-settled is the rule that even if the strike were to be declared valid because its objective
or purpose is lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid where the means employed are illegal like
name-calling, harassment and threats of bodily harm directed against company officers and non-striking
employees and, more significantly, the putting up of placards, banners and streamers with vulgar
statements imputing criminal negligence to the company, which put to doubt reliability of its operations,
come within the purview of illegal acts under Art. 264 and jurisprudence.

YSS EMPLOYEES UNION-PHIL TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION VS.YSS

LABORATORIES INC.
G.R. NO. 155125, DECEMBER 4, 2009
One-Liner: Article 263(g) of the Labor Code (Return to Work order of the SOLE) on the settlement of
labor disputes implies that assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be
strictly complied with by the parties, even during the pendency of any petition questioning their
validity. Accepting back the workers in this case is not a matter of option, but of obligation mandated by
law for the employer to faithfully comply with. Its compulsory character is mandated, not to cater to a
narrow segment of society, or to favor labor at the expense of management, but to serve the greater
interest of society by maintaining the economic equilibrium.

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) VS. DINNAH VILLAVIZA, ELIZABETH DUQUE,
ADRONICO A. ECHAVEZ, RODEL RUBIO, ROWENA THERESE B. GRACIA, PILAR LAYCO, AND ANTONIO JOSE
LEGARDA,
G.R. NO. 180291, JULY 27, 2010
One-Liner: The prohibited acts of concerted activity or mass action which is prohibited from government
employees should constitute the elements of (i) intent to effect work stoppage or service disruption and
(ii) for the purpose of realizing their demands of force concession.

PICOP RESOURCES INC. VS.TANECA ET.AL.,

G.R. NO. 160828, 09 AUGUST 2010
One-Liner: While it is incumbent for the employer to continue to recognize the majority status of the
bargaining agent even after the expiration of the freedom period, they could only do so when no
petition for certification election was filed. An "authorization letter to file a petition for certification
election" is different from an actual "Petition for Certification Election." Thus such could still be made
even before the 60 day freedom period. What is prohibited is the filing of petition for certification
election before the 60 day freedom period.

[INSERT JOLLEANNE]

Barairo vs Office of the President, GR NO. 189314

One Liner: “ Following settled jurisprudence, the proper remedy to question the decisions or orders of
the Secretary of Labor is via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, not via an appeal to the OP. For
appeals to the OP in labor cases have indeed been eliminated, except those involving national interest
over which the President may assume jurisdiction”

Magdala Multipurpose vs Kilusang Manggagawa, GR NO. 191138-39

One liner: “The requirements that the notice of strike and the conduct of strike vote must be filed by a
legitimate labor organization who has legal personality are mandatory. Failure of a union to comply
renders the strike illegal.”

Abaria et al. vs NLRC, GR NO. 154113

One Liner: “The mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of strike vote report must be filed and
conducted by a legitimate labor organization who has legal personality for it to be effective.”

[INSERT JABAR’S PICOP VS DEQUILLA]

[INSERT EUGENE]

TOPIC 13 RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION

38. VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER vs. YBALLE, ET AL.

Doctrine:
A worker merely participating in an illegal strike may not be terminated from employment. It is only
when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may be declared to have lost employment status. In
contrast, a union officer may be terminated from employment for knowingly participating in an illegal
strike or participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike. The law grants the employer the
option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment. It
possesses the right and prerogative to terminate the union officers from service.

39. PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES INC. vs. PHILTRANCO WORKERS UNION-ASSOCIATION OF

GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

Doctrine:
Before a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be availed of, the filing of a
motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to afford an opportunity for the correction of the
error or mistake complained of. Since Petitioner filed the Petition for Certiorari on August 29, 2007
which was exactly within the 60-day period within which to file, then such petition was timely filed.

40. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILS. VS. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILS., FACULTY & STAFF ASSOCIATON

Doctrine:
The Non-Diminution Rule found in Article 100 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits employers from
eliminating or reducing the benefits received by their employees. This rule, however, applies only if the
benefit is based on an express policy, a written contract, or has ripened into a practice. To be considered
a practice, it must be consistently and deliberately made by the employer over a long period of time.
An exception to the rule is when "the practice is due to error in the construction or application of a
doubtful or difficult question of law." The error, however, must be corrected immediately after its
discovery; otherwise, the rule on Non-Diminution of Benefits would still apply.

41. TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP.

Doctrine:
The power of SOLE to assume jurisdiction also includes and extends to the various unresolved provisions
of the new CBA such as compensation, particularly the matter of annual wage increase or yearly lump
sum payment in lieu of such wage increase, whether or not there was deadlock in the negotiations.

TOPIC 14 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

General Milling Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

One-liner: The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. Refusal
to make a counter-proposal to the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its
(employer’s) bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining
proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively, making it liable for
unfair labor practice.

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs. Confesor

One-liner: If an employer interferes in the selection of its negotiators or coerces the Union to exclude
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-organization or on the
right to collective bargaining of the employees, unfair labor practice (ULP) is committed. In order to
show that the employer committed ULP, substantial evidence is required to support the claim.

Phil . Carpet Employees Asso. Vs. Sto. Tomas

One-liner: Retrenchment is defined as the termination of employment initiated by the employer through
no fault of the employee and without prejudice to the latter, resorted by management during periods of
business recession, or seasonal fluctuations or during lulls over shortage of materials. It is a reduction in
manpower, a measure utilized by an employer to minimize business losses incurred in the operation of
its business. The prerogative of an employer to retrench its employees must be exercised only as a last
resort, considering that it will lead to the loss of the employees’ livelihood. (Walay unfair labor practice
discussion sa case)

St. John Colleges Inc., vs. St. John Academy Faculty Employees Union
One-liner: By admitting that the closure (of the school) was due to irreconcilable differences between
the Union and school management, specifically, the financial aspect of the ongoing CBA negotiations,
Petitioner in effect admitted that it wanted to end the bargaining deadlock and eliminate the problem of
dealing with the demands of the Union (in other words, there was bad faith). This is precisely what the
Labor Code abhors and punishes as unfair labor practice since the net effect is to defeat the Unions right
to collective bargaining.

5. San Miguel Foods Inc., vs. San Miguel Corp Employees Union-PTGWO
G.R. No. 168569, October 5, 2007

Doctrine: Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and the NLRC to
exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the allegations in the complaint should show prima facie the
concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; AND (2) the violation pertains to the
economic provisions of the CBA. In this case, SMFI have promoted less senior employees, thus bypassing
others who were more senior and equally or more qualified. SC regarded this charge as gross or flagrant
violation of the seniority rule under the CBA, a ULP over which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction.

6. Purefoods Corp vs. Nagkakaisang Samahang Manggagawa ng Purefoods Rank and File, G.R. No.
150896, August 28, 2008

Doctrine: Sudden termination of members constitutes ULP because it was done to interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. In this case, badges of
bad faith are evident from the following acts of the petitioner: it unjustifiably refused to recognize the
STFWUs and the other unions affiliation with PULO; it concluded a new CBA with another union in
another farm during the agreed indefinite suspension of the collective bargaining negotiations; it
surreptitiously transferred and continued its business in a less hostile environment; and it suddenly
terminated the STFWU members, but retained and brought the non-members to the Malvar farm.

7. General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union-TUPAS vs. CCBPI (Gen. Santos City) et al., G.R. No.
178647, Feb. 13, 2009

Doctrine: Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to organize. The prohibited
acts are related to the workers right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that
element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practices. In this case, the company’s action to
contract-out the services and functions performed by Union members did not constitute unfair labor
practice as this was not directed at the member’s right to self-organization.

8. De La Salle University et al., vs. De La Salle University Employees Association, GR No. 177283, April 7,
2009

Doctrine: The acts of withholding union and agency dues and suspension of normal relations with
incumbent set of officers pending the intra-union dispute constitutes interference. In this case, De La
Salle’s interim measure of placing the collected union dues and agency fee in escrow deposit constituted
interference in union affairs and, therefore, is an unfair labor practice act.

Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia Brewery Inc.

GR No. 162025, Aug. 3, 2010

Unfair labor practice refers to "acts that violate the workers’ right to organize." The prohibited acts are
related to the workers’ right to self organization and to the observance of a CBA. For a charge of unfair
labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that ABI was motivated by ill will, "bad faith, or fraud, or was
oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of
course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted from ABI’s act in
discontinuing the union dues deduction from those employees it believed were excluded by the CBA.
Considering that the herein dispute arose from a simple disagreement in the interpretation of the CBA
provision on excluded employees from the bargaining unit, respondent cannot be said to have
committed unfair labor practice that restrained its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, nor have thereby demonstrated an anti-union stance.

Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association-FFW vs. Manila Mining Corp.

GR No. 178222-23, Sept. 29, 2010

For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the employer was motivated by
ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor. The employer must have acted in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy causing social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave
anxiety. While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain collectively
with each other, such compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to
the proposals of the other. All it contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with
an open mind and make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement.

Prince Transport et al., vs. Garcia et al.

G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011

Respondents' transfer of work assignments to Lubas was designed by petitioners as a subterfuge to foil
the former's right to organize themselves into a union. Under Article 248 (a) and (e) of the Labor Code,
an employer is guilty of unfair labor practice if it interferes with, restrains or coerces its employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization or if it discriminates in regard to wages, hours of work and
other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any
labor organization. Indeed, evidence of petitioners' unfair labor practice is shown by the established fact
that, after respondents' transfer to Lubas, petitioners left them high and dry insofar as the operations of
Lubas was concerned. This left respondents virtually jobless.

Park Hotel et al., vs. Soriano et al.

GR. No. 17118, September 10, 2012
In order to show that the employer committed unfair labor practice under the Labor Code, substantial
evidence is required to support the claim. Respondents were indeed unceremoniously dismissed from
work by reason of their intent to form and organize a union. Corporate officers may be deemed
solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employees if they acted with malice or bad
faith. The lower tribunals unanimously found that Percy and Harbutt, in their capacity as corporate
officers of Burgos, acted maliciously in terminating the services of respondents without any valid ground
and in order to suppress their right to self-organization.

Unfair Labor Practice

13. GOYA, INC. v. GOYA, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW [G.R. No. 170054, January 21, 2013]

Principle: Violations of a CBA, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as
unfair labor practice. Gross violations of a CBA means flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with
the economic provisions of such agreement. In cases where in the CBA of the parties has already
provided for the categories of the employees in the Company’s establishment, such serve as limitation
to the Company’s prerogative to outsource parts of its operations especially when hiring contractual
employees. Thus, where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties and
compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.

14. BAPTISTA v. Villanueva [GR 194709, July 31, 2013]

Principle: Unfair Labor Practice relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers’ right to
organize. If the Union’s Constitution and By-Laws expressly mandate that before a party is allowed to
seek the intervention of the court, he must satisfy the pre-condition that he should have availed of all
the internal remedies within the organization; failure to do so would be considered a violation of the
union’s Constitution and By-Laws and is a ground for expulsion from union membership. Such expulsion
from the union is not an unfair labor practice or a deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict the
employee’s right to organize, but is a result of a commission of an act, expressly sanctioned by the
union’s Constitution and By-Laws.1

15. TH Shopfitters Corp, et al. v T&H Shopfitters Corp. Union [GR 191714, Feb 26, 2014]
Principle: Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-
organization. The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization is if there is a reasonable inference that the anti-union
conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining. If a
Company’s undisputed actions prior and immediately before a scheduled certification election is
seemingly inoffensive but unduly meddles in the affairs of its employees in selecting their exclusive
bargaining representative, such would be tantamount to an Unfair Labor Practice.

TOPIC 15 REVISED GUIDELINES OF THE NCMB

1. Sanyo Philippine Workers Union –PSSLU v Canizares [G.R. No. 101619, July 8, 1992]
The failure of the parties to the CBA to establish the grievance machinery and its unavailability is not an
excuse for the Labor Arbiter to assume jurisdiction over disputes arising from the implementation and
enforcement of a provision in the CBA. No other body shall take cognizance of these cases but in
instances wherein the dispute is between the union and the company on the one hand and some union
and non-union members who were dismissed, on the other hand, the dispute has to be settled before
an impartial body. Due process demands that the dismissed workers grievances be ventilated before an
impartial body. If there has already been an actual termination, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter.

Navarro III vs Damasco, 246 SCRA 260

One liner: “It is the policy of the State to promote voluntary arbitration as a mode of settling labor
disputes (Manguiat, Mechanisms of Voluntary Arbitration in Labor Disputes 2-6 [1978]).”

San Miguel Corp vs NLRC, 255 SCRA 140

One liner: “ART. 217(c). Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining
agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies
shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and
voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements. (As amended by R.A. 6715).”

[INSERT TIN’S PANTRANCO AND SILVA]

[INSERT JUNA]

PRIMO E. CAONG, petitioner vs. AVELINO REGUALOS, respondent.

[G.R. No. 179428. January 26, 2011]

ONE LINER: An employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspect of employment,
including the prerogative to instill discipline. PROVIDED, such policies, rules and regulations are fair and
reasonable, and the corresponding penalties are proportionate to the degree of the infraction.

ESTATE OF NELSON R. DULAY, petitioner vs. ABOITIZ JEBSEN MARITIME, INC., respondent.
[G.R. No. 172642. June 13, 2012]

ONE LINER: With respect to disputes involving claims of Filipino seafarers wherein the parties are
covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the dispute or claim should be submitted to the
jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It is only in the absence of a collective
bargaining agreement that parties may opt to submit the dispute to either the NLRC or to voluntary
arbitration.

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMP., petitioner vs. THE LEPANTO CAPATAZ UNION, respondent.
[G.R. No. 157086. February 18, 2013]

ONE LINER: In a petition filed by a legitimate labor organization involving an unorganized establishment,
the Med-Arbiter shall, pursuant to Article 257 of the Code, automatically order the conduct of
certification election after determining that the petition has complied with all requirements under
Section 1, 2 and 4 of the same rules and that none of the grounds for dismissal thereof exists.

7K CORPORATION, petitioner vs. EDDIE ALBARICO, respondent.

[G.R. No. 182295. June 26, 2013]

ONE LINER: Voluntary arbitrators may, by agreement of the parties, assume jurisdiction over a
termination dispute; Separation pay may be given when there is illegal dismissal, termination for
authorized causes, or for considerations of social justice.

ROGELIO BARONDA, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

[G.R. No. 161006. October 14, 2015]

ONE LINER: Voluntary Arbitrator's order for reinstatement is immediately executory, regardless of a
timely filed motion for reconsideration or appeal.