ARTICLE 221 insufficiency of bond.

A petition for certiorari under rule 65 to CA was also denied for the
said errors assigned were not reversible.
1. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, vs. JAN CARLO GALA
G.R. Nos. 191288 & 191304 March 7, 2012 Issue: WHETHER OR NOT TECHNICALITIES IN LABOR CASES MUST PREVAIL OVER THE
SPIRIT AND INTENTION OF THE LABOR CODE UNDER ARTICLE 221
Facts: Gala was employed by Meralco as probationary lineman. He initially served the
crew of two trucks under the supervision of by Matis and Zuniaga respectively. On July 27, Ruling: Yes. At the outset it must be pointed out here that the petition for certiorari filed
2006, barely four months on the job, Gala was dismissed for alleged complicity in with the Court by petitioner under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is inappropriate. The
pilferages of Meralco’s electrical supplies, particularly, for the incident which took place on proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45 purely on questions of law. There
May 25, 2006. On that day Gala was assigned to help digging for a post in Velenzuela. being a remedy of appeal via petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
When they came in to the vicinity they found out that the team of Valenzuela was already available to the petitioner, the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is improper.
there so they decided to help. Gala noticed a non-employee named Llanes who conversing But even if we bend our Rules to allow the present petition for certiorari, still it
with the foreman. Llanes boarded the trucks, without being stopped, and took out what will not prosper because we do not find any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
were later found as electrical supplies. Aside from Gala, the foremen and the other or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Appeals when it dismissed the petition
linemen who were at the worksite when the pilferage happened were later charged with of the security agency. We must stress that under Rule 65, the abuse of discretion must
misconduct and dishonesty for their involvement in the incident. Unknown to Gala and the be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal
rest of the crew, a Meralco surveillance task force was monitoring their activities and to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the
recording everything with a Sony video camera. Meralco called for an investigation of the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
incident and asked Gala to explain. Gala denied involvement in the pilferage, contending hostility. No such abuse of discretion happened here. The assailed decision by the Court of
that even if his superiors might have committed a wrongdoing, he had no participation in Appeals was certainly not capricious nor arbitrary, nor was it a whimsical exercise of
what they did. Despite Gala’s explanation, Meralco proceeded with the investigation and judgment amounting to a lack of jurisdiction.
eventually terminated his employment on July 27, 2006. Gala responded by filing an Failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final and executory. The right to
illegal dismissal complaint against Meralco. The complaint was dismissed by the labor appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the
arbiter. NLRC reversed the decision of the LA upon appeal but it ruled out Gala’s statute or the rules. The rules, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal
reinstatement, stating that his tenure lasted only up to the end of his probationary period. within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are
It awarded him backwages and attorney’s fees. Both parties moved for partial considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for the orderly
reconsideration but the same was denied. Both parties filed a petition for certiorari before discharge of judicial business. It is only in highly meritorious cases that this Court will opt
CA ruling for the reinstatement of Gala and denying the petition of Meralco, hence, this not to strictly apply the rules and thus prevent a grave injustice from being done. The
present. Gala contended that the petition should be dismissed because of procedural exception does not obtain here. Thus, we are in agreement that the decision of the Labor
defect in the verification and certification and that the counsel of Meralco failed to indicate Arbiter already became final and executory because petitioner failed to file the appeal
his MCLE compliance number. within 10 calendar days from receipt of the decision.

Issue: Whether or not the petition should be dismissed due to procedural defect
ARTICLE 223 APPEAL
Ruling: NO. We stress at this point that it is the spirit and intention of labor legislation
that the NLRC and the labor arbiters shall use every reasonable means to ascertain the 3. ISLRIZ TRADING VS. CAPADA ET AL
facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or JANUARY 31, 2011
procedure, provided due process is duly observed.19 In keeping with this policy and in the
interest of substantial justice, we deem it proper to give due course to the petition, Facts: Respondents Efren Capada, Lauro Licup, Norberto Nigos and Godofredo Magnaye
especially in view of the conflict between the findings of the labor arbiter, on the one were drivers while respondents Ronnie Abel, Arnel Siberre, Edmundo Capada, Nomerlito
hand, and the NLRC and the CA, on the other. As we said in S.S. Ventures International, Magnaye and Alberto Dela Vega were helpers of Islriz Trading, a gravel and sand business
Inc. v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union,20 "the application of technical rules of procedure in owned and operated by petitioner Victor Hugo Lu. Claiming that they were illegally
labor cases may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice." dismissed, respondents filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, allowances and separation pay against petitioner
2. NATIONWIDE SECURITY and ALLIED SERVICES, INC., vs. THE COURT OF on August 9, 2000 before the Labor Arbiter. On his part, petitioner imputed abandonment
APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JOSEPH DIMPAZ, of work against respondents. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents but was
HIPOLITO LOPEZ, EDWARD ODATO, FELICISIMO PABON and JOHNNY AGBAY, reversed before the NLRC. Petitioner did not pay the judgment monetary award to the
G.R. No. 155844 July 14, 2008 respondents pending appeal of the case to the NLRC. Petitioner now contends that since
the judgment was reversed, it has no obligation to pay anymore the monetary award by
Facts: 8 security guards filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against NSAS before the LA. the labor arbiter
LA ruled that NSAS was not liable for the dismissal of the security guards but it was
ordered to pay their separation fees, unpaid salaries and attorney’s fees. NSAS appealed
before the NLRC but it was denied for filing beyond the reglamentary period and

1
Issue: whether respondents may collect their wages during the period between the Labor 5. ONG VS. CA
Arbiter's order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC Resolution overturning that SEPTEMBER 22, 2004
of the Labor Arbiter.
Facts: Petitioner is the sole proprietor of Milestone Metal Manufacturing (Milestone),
Held: Yes. paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code which reads: In any event, the which manufactures, among others, wearing apparels, belts, and umbrellas.3 Sometime in
decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as May 1998, the business suffered very low sales and productivity because of the economic
the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. crisis in the country. Hence, it adopted a rotation scheme by reducing the workdays of its
The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions employees to three days a week or less for an indefinite period.On separate dates, the 15
prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely respondents filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) complaints for
reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay,
execution for reinstatement provided herein. Even if the order of reinstatement of the service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees against
Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to petitioner. These were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter Manuel Manasala. The
reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until Labor arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, Petitioner filed with the NLRC a notice of
reversal by the higher court. On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated appeal with a memorandum of appeal and paid the docket fees therefor. However, instead
during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the of posting the required cash or surety bond, he filed a motion to reduce the appeal bond.
employee is notrequired to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to The NLRC, in a resolution dated April 28, 2000, denied the motion to reduce bond and
such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period. dismissed the appeal for failure to post cash or surety bond within the reglementary
period.7 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Petitioner contends
4. GARCIA VS. KJ COMMERCIAL that the bond required (P1,427,802,04) was unjust and prohibitive furthermore he faults
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 the NLRC because it took 102 days to resolve his motion

Facts: Respondent KJ Commercial is a sole proprietorship. It owns trucks and engages in Issue: whether THE DECISION OF THE NLRC DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF PETITIONERS
the business of distributing cement products. On different dates, KJ Commercial employed FOR NON-PERFECTION WHEN A MOTION TO REDUCE APPEAL BOND WAS SEASONABLY
as truck drivers and truck helpers petitioners Cesar V. Garcia, Carlos Razon, Alberto De FILED was valid.
Guzman, Tomas Razon, Omer E. Palo, Rizalde Valencia,Allan Basa, Jessie
Garcia, Juanito Paras, Alejandro Orag, Rommel Pangan, Ruel Soliman, Held: Yes. Time and again it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right
and Cenen Canlapan . On 2 January 2006, petitioners demanded for a P40 daily salary or a part of due process, it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in
increase. To pressure KJ Commercial to grant their demand, they stopped working and the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail of
abandoned their trucks at the Northern Cement Plant Station in Sison, Pangasinan. They the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to
also blocked other workers from reporting to work. On 3 February 2006, petitioners filed appeal is lost. Biogenerics Marketing and Research Corporation v. NLRC, The mandatory
with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary and non- filing of a bond for the perfection of an appeal is evident from the aforequoted provision
payment of service incentive leave and thirteenth month pay. The labor arbiter ruled in that the appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond. It is not
favour of the petitioners. On appeal the NLRC initially denied KJ’s appeal with motion to an excuse that the over P2 million award is too much for a small business enterprise, like
reduce the bond and presenting a partial bond of PHP 50,000 however it was later on the petitioner company, to shoulder.The law does not require its outright payment, but
granted after KJ filed a motion of reconsideration and presented to the total amount for only the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the
the bond (2,612,930.00). petitioner now contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse appeal fail. What petitioners have to pay is a moderate and reasonable sum for the
of discretion in allowing the appeal. Petitioners claim that KJ Commercial failed to perfect premium for such bond.
an appeal since the motion to reduce bond did not stop the running of the period to While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in
appeal. certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the Rules
or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial
Issue: whetherthe Labor Arbiter’s 30 October 2008 Decision became final and executory; bond.22 Petitioner’s reliance on the case of Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC23 is
misplaced. Petitioner in the said case substantially complied with the rules by posting a
Held: No. KJ Commercial’s filing of a motion to reduce bond and delayed posting of partial surety bond of fifty thousand pesos issued by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance,
the P2,562,930 surety bond did not render the Labor Arbiter’s 30 October 2008 Decision Inc. while his motion to reduce appeal bond was pending before the NLRC.
final and executory. The Rules of Procedure of the NLRC allows the filing of a motion to
reduce bond subject to two conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground, and (2) a bond in 6. ROSEWOOD PROCESSING VS. NLRC
a reasonable amount is posted. In Ong v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the bond
requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there is substantial compliance with the Facts: a complaint for illegal dismissal; underpayment of wages; and for nonpayment of
Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant shows willingness to post a partial overtime pay, legal holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, thirteenth month
bond. The Court held that, “While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary pay, cash bond deposit, unpaid wages and damages was filed against Veterans Philippine
awards has been relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was Scout Security Agency and/or Sergio Jamila IV. Thereafter, petitioner was impleaded as a
substantial compliance of the Rules or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited third-party respondent by the security agency. The appeal filed by petitioner was
willingness to pay by posting a partial bond.” dismissed by the National Labor Relations Commission for failure of the petitioner to file

2
the required appeal bond within the reglementary period. In its motion for In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may
reconsideration, petitioner contended that it received a copy of the labor arbiter's Decision be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
only on April 6, 1993, and that it filed on April 16, 1993 within the prescribed time a bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the
Notice of Appeal with a Memorandum on Appeal, a Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond and a monetary award in the judgment appealed from.
surety bond issued by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. in the amount of In the case at bar, petitioners alleged that they received a copy of the Arbiters decision
P50,000. on October 31, 1998. Their memorandum of appeal was dated November 9, 1998, but
Issue: whether there was Substantial Compliance with the Appeal Bond Requirement their appeal bond to stay execution of the decision was executed only on November 17,
despite being insufficient 1998. The records show no partial payment of the bond was made during the
Held: Yes. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner reglementary period nor was there any explanation for its late filing. Given these facts,
prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with such legal requirement is fatal the late filing of the bond divested the NLRC of its jurisdiction to entertain petitioners
and effectively renders the judgment final and executory. Indisputable is the legal doctrine appeal.
that the appeal of a decision involving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected 8. BUENABORA VS. LIM KING GUAN
"only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." 10 The lawmakers intended the posting JANUARY 20, 2004
of the bond to be an indispensable requirement to perfect an employer's appeal. Facts: Petitioners were employees of private respondent Unix International Export
However, in a number of cases, this Court has relaxed this requirement in order to bring Corporation (UNIX), a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing bags, wallets
about the immediate and appropriate resolution of controversies on the merits. 12 Some of and the like.Sometime in 1991 and 1992, petitioners filed several cases against UNIX and
these cases include: "(a) counsel's reliance on the footnote of the notice of the decision of its incorporators and officers for unfair labor practice, illegal lockout/dismissal,
the labor arbiter that the aggrieved party may appeal . . . within ten (10) working days; underpayment of wages, holiday pay, proportionate 13th month pay, unpaid wages,
(b) fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (c) prevention of miscarriage of interest, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The labor arbiter ruled in
justice or of unjust enrichment, as where the tardy appeal is from a decision granting favor of the petitioners and the judgment become final and executory. Petitioner contends
separation pay which was already granted in an earlier final decision; and (d) special that UNIX in order to avoid judgment incorporated another entity called FUJI which is
circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits or the amount and the issue composed of same owners. Petitioner filed another case against FUJI and won.
involved." 13 Private respondents FUJI, its officers and stockholders filed a memorandum on
7. FSFI vs NLRC appeal and a motion to dispense with the posting of a cash or surety appeal bond on the
DECEMBER 11, 2003 ground that they were not the employers of petitioners. They alleged that they could not
Facts: that a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims for service incentive be held responsible for petitioners’ claims and to require them to post the bond would be
leave, 13th month pay and night shift differential was filed by respondents against unjust and unfair, and not sanctioned by law.
petitioners before the NLRC The complaint was assigned to Labor Arbiter Donato G. NLRC denied FUJI’s motion however on respondents second motion for
Quinto, Jr. who ordered the parties to file their position paper. Respondents complied, but reconsideration, the NLRC allowed them to file the bond which the petitioner assails being
not the petitioners despite several warnings and time extensions. The inaction was already filed out of time.
construed as a waiver by petitioners of their right to present evidence. Issue: whether the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave
The Labor Arbiter decided the complaint on the merit and ruled in favor of respondents. abuse of discretion when it allowed the posting of respondent’s bond
He sustained their claim of illegal dismissal as petitioners failed to adduce contrary Held: No. The provision of Article 223 of the Labor Code requiring the posting of bond on
evidence. Petitioners were ordered to reinstate respondents. The monetary claims of the appeals involving monetary awards must be given liberal interpretation in line with the
respondents were likewise granted. desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.3 If only to achieve substantial
Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. For the first time, they justice, strict observance of the reglementary periods may be relaxed if warranted. The
submitted evidence that respondents were project employees and that their dismissal was NLRC, Third Division could not be said to have abused its discretion in requiring the
due to the discontinuation of the Jaka Tower I project where they were assigned. posting of bond after it denied private respondents’ motion to be exempted therefrom.
Respondents, however, assailed the jurisdiction of the NLRC over the appeal for failure of It is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed
the petitioners to file the appeal bond within the ten (10)-day reglementary period. They by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the
further contended that it was too late for petitioners to present evidence in the NLRC. effect of making the judgment final and executory. However, technicality should not be
The NLRC nevertheless assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. Due to the evidence allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and
presented by petitioners on the issue of illegal dismissal, it remanded the case to the obligations of the parties.4 We have allowed appeals from the decisions of the labor arbiter
Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied. to the NLRC, even if filed beyond the reglementary period, in the interest of justice. The
Issue: Whether the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction facts and circumstances of the instant case warrant liberality considering the amount
and remanding the case to the labor arbiter involved and the fact that petitioners already obtained a favorable judgment on February
Held: Yes. The Labor Code provides a ten (10)-day period from receipt of the decision of 23, 1993 against their employer UNIX.
the Arbiter for the filing of an appeal together with an appeal bond if the decision involves 9 Santos vs. Servier Philippines, November 28, 2008
a monetary award in favor of the employees, viz:
ART. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and 10 ROQUERO VS. PAL APRIL 2, 2004
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) Facts: Roquero, along with Rene Pabayo, were ground equipment mechanics of
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL for brevity). From the evidence on record, it
appears that Roquero and Pabayo were caught red-handed possessing and

3
using Methampethamine Hydrochloride or shabu in a raid conducted by PAL security flight deck crew. Thus, Zamora filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter. He argued that
officers and NARCOM personnel. The two alleged that they did not voluntarily indulge in the act of APC of withholding his promotion rendered his continued employment with it
the said act but were instigated by a certain Jojie Alipato who was introduced to them by oppressive and unjust. He therefore asked that APC be held liable for constructive
Joseph Ocul, Manager of the Airport Maintenance Division of PAL. Pabayo alleged that dismissal. APC denied that it dismissed complainant. It pointed out that, when the
Alipato often bragged about the drugs he could smuggle inside the company premises and complaint was filed on May 14, 1997, complainant was still employed with it. It was only
invited other employees to take the prohibited drugs. Alipato was unsuccessful, until one on May 22, 1997 that complainant stopped reporting for work, not because he was forced
day, he was able to persuade Pabayo to join him in taking the drugs. They met Roquero to resign, but because he had joined a rival airline, Grand Air. The labor arbiter held that
along the way and he agreed to join them. Inside the company premises, they locked the there was illegal dismissal and ordered payment of unpaid salaries. On appeal the NLRC
door and Alipato lost no time in preparing the drugs to be used. When they started the reversed the LA’s decision and held that there was no illegal dismissal but ordered to pay
procedure of taking the drugs, armed men entered the room, arrested Roquero and the unpaid salaries. Petitioner questions the ruling of NLRC with respect to the payment of
Pabayo and seized the drugs and the paraphernalia used.1 Roquero and Pabayo were unpaid salaries since there was no illegal dismissal
subjected to a physical examination where the results showed that they were positive of Issue: whether there was a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioner to pay
drugs. They were also brought to the security office of PAL where they executed written respondent’s unpaid salaries despite finding that there was no illedgal dismissal
confessions without the benefit of counsel. Petitioners were subsequently terminated and Held: NO. The premise of the award of unpaid salary to respondent is that prior to the
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL. The Labor arbiter upheld the validity of reversal by the NLRC of the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the order of reinstatement
the dismissal, while the case was pending on appeal before the NLRC, the RTC acquitted embodied therein was already the subject of an alias writ of execution even pending
the petitioners on drug possession on the ground of instigation. The NLRC found PAL guilty appeal. Although petitioner did not comply with this writ of execution, its intransigence
of instigation and ordered the reinstatement, to which PAL refused to execute and file an made it liable nonetheless to the salaries of respondent pending appeal. There is logic in
appeal before the CA. the CA reversed NLRC’s decision and held tht the dismissal was this reasoning of the NLRC. In Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., we resolved the same
valid however it denied the payment of separation pay and attorneys fees. issue as follows:
Issue: whether the reinstatement order by the labor arbiter can be halted by a petition We reiterate the rule that technicalities have no room in labor cases where the Rules of
filed in higher courts without any restraining order or preliminary injunction ordered in the Court are applied only in a suppletory manner and only to effectuate the objectives of the
meantime Labor Code and not to defeat them. Hence, even if the order of reinstatement of the
Held: No. Article 223 (3rd paragraph) of the Labor Code as amended by Section 12 of Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer
Republic Act No. 6715,21 and Section 2 of the NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals under RA to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of
No. 6715, Amending the Labor Code, provide that an order of reinstatement by the Labor appeal until reversal by the higher court. On the other hand, if the employee has
Arbiter is immediately executory even pending appeal. The rationale of the law has been been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with
explained in Aris (Phil.) Inc. vs. NLRC: finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is
"In authorizing execution pending appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of the entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period.
Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, the law itself has laid down a
compassionate policy which, once more, vivifies and enhances the provisions of the 1987 12 LANSANGAN VS. AMKOR TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES JANUARY 30, 2009
Constitution on labor and the working man. Facts: An anonymous e-mail was sent to the General Manager of Amkor Technology
The order of reinstatement is immediately executory. The unjustified refusal of the Philippines (respondent) detailing allegations of malfeasance on the part of its supervisory
employer to reinstate a dismissed employee entitles him to payment of his salaries employees Lunesa Lansangan and Rosita Cendaña (petitioners) for "stealing company
effective from the time the employer failed to reinstate him despite the issuance of a writ time." Respondent thus investigated the matter, requiring petitioners to submit their
of execution. Unless there is a restraining order issued, it is ministerial upon the Labor written explanation. In handwritten letters, petitioners admitted their
Arbiter to implement the order of reinstatement. In the case at bar, no restraining order wrongdoing. Respondent thereupon terminated petitioners for "extremely serious
was granted. Thus, it was mandatory on PAL to actually reinstate Roquero or reinstate offenses" as defined in its Code of Discipline, prompting petitioners to file a complaint for
him in the payroll. Having failed to do so, PAL must pay Roquero the salary he is entitled illegal dismissal against it. The labor arbiter held that the dismissal was valid but ordered
to, as if he was reinstated, from the time of the decision of the NLRC until the finality of reinstatement "as a measure of equitable and compassionate relief" owing mainly to
the decision of this Court. We reiterate the rule that technicalities have no room in labor petitioners’ prior unblemished employment records, show of remorse, harshness of the
cases where the Rules of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner and only to penalty and defective attendance monitoring system of respondent. The petitioner
effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code and not to defeat them. employees did not appeal the issue regarding the validity of their dismissal but rather
Note: Then, by and pursuant to the same power (police power), the State may authorize moved for the issuance of writ of execution as to the order of reinstatement. Hence the
an immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a dismissed or order as to the validity of their dismissal became final and executor. Amkor appealed the
separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although temporarily since order of reinstatement and the NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling. Petitioner now claims that
the appeal may be decided in favor of the appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the they are entitled to the unpaid salaries when the case was pending since the order of
survival or even the life of the dismissed or separated employee and his family." reinstatement was immediately executory.
11 AIRPHIL CORP VS. ZAMORAAUGUST 7, 2004 Issue: Whether petitioners are entitled to the payment of unpaid salaries when the case
Facts: Enrico Zamora (Zamora) was employed with Air Philippines Corporation (APC) as a was pending appeal relying on the case of roquero vs. PAL
B-737 Flight Deck Crew. He applied for promotion to the position of airplane captain and Held: NO. The decision of the Arbiter finding that petitioners committed "dishonesty as a
underwent the requisite training program. After completing training, he inquired about his form of serious misconduct and fraud, or breach of trust" had become final, petitioners not
promotion but APC did not act on it; instead, it continued to give him assignments as having appealed the same before the NLRC as in fact they even moved for the execution

4
of the reinstatement aspect of the decision. It bears recalling that it was only respondent bargaining agreement provisions, and company practices. However, if the employee was
which assailed the Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC – to solely question the propriety of the reinstated to work during the pendency of the appeal, then the employee is entitled to the
order for reinstatement, and it succeeded.Roquero, as well as Article 223 of the Labor compensation received for actual services rendered without need of refund.
Code on which the appellate court also relied, finds no application in the present case. Considering that Genuino was not reinstated to work or placed on payroll reinstatement,
Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a dismissed or separated and her dismissal is based on a just cause, then she is not entitled to be paid the salaries
employee while the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal, as what happened in awarded pending the case was on appeal.
Roquero. It does not apply where there is no finding of illegal dismissal, as in the present
case. 14 Juanito Garcia vs, PAL, G.R. No, 164856, January 20, 2009
The Arbiter found petitioners’ dismissal to be valid. Such finding had, as stated earlier, JUANITO A. GARCIA and ALBERTO J. DUMAGO, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC
become final, petitioners not having appealed it. Following Article 279 which provides: G.R. No. 164856 January 20, 2009
In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is Facts: The case stemmed from the administrative charge filed by PAL against its
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority employees-herein petitioners3 after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu
rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical
other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was Center’s Toolroom Section.
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement (Emphasis, underscoring and After due notice, PAL dismissed petitioners for transgressing the PAL Code of Discipline,
italics supplied), prompting Petitioners to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages which was,
petitioners are not entitled to full backwages as their dismissal was not found to be illegal. resolved by the Labor Arbiter in their favor, thus ordering PAL to, inter alia, immediately
Agabon v. NLRC so states –– payment of backwages and other benefits is justified only if comply with the reinstatement aspect of the decision. Upon appeal to NLRC the decision of
the employee was unjustly dismissed. the LA was reversed. Petitioner’s MR was denied followed by the entry of judgment.
13 GENUINO VS. NLRC DECEMBER 4, 2007 Prior to the promulgation of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, the Securities and Exchange
Facts: Genuino was employed by Citibank sometime in January 1992 as Treasury Sales Commission (SEC) placed PAL (hereafter referred to as respondent), which was suffering
Division Head with the rank of Assistant Vice-President. She received a monthly from severe financial losses, under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver
compensation of PhP 60,487.96, exclusive of benefits and privileges. On August 23, 1993, Subsequently LA issued a Writ of Execution (Writ) respecting the reinstatement aspect of
Citibank sent Genuino a letter charging her with "knowledge and/or involvement" in its former decision, and later issued a Notice of Garnishment (Notice). PAL thereupon
transactions "which were irregular or even fraudulent." In the same letter, Genuino was moved to quash the Writ and to lift the Notice while petitioners moved to release the
informed she was under preventive suspension. Petitioner asked for the details of the garnished amount. NLRC ruled in favor of petitioners. PAL filed a petition for certiorari with
accusations since the charges were too general, her counsel asked for a bill of particulars injunction against NLRC which was granted by the CA. The rehabilitation proceeding was
from Citibank but the latter refused, petitioner did not attend the administrative terminated, hence this petition.
investigation nor sent any answer and was subsequently terminated by Citibank.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal; the labor arbiter held that genuino’s Issue: WON a subsequent finding of a valid dismissal removes the basis for implementing
dismissal was without just cause and ordered Citibank to reinstate and pay genuine for the reinstatement aspect of a labor arbiter’s decision
unpaid salaries and for damages, On appeal, the NLRC held that the dismissal was for just
cause but ordered Citibank to pay genuine because the dismissal was not in accordance Ruling: NO. In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or
with the two twin notice requirement. separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately
Issue: whether genuine is still entitled to the payment of her unpaid salary pending be executory, pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under
appeal of the case as ordered by the LA, since an order of reinstatement is immediately the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the
executory option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the
Held: NO. Ordinarily, the employer is required to reinstate the employee during the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein. (Emphasis and
pendency of the appeal pursuant to Art. 223, paragraph 3 of the Labor Code, which underscoring supplied)
states: The view as maintained in a number of cases is that:
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or x x x [E]ven if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is
separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed
immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. On the other
admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such
his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse
the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered
for reinstatement provided herein. services during the period.
If the decision of the labor arbiter is later reversed on appeal upon the finding that the In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the Labor
ground for dismissal is valid, then the employer has the right to require the dismissed Arbiter is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is
employee on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries s/he received while the case was immediately executory. Unless there is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the Labor
pending appeal, or it can be deducted from the accrued benefits that the dismissed Arbiter to implement the order of reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to
employee was entitled to receive from his/her employer under existing laws, collective comply therewith.

5
The spirit of the rule on reinstatement pending appeal animates the proceedings once the be awarded. In the instant petition, the NLRC Decision dated 30 October 2001 finding the
Labor Arbiter issues the decision containing an order of reinstatement. The immediacy of termination of respondents illegal, had the effect of reversing Labor Arbiter Drilon’s
its execution needs no further elaboration. Reinstatement pending appeal necessitates its Decision dated 25 May 1999.
immediate execution during the pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble This Court sees no cogent reason as to the relevance of a discussion on whether or not
purpose. At the same time, any attempt on the part of the employer to evade or delay its reinstatement is self-executory. However, since petitioner raised this issue, this Court has
execution, as observed in Panuncillo and as what actually transpired in Kimberly,23 opted to discuss it. Verily, Article 223 of the Labor Code is not applicable in the instant
Composite,24 Air Philippines,25 and Roquero,26 should not be countenanced. case. The said provision stipulates that the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
After the labor arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall
barred from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the immediately be executory, even pending appeal.
reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer. This Court takes this occasion to reiterate that execution is the final stage of litigation, the
The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual delay or the fact that the order of end of the suit. It can not and should not be frustrated except for serious reasons
reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and (2) the delay demanded by justice and equity.47 "Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. An
must not be due to the employer’s unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the effective and efficient administration of justice requires that, once a judgment has become
employer’s unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to pay the salaries final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, be deprived of the fruits of the
notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. verdicts. Courts must, therefore, guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that
result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon
15 Mt. Carmel College, vs. Jocelyn Resuena et al, G.R. No. 173076, October 10, any attempt to prolong them."
2007
MT. CARMEL COLLEGE, vs. JOCELYN RESUENA, EDDIE VILLALON, SYLVIA 16 NERISSA BUENVIAJE, SONIA FLORES, BELMA OLIVIO,
SEDAYON and ZONSAYDA EMNACE, GENALYN PELOBELLO, MARY JANE MENOR, JOSIE RAQUERO,
G.R. No. 173076 October 10, 2007 ESTRELITA MANAHAN, REBECCA EBOL, and ERLINDA ARGA, petitioners,
vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER SEVENTH
DIVISION),
Facts: Respondents were employees of MCC, Jocelyn Resuena (Accounting Clerk), Eddie HONORABLE ARBITER ROMULUS PROTASIO, COTTONWAY MARKETING
Villalon (Elementary Department Principal); Sylvia Sedayon (Treasurer), and Zonsayda CORPORATION and MICHAEL G. TONG,
Emnace (Secretary to the Director). G.R. No. 147806 November 12, 2002
Respondents, together with several faculty members, non-academic personnel, and other
students, participated in a protest action against MCC. MCC issued a Memorandum to each Facts: Petitioners were former employees of Cottonway Marketing Corp. (Cottonway),
of the respondents directing them to explain in writing why they should not be dismissed hired as promo girls for their garment products. After their services were terminated as
for loss of trust and confidence for joining the protest action against the school the company was allegedly suffering business losses, petitioners filed with the NLRC a
administration. After hearing conducted by the Fact-Finding Committee they complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salary and non-payment of other
recommended the dismissal of the respondents which were latter terminated after the remuneration against their employer. LA ruled in favor of the validity of retrenchment but
notice of termination was given to them. Separate complaints were filed by each of the ordered Cottonway to pay their separation fee and 13th month pay. Upon appeal to NLRC
four respondents against petitioner before Regional Arbitration for illegal dismissal. LA the decision of the LA was reversed ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners plus
affirmed the validity of dismissal of the respondents but they were awarded separation payment of back wages and remunerations. A motion for reconsideration by Cottonway
fee, 13th month pay and attorneys fees. MCC appealed to the NLRC but it was dismissed. was denied. Cottonway filed a manifestation before the NLRC stating that they already
Labor Arbiter Drilon issued to the parties a Notice of Judgment/Decision of his 25 May gave notice to the petitioners requiring them to go back to work but the latter failed to do
1999 Decision indicating that a "decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or so prompting Cottonway to terminate their employment. A petition for certiorari before
separated employee, in so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately the SC by Cottonway was dismissed. Petitoners filed a motion for execution before the
be executory, even pending appeal. An MR before the NLRC was denied. An appeal by NLRC contending that the judgment of NLRC became final and executor. Cottonway filed
certiorari before the CA was also denied. Respondents filed on 14 July 2004 yet another another manifestation reiterating its first allegation and that the petitioners have found
Motion to Issue a Writ of Execution to collect backwages from 1 January 2004 to 30 June employment elsewhere. They also filed a manifestation requesting for reception of
2004. Petitioner opposed the motion, but the Motion to Issue a Writ of Execution was evidence for the same matter. LA issued an order that the amount of back wages shall
granted. MCC filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Order contending that only cover the time the petitioners are illegally terminated until the order of reinstatement
the judgment of the NLRC mandated the payment of separation pay as computed in the contending that the failure of the petitioners to report despite the notice given by
appealed decision. A MR by MCC was denied and their petition for certiorari before the CA Cottonway is a justifiable reason to decrease their back wages. The order was set aside by
was dismissed. the resolution of the NLRC ordering the LA to issue a writ of execution according to the
Issue: WON Art.223 of the labor code is applicable in this case decision of NLRC. Upon appeal to CA the decision of NLRC was reversed.

Ruling: NO. This Court had declared in the aforesaid case that reinstatement during Issue: Whether or not the reinstatement aspect of the decision of LA is immediately
appeal is warranted only when the Labor Arbiter himself rules that the dismissed executor
employee should be reinstated. But this was precisely because on appeal to the NLRC, it Whether or not the order of the LA decreasing the back wages of the petitioner is
found that there was no illegal dismissal; thus, neither reinstatement nor backwages may valid

6
 hearing "can be tackled during the hearing of her case" or at the preliminary conference
Ruling: 1. YES. In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or set for 5 and 8 of August 2003. Velasco received a "Third Show-cause Notice” which
separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately Velasco failed to heed prompting Pfizer to terminate her employment. LA ruled that
be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work Velasco’s dismissal was illegal which was affirmed by the NLRC. A motion for
under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at reconsideration by Pfizer was denied. Pfizer filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the before CA which the court granted in its favor. Velasco filed an MR and the court affirmed
employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein. the validity of her dismissal ordering Pfizer to pay her the wages to which she is entitled
2. NO. The foregoing provision is intended for the benefit of the employee and cannot be to from the time the reinstatement order was issued until the promulgation of the
used to defeat their own interest. The law mandates the employer to either admit the decision.
dismissed employee back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to Pfizer filed the instant petition assailing the aforementioned CA Resolutions as to the
his dismissal or to reinstate him in the payroll to abate further loss of income on the part period from which to be computed for the payment of respondent’s back wages.
of the employee during the pendency of the appeal. But we cannot stretch the language of
the law as to give the employer the right to remove an employee who fails to immediately Issue: Whether or not the decision of the LA requires a writ of execution to become
comply with the reinstatement order, especially when there is reasonable explanation for executory to be included in the period to which back wages will be computed
the failure. If Cottonway were really sincere in its offer to immediately reinstate
petitioners to their former positions, it should have given them reasonable time to wind up Ruling: NO. In sum, the Court reiterates the principle that reinstatement pending appeal
their current preoccupation or at least to explain why they could not return to work at necessitates that it must be immediately self-executory without need for a writ of
Cottonway at once. Cottonway did not do either. Instead, it gave them only five days to execution during the pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble purpose, and
report to their posts and when the petitioners failed to do so, it lost no time in serving any attempt on the part of the employer to evade or delay its execution should not be
them their individual notices of termination. We are, therefore, not impressed with the allowed. Furthermore, we likewise restate our ruling that an order for reinstatement
claim of respondent company that petitioners have been validly dismissed on August 1, entitles an employee to receive his accrued backwages from the moment the
1996 and hence their backwages should only be computed up to that time. We hold that reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a higher
petitioners are entitled to receive full backwages computed from the time their court without fear of refunding what he had received.
compensation was actually withheld until their actual reinstatement, or if reinstatement is
no longer possible, until the finality of the decision, in accordance with the Decision of the Foreseeably, an employer may circumvent the immediately enforceable
NLRC dated March 26, 1996 which has attained finality.28 reinstatement order of the Labor Arbiter by crafting return-to-work directives that are
ambiguous or meant to be rejected by the employee and then disclaim liability for
17 Pfizer, Inc vs Geraldine Velasco, G.R. No. 177467, March 9, 2011 backwages due to non-reinstatement by capitalizing on the employee’s purported refusal
PFIZER, INC. AND/OR REY GERARDO BACARRO, AND/OR FERDINAND CORTES, to work. In sum, the option of the employer to effect actual or payroll reinstatement must
AND/OR ALFRED MAGALLON, AND/OR ARISTOTLE ARCE, Petitioners, be exercised in good faith.
vs. Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an employee entitled to reinstatement “shall
GERALDINE VELASCO, Respondent. either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to
G.R. No. 177467 March 9, 2011 his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the
payroll.” It is established in jurisprudence that reinstatement means restoration to a state
Facts: Velasco was employed with petitioner PFIZER, INC. as Professional Health Care or condition from which one had been removed or separated. The person reinstated
Representative. Velasco had a medical work up for her high-risk pregnancy and was assumes the position he had occupied prior to his dismissal.
subsequently advised bed rest which resulted in her extending her leave of absence.
Velasco filed her sick leave for the period from 26 March to 18 June 2003, her vacation The Court reaffirms the prevailing principle that even if the order of
leave from 19 June to 20 June 2003, and leave without pay from 23 June to 14 July 2003. reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the
While Velasco was still on leave, PFIZER through its Area Sales Manager, Cortez, employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of
personally served Velasco a "Show-cause Notice" dated 25 June 2003. Aside from appeal until reversal by the higher court.
mentioning about an investigation on her possible violations of company work rules
regarding "unauthorized deals and/or discounts in money or samples and unauthorized 18 SY ET AL KNITCRAFT CO.,
withdrawal and/or pull-out of stocks" and instructing her to submit her explanation on the DECEMBER 12, 2011
matter within 48 hours from receipt of the same, the notice also advised her that she was
being placed under "preventive suspension" for 30 days or from that day to 6 August 2003 Facts: Petitioners are employees of Weesan Garment (Labor only) which is contracted by
and consequently ordered to surrender the following "accountabilities;" Velasco sent a Fairland Knitcraft. The employees filed a complaint for underpayment and/or non-payment
letter addressed to Cortez dated 28 June 2003 denying the charges. Velasco received a of wages, overtime pay, premium pay for holidays, 13th month pay and other monetary
"Second Show-cause Notice" informing her of additional developments in their benefits against Susan/Weesan. A certain atty. Geronimo appeared and filed position
investigation. Velasco filed a complaint for illegal suspension with money claims before the papers on behalf of fairland and weesan. The Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for
RAB. PFIZER sent her a letter inviting her to a disciplinary hearing. Velasco received it lack of merit. However the NLRC reversed said decision. Respondent appealed to the CA
under protest and informed PFIZER via the receiving copy of the said letter that she had which was granted on the ground that the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction of the
lodged a complaint against the latter and that the issues that may be raised in the July 22 respondents, contending that atty. Geronimo was not authorized by fairland, and that

7
fairland was not summoned or was sent a copy by the NLRC hence the decision did not execution. A sale unless preceded by a valid levy is void. Therefore, since there was no
attain finality under art 224, because the service must be sent to the parties and counsel. sufficient levy on the execution in question, the private respondent did not take any title
That the service to counsel binds the client is not applicable. to the properties sold thereunder x x x.
The CA then concluded that since Fairland and its counsel were not separately furnished "A person other than the judgment debtor who claims ownership or right over the levied
with a copy of the August 26, 2005 NLRC Resolution denying the motions for properties is not precluded, however, from taking other legal remedies."
reconsideration of its November 30, 2004 Decision, said Decision cannot be enforced Forum shopping
against Fairland. The CA likewise concluded that because of this, said November 30, 2004 No. In Golangco v. Court of Appeals, we held:
Decision which held Susan/Weesan and Fairland solidarily liable to the workers, has not "What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not
attained finality is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts
Issue: whether the ruling of the NLRC attained finality. and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same on related caused and/or grant the
Held: Yes. Article 224 contemplates the furnishing of copies of final decisions, orders or same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating possibility of conflicting
awards both to the parties and their counsel in connection with the execution of such final decisions being rendered by the different for a upon the same issues.
decisions, orders or awards. However, for the purpose of computing the period for "There is no forum-shopping where two different orders were questioned, two distinct
filing an appeal from the NLRC to the CA, same shall be counted from receipt of causes of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought."
the decision, order or award by the counsel of record pursuant to the established Remedy when there is wrong levy
rule that notice to counsel is notice to party. And since the period for filing of an , a third party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff to enforce a decision
appeal is reckoned from the counsel’s receipt of the decision, order or award, it against a judgment debtor is afforded with several alternative remedies to protect its
necessarily follows that the reckoning period for their finality is likewise the interests. The third party may avail himself of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one
counsel’s date of receipt thereof, if a party is represented by counsel. Hence, the date will not preclude the third party from availing himself of the other alternative remedies in
of receipt referred to in Sec. 14, Rule VII of the then in force New Rules of Procedure of the event he failed in the remedy first availed of.
the NLRC which provides that decisions, resolutions or orders of the NLRC shall become Thus, a third party may avail himself of the following alternative remedies:
executory after 10 calendar days from receipt of the same, refers to the date of receipt by a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of the Labor Arbiter, and
counsel. Thus contrary to the CA’s conclusion, the said NLRC Decision became final, as to b) If the third party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the denial to the NLRC.13
Fairland, 10 calendar days after Atty. Tecson’s receipt thereof. In sum, we hold that the Even if a third party claim was denied, a third party may still file a proper action with a
Labor Arbiter had validly acquired jurisdiction over Fairland and its manager, Debbie, competent court to recover ownership of the property illegally seized by the sheriff. This
through the appearance of Atty. Geronimo as their counsel and likewise, through the finds support in Section 17 (now 16), Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court.
latter’s filing of pleadings on their behalf. 20 ANDO VS. CAMPO
19 YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS VS. CA FEBRUARY 16, 2002
JANUARY 16, 2002
Facts: Petitioner was the president of Premier Allied and Contracting Services, Inc.
Facts: a writ of execution was issued against Artex Development Corporation as a (PACSI), an independent labor contractor. Respondents were hired by PACSI as pilers or
consequence of the decision rendered by the said commission in labor case. Petitioner haulers tasked to manually carry bags of sugar from the warehouse of Victorias Milling
Yupangco alleges that its property was wrongfully levied by the said execution. Petitioner Company and load them on trucks. In June 1998, respondents were dismissed from
filed a third party claim before the labor arbiter but was dismissed, likewise his appeal to employment. They filed a case for illegal dismissal and some money claims with the
the NLRC. Petitioner filed a complaint (accion revindicatoria) before the RTC and appealed National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod
to CA which was also dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. City. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the respondents employees, and upon
Issue: Whether the power of the commission to execute its judgment extends to finality respondents moved for execution. To answer for the monetary award, NLRC Acting
properties belonging to persons not party to the case. And whether there is forum Sheriff Romeo Pasustento issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Personal Property over
shopping the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-140167 in the name of
Held: No. The power of the NLRC to execute its judgments extends only to properties "Paquito V. Ando x x x married to Erlinda S. Ando."
unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor (Special Servicing Corp. v. Centro La This prompted petitioner to file an action for prohibition and damages with prayer for the
Paz, 121 SCRA 748). issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
"The general rule that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the Branch 50, Bacolod City. Petitioner claimed that the property belonged to him and his
judgments or decrees of another court with concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction wife, not to the corporation, and, hence, could not be subject of the execution sale. Since
possessing equal power to grant injunctive relief, applies only when no third-party it is the corporation that was the judgment debtor, execution should be made on the
claimant is involved (Traders Royal Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 133 SCRA 141 latter’s properties.
[1984]). When a third-party, or a stranger to the action, asserts a claim over the property On December 27, 2006, the RTC issued an Order denying the prayer for a TRO, holding
levied upon, the claimant may vindicate his claim by an independent action in the proper that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case. The RTC ruled that,
civil court which may stop the execution of the judgment on property not belonging to the pursuant to the NLRC Manual on the Execution of Judgment, petitioner’s remedy was to
judgment debtor." (Underscoring ours) file a third-party claim with the NLRC Sheriff. Despite lack of jurisdiction, however, the
in Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 158 [1991], we ruled RTC went on to decide the merits of the case. The CA affirmed the ruling RTC on the
that: ground of lack of jurisdiction
"The well-settled doctrine is that a 'proper levy' is indispensable to a valid sale on

8
Issue: whether the regular courts has jurisdiction to restrain the implementation of the question that the property belongs to petitioner and his wife, and not to the corporation. It
writ of execution issued by the Labor arbiter can be said that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership, not to petitioner alone.
Held: NO. The Court has long recognized that regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear Thus, the property belongs to a third party, i.e., the conjugal partnership. At the very
and decide questions which arise from and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions, least, the Court can consider that petitioner’s wife is a third party within contemplation of
orders, or awards rendered in labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of the the law.
Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to sanction splitting of Note: petitioner should have filed a third party complain before the NLRC, wrong choice of
jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice. remedy but nevertheless the SC granted the petition kasi sobrang tagal na nung kaso.
Thus, it is, first and foremost, the NLRC Manual on the Execution of Judgment that
governs any question on the execution of a judgment of that body. Petitioner need not
look further than that. The Rules of Court apply only by analogy or in a suppletory 21 EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS VS. BAYER PHILS
character. DECEMBER 6, 2010
Consider the provision in Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on third-party claims:
SEC. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person.—If the property levied on is Facts: Petitioner Employees Union of Bayer Philippines3 (EUBP) is the exclusive
claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of Bayer Philippines (Bayer), and is an
makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the affiliate of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). In 1997, EUBP, headed by its president
grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a Juanito S. Facundo (Facundo), negotiated with Bayer for the signing of a collective
copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the bargaining agreement (CBA). During the negotiations, EUBP rejected Bayer’s 9.9% wage-
property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved increase proposal resulting in a bargaining deadlock. Subsequently, EUBP staged a strike,
by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the prompting the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume
property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be jurisdiction over the dispute.
determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking In November 1997, pending the resolution of the dispute, respondent Avelina Remigio
or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is (Remigio) and 27 other union members, without any authority from their union leaders,
filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond. accepted Bayer’s wage-increase proposal. EUBP’s grievance committee questioned
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to any Remigio’s action and reprimanded Remigio and her allies. On January 7, 1998, the DOLE
third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such Secretary issued an arbitral award ordering EUBP and Bayer to execute a CBA retroactive
claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate to January 1, 1997 and to be made effective until December 31, 2001. The said CBA was
action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate registered on July 8, 1998 with the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE-National
action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim. Capital Region (NCR).
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any Meanwhile, the rift between Facundo’s leadership and Remigio’s group broadened. On
officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the August 3, 1998, barely six months from the signing of the new CBA, during a company-
sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be sponsored seminar,6 Remigio solicited signatures from union members in support of a
represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages resolution containing the decision of the signatories to: (1) disaffiliate from FFW, (2)
adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be rename the union as Reformed Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (REUBP), (3) adopt
appropriated for the purpose. a new constitution and by-laws for the union, (4) abolish all existing officer positions in
On the other hand, the NLRC Manual on the Execution of Judgment deals specifically with the union and elect a new set of interim officers, and (5) authorize REUBP to administer
third-party claims in cases brought before that body. It defines a third-party claim as one the CBA between EUBP and Bayer.7 The said resolution was signed by 147 of the 257
where a person, not a party to the case, asserts title to or right to the possession of the local union members. A subsequent resolution was also issued affirming the first
property levied upon. It also sets out the procedure for the filing of a third-party claim, to resolution.
wit: A tug-of-war then ensued between the two rival groups, with both seeking recognition
SECTION 2. Proceedings. — If property levied upon be claimed by any person other than from Bayer and demanding remittance of the union dues collected from its rank-and-file
the losing party or his agent, such person shall make an affidavit of his title thereto or members. On September 8, 1998, Remigio’s splinter group wrote Facundo, FFW and
right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title and shall file the Bayer informing them of the decision of the majority of the union members to disaffiliate
same with the sheriff and copies thereof served upon the Labor Arbiter or proper officer from FFW. This was followed by another letter informing Facundo, FFW and Bayer that an
issuing the writ and upon the prevailing party. Upon receipt of the third party claim, all interim set of REUBP executive officers and board of directors had been appointed, and
proceedings with respect to the execution of the property subject of the third party claim demanding the remittance of all union dues to REUBP. Remigio also asked Bayer to desist
shall automatically be suspended and the Labor Arbiter or proper officer issuing the writ from further transacting with EUBP. Facundo, meanwhile, sent similar requests to Bayer
shall conduct a hearing with due notice to all parties concerned and resolve the validity of requesting for the remittance of union dues in favor of EUBP and accusing the company of
the claim within ten (10) working days from receipt thereof and his decision is appealable interfering with purely union matters. Bayer responded by deciding not to deal with either
to the Commission within ten (10) working days from notice, and the Commission shall of the two groups, and by placing the union dues collected in a trust account until the
resolve the appeal within same period. conflict between the two groups is resolved. EUPB filed a complaint against Bayer for no
There is no doubt in our mind that petitioner’s complaint is a third- party claim within the remittance of union dues and for violating the CBA, the labor arbiter held that it has no
cognizance of the NLRC. Petitioner may indeed be considered a "third party" in relation to jurisdiction because the root cause for Bayer’s failure to remit the collected union dues
the property subject of the execution vis-à-vis the Labor Arbiter’s decision. There is no can be traced to the intra-union conflict between EUBP and Remigio’s group and that the

9
charges imputed against Bayer should have been submitted instead to voluntary Association, and eventually became the employees’ union president in July 1997. In
arbitration November 1998, he was likewise designated officer-in-charge of FFW Legal Center.
Issue: whether NLRC has jurisdiction During the 21st National Convention and Election of National Officers of FFW, Atty.
Held: Yes. The NLRC and not the BLR has jurisdiction in the case, An intra-union dispute Montaño was nominated for the position of National Vice-President. In a letter dated May
refers to any conflict between and among union members, including grievances arising 25, 2001, however, the Commission on Election (FFW COMELEC), informed him that he is
from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or not qualified for the position as his candidacy violates the 1998 FFW Constitution and By-
disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes Laws, particularly Section 76 of Article XIX and Section 25 (a) of Article VIII, both in
arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of Chapter II thereof. Atty. Montaño thus filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration praying
Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the DOLE enumerate the following
that his name be included in the official list of candidates.
circumstances as inter/intra-union disputes, viz:
Election ensued on May 26-27, 2001 in the National Convention held at Subic
22 RULE XI
International Hotel, Olongapo City. Despite the pending motion for reconsideration with
INTER/INTRA-UNION DISPUTES AND
the FFW COMELEC, and strong opposition and protest of respondent Atty. Ernesto C.
OTHER RELATED LABOR RELATIONS DISPUTES
Verceles (Atty. Verceles), a delegate to the convention and president of University of the
Section 1. Coverage. - Inter/intra-union disputes shall include:
East Employees’ Association (UEEA-FFW) which is an affiliate union of FFW, the convention
(a) cancellation of registration of a labor organization filed by its members or by
delegates allowed Atty. Montaño’s candidacy. He emerged victorious and was proclaimed
another labor organization;
as the National Vice-President.
(b) conduct of election of union and workers’ association officers/nullification of
On May 28, 2001, through a letter to the Chairman of FFW COMELEC, Atty. Verceles
election of union and workers’ association officers;
reiterated his protest over Atty. Montaño’s candidacy which he manifested during the
(c) audit/accounts examination of union or workers’ association funds;
plenary session before the holding of the election in the Convention. On June 18, 2001,
(d) deregistration of collective bargaining agreements;
Atty. Verceles sent a follow-up letter to the President of FFW requesting for immediate
(e) validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;
action on his protest. Subsequently verceles also filed a petition for nullification of
(f) validity/invalidity of acceptance/non-acceptance for union membership;
the election of montano before the BLR, petitioner on the other hand assails that
(g) validity/invalidity of impeachment/expulsion of union and workers’ association
the regional director of DOLE should have jurisdiction
officers and members; Issue: whether the BLR has jurisdiction
(h) validity/invalidity of voluntary recognition; Held: Yes. Section 226 of the Labor Code clearly provides that the BLR and the Regional
(i) opposition to application for union and CBA registration; Directors of DOLE have concurrent jurisdiction over inter-union and intra-union disputes.
(j) violations of or disagreements over any provision in a union or workers’ Such disputes include the conduct or nullification of election of union and workers’
association constitution and by-laws; association officers. There is, thus, no doubt as to the BLR’s jurisdiction over the instant
(k) disagreements over chartering or registration of labor organizations and dispute involving member-unions of a federation arising from disagreement over the
collective bargaining agreements; provisions of the federation’s constitution and by-laws.
(l) violations of the rights and conditions of union or workers’ association Rule XVI lays down the decentralized intra-union dispute settlement mechanism. Section 1
membership; states that any complaint in this regard ‘shall be filed in the Regional Office where the
(m) violations of the rights of legitimate labor organizations, except interpretation union is domiciled.’ The concept of domicile in labor relations regulation is equivalent to
of collective bargaining agreements; the place where the union seeks to operate or has established a geographical presence for
(n) such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self-organization, union purposes of collective bargaining or for dealing with employers concerning terms and
membership and collective bargaining – conditions of employment.
(1) between and among legitimate labor organizations; The matter of venue becomes problematic when the intra-union dispute involves a
(2) between and among members of a union or workers’ association. federation, because the geographical presence of a federation may encompass more than
Section 2. Coverage. – Other related labor relations disputes shall include any conflict one administrative region. Pursuant to its authority under Article 226, this Bureau
between a labor union and the employer or any individual, entity or group that is not a exercises original jurisdiction over intra-union disputes involving federations. It is well-
labor organization or workers’ association. This includes: (1) cancellation of registration of settled that FFW, having local unions all over the country, operates in more than one
unions and workers’ associations; and (2) a petition for interpleader. administrative region. Therefore, this Bureau maintains original and exclusive jurisdiction
It is clear from the foregoing that the issues raised by petitioners do not fall under any of over disputes arising from any violation of or disagreement over any provision of its
the aforementioned circumstances constituting an intra-union dispute. More importantly, constitution and by-laws.
the petitioners do not seek a determination of whether it is the Facundo group (EUBP) or 23 DIOKNO VS. CACDAC
the Remigio group (REUBP) which is the true set of union officers. Instead, the issue JULY 4, 2007
raised pertained only to the validity of the acts of management in light of the fact that it
still has an existing CBA with EUBP. Facts: The First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees (FLAMES) is a
22 MONTANO VS. VERCELES legitimate labor organization which is the supervisory union of Meralco. Petitioners and
JULY 26, 2010 private respondents are members of FLAMES.
On 1 April 2003, the FLAMES Executive Board created the Committee on Election
Facts: Atty. Montaño worked as legal assistant of FFW Legal Center on October 1, (COMELEC) for the conduct of its union elections scheduled on 7 May 2003. The COMELEC
1994.Subsequently, he joined the union of rank-and-file employees, the FFW Staff was composed of petitioner Dante M. Tong as its chairman, and petitioners Jaime C.

10
Mendoza and Romeo M. Macapulay as members. Private responded edgardo daya and involving members of the union. Moreover, the non-members of the union who were
others are candidates for the said elections but was disqualified because the COMELEC alleged to have aided private respondents Daya, et al., are not parties in the case.
held that daya and his group allowed themselves to be assisted by other unions the
Meralco Savings and Loan Association (MESALA) and the Meralco Mutual Aid and Benefits
Association (MEMABA) and exerted undue influence on the members of FLAMES. Daya and
other private respondents filed a petition to nullify the election before the med arbiter. The
petitioner members of comelec assails the jurisdiction of BLR because of the failure of
private respondents Daya, et al., to exhaust administrative remedies within the union. It is
the stance of petitioner that Article 226 of the Labor Code which grants power to the BLR
to resolve inter-union and intra-union disputes is dead law, and has been amended by
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6715, whereby the conciliation, mediation and voluntary
arbitration functions of the BLR had been transferred to the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board.
Issue: Whether BLR has jurisdiction
Held: Yes. ART. 226. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS. – The Bureau of Labor Relations and
the Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor shall have
original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or
both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or
problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces whether
agricultural or nonagricultural, except those arising from the implementation or
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance
procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on labor cases before it, subject to
extension by agreement of the parties. 24 Pepsi Cola Sales and Advertising Union vs Sec. of Labor, 211 SCRA 843
The amendment to Article 226, as couched in Republic Act No. 6715, which is relied upon Facts:
by petitioners in arguing that the BLR had been divested of its jurisdiction, simply reads, • From 1964 until sometime about 1985, Alisasis was an employee of the Pepsi-Cola
thus: Bottling Co., Inc. and later, of the Pepsi-Cola Products (Philippines) Inc., after the latter
Sec. 14. The second paragraph of Article 226 of the same Code is likewise hereby had bought out the former. 4 He was also a member of the labor organization of all regular
amended to read as follows:
route and truck salesmen and truck helpers of the company — the Pepsi Cola Sales &
"The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) calendar days to act on labor cases before it, subject
Advertising Union (PSAU)
to extension by agreement of the parties."
• During the entire period of his employment, there were regularly deducted from his
This Court in Bautista v. Court of Appeals, interpreting Article 226 of the Labor Code, was
wages the amounts corresponding to union dues as well as contributions to the fund of
explicit in declaring that the BLR has the original and exclusive jurisdiction on all inter-
union and intra-union conflicts. We said that since Article 226 of the Labor Code has the Mutual Aid Plan. 6
declared that the BLR shall have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-union • On May 7, 1986, Alisasis filed with the NLRC Arbitration Branch, Capital Region, Manila,
and intra-union conflicts, there should be no more doubt as to its jurisdiction. As defined, a complaint for illegal dismissal against Pepsi-Cola, Inc. 7
an intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or inside a labor union, while an •LA ruled in favor of the private respondent.
inter-union controversy or dispute is one occurring or carried on between or among • NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA for the deletion of the reinstatement.
unions. More specifically, an intra-union dispute is defined under Section (z), Rule I of the Issue: whether or not the case at bar is within the original jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter
Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code, viz: of the Bureau of Labor Relations?
(z) "Intra-Union Dispute" refers to any conflict between and among union members, and Ruling:
includes all disputes or grievances arising from any violation of or disagreement over any The jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations and its Divisions is set forth in the first
provision of the constitution and by-laws of a union, including cases arising from paragraph of Article 226 of the Labor Code, as amended, viz.:
chartering or affiliation of labor organizations or from any violation of the rights and Art. 226. Bureau of Labor Relations. — The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor
conditions of union membership provided for in the Code. Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor shall have original
The controversy in the case at bar is an intra-union dispute. There is no question that this and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both
is one which involves a dispute within or inside FLAMES, a labor union. At issue is the parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or
propriety of the disqualification of private respondents Daya, et al., by the FLAMES problems arising from or affecting labor management relations in all workplaces whether
COMELEC in the 7 May 2003 elections. It must also be stressed that even as the dispute agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or
involves allegations that private respondents Daya, et al., sought the help of non- interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance
members of the union in their election campaign to the detriment of FLAMES, the same procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
does not detract from the real character of the controversy. It remains as one which xxx xxx xxx
involves the grievance over the constitution and bylaws of a union, and it is a controversy It is evident that the case at bar does not concern a dispute, grievance or problem "arising
from or affecting labor-management relations." So, if it is to be deemed as coming within
11
the Med-Arbiter's jurisdiction, it will have to be as either an "intra-union" or "inter-union" to review the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations on appeals in cancellation cases
conflict. emanating from the Regional Offices.
No definition is given by law of these precise terms, "intra-union and inter-union Issue:
conflicts." It is known, however, that "intra-" and "inter-" are both combining forms, Whether or not the secretary of labor has the authority to review the decision of the
prefixes — the first, "intra-," meaning "within, inside of [intramural, intravenous];" and Bureau of Labor Relations
the other, "inter-, denoting "1. between or among: the second element is singular in form Ruling:
[interstate] 2. with or on each other (or one another), together, mutual, reciprocal, We find no merit in this petition.
mutually, or reciprocally [interact]." 18 An intra-union conflict would therefore refer to a Sec. 4. Action on the petition; appeals. — The Regional or Bureau Director, as the case
conflict within or inside a labor union conflict would therefore refer to a conflict within or may be, shall have thirty (30) days from submission of the case for resolution within
inside a labor union, and an inter-union controversy or dispute, one occurring or carried which to resolve the petition. The decision of the Regional or Bureau Director may be
on between or among unions. In this sense, the controversy between Alisasis and his appealed to the Bureau or the Secretary, as the case may be, within ten (10) days from
union, PSAU — respecting the former's rights under the latter's "Mutual Aid Plan" — would receipt thereof by the aggrieved party on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or any
be an intra-union conflict under Article 226 of the Labor Code and hence, within the violation of these Rules.
exclusive, original jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter of the Bureau of Labor Relations whose The Bureau or the Secretary shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the records of the
decision, it may additionally be mentioned, is appealable to the Secretary of Labor. case within which to decide the appeal. The decision of the Bureau or the Secretary shall
Certainly, said controversy is not one of those within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters be final and executory.
in accordance with Article 217 of the Code, it not being an unfair labor practice case, or a Clearly, the Secretary of Labor and Employment has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal
termination dispute, or one involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms of ABBOTT. The appellate jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is limited
and conditions of employment (which is "accompanied with a claim for reinstatement"), or only to a review of cancellation proceedings decided by the Bureau of labor Relations in
one for damages arising from the employer-employee relations, or one for a violation of the exercise of its exclusive and original jurisdiction. The Secretary of Labor and
Article 264 of the Code, or any other claim arising from employer-employee relations, or Employment has no jurisdiction over decisions of the Bureau of Labor Relations rendered
from the interpretation or implementation of a collective bargaining agreement or in the exercise of its appellate power to review the decision of the Regional Director in a
of company personnel policies. petition to cancel the union's certificate of registration, said decisions being final and
inappealable.16
25 Abbott Laboratories Phils, Inc. vs Abbott Laboratories Employees Union, 323
SCRA 392 26 Phil. National Construction Corp. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 95816, October 27, 1992)
Facts:
Facts:123ABBOTT is a corporation engaged in the manufacture Petitioner Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC for brevity) is a
and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs. On 22 February 1996,4 the Abbott government owned and controlled corporation engaged in general construction work both
Laboratories Employees Union (hereafter ALEU) filed an application for union registration in the Philippines and abroad
Sometime in February, 1989, PNCC embarked upon a retrenchment program and notified
in the Department of Labor and Employment. ALEU alleged in the application that it is a
its employees, including the private respondents, through individual form letters.
labor organization with members consisting of 30 rank-and-file employees in the
Believing that they had been underpaid their separation benefits, the private respondent
manufacturing unit of ABBOTT and that there was no certified bargaining agent in the unit
filed four (4) separate complaints in the NLRC for the payment of said benefits.
it sought to represent, namely, the manufacturing unit.
On 28 February 1996,5 application was approved by the Bureau of Labor Relations. During the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, it was established that, except for
On 2 April 1996,6 ABBOTT filed a petition for cancellation of the Certificate of Registration respondent Egmedio Arines, the other respondents had been assigned to foreign projects
No. NCR-UR-2-1638-96 in the Regional Office of the Bureau of Labor Relations. . of the company. Under the "Agreement for Overseas Assignment," a temporary foreign
assignment would not interrupt the employees length of service in the company or in any
On 21 June 1996,7 the Regional Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations decreed the
employee who completed his foreign assignment would be credited 1.5 years of service for
cancellation of ALEU's registration certificate No. NCR-UR-11-1585-95.89 It ruled that the
every year of continuous service in such foreign assignment.
union has failed to show that the rank-and-file employees in the manufacturing unit of
In a decision dated November 19, 1989, the Labor Arbiter ruled that in providing a
ABBOTT were bound by a common interest to justify the formation of a bargaining
retrenchment program for its employees, the PNCC expressly admitted that respondents
unit separate from those belonging to the sales and office staff units Forthwith, on 19
were not project employees. Hence, pursuant to the provision of the retrenchment
August 1996,10 ALEU appealed said cancellation to the Office of the Secretary of Labor program that employees with more than (10) years of credited service shall receive
and Employment, which referred the same to the Director of the Bureau of the Labor separation benefits equivalent to 125% of the latest monthly basic salary for each year of
Relations. service, the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment of the separation benefits
On 31 March 1997,11 The Bureau of Labor Relations rendered judgment reversing the 21 On appeal to NLRC, the commission affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and
June 1996 decision of the Regional Director. dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Its motion to reconsider the 31 March 1997 decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations Issue: Whether or not respondents are project employees, hence, they are not entitiled to
having been denied for lack of merit in the Order13 of 9 July 1997, ABBOTT appealed to separation pay.
the Secretary of Labor and Employment. However, 14 the Secretary of Labor and The petition is bereft of merits.
Employment refused to act on ABBOTT's appeal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction Indeed, if the private respondents were project employees, the petitioner should have
submitted a report their termination to the nearest public employment office everytime
12
their employment was terminated due to the completion of the project, as required under jurisdiction over issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if
Policy Instruction No. 20 which provides: there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud,
Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as the result misrepresentation or coercion.
of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are employed, The petitioners cannot renege on their agreement simply because they may now feel they
regardless of the number of projects in which they have been employed by a particular made a mistake in not awaiting the resolution of the private respondent's motion for
construction company. Moreover, the company is not required to obtain a clearance from reconsideration and recomputation. The possibility that the original award might have
the Secretary of Labor in connection which such termination. What is required of the been affirmed does not justify the invalidation of the perfectly valid compromise
company is a report to the nearest Public Employment Office for the statistical purposes. agreements they had entered into in good faith and with full voluntariness.
(PNCC vs. NLRC, 174 SCRA 191; Magante vs. NLRC, 185 SCRA 21, 28.) WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
The termination letter which PNCC sent to each of the private respondents expressly
promised them separation benefits. As observed by the Labor Arbiter, this is an express 28 Union of Filipino Workers v. NLRC, 207 SCRA 435 (92) G.R. No. 90519 March
admission by the petitioner that the private respondents are not project employees for, as 23, 1992
provided in Policy Instruction No. 20, "project employees are not entitled to termination Facts:
pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase On 4 September 1987, a Petition for Direct Certification among the rank-and-
thereof in which they are employed." file workers of SIMEX was filed before the Med Arbiter. These workers subsequently
The fact that the respondent-employees signed quitclaims will not bar them for pursuing affiliated with petitioner Union of Filipino Workers (UFW).
their claims against the company for quitclaims executed by laborers are frowned upon as On 19 September 1987, thirty-six (36) workers of the "lumpia" department were not
contrary to public policy, and are ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the given their usual working materials and equipment for that day and, instead, were asked
worker's legal rights (Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA
to clean their respective working areas. Since these workers were employed on a "pakiao"
179).
basis, they refused. Nevertheless, they still reported for work on 21 September 1987 but
27 Veloso v. DOLE, 200 SCRA 201 (91) to their surprise, they found out that SIMEX had removed all materials and equipments
Facts: from their workplaces. The Union claims that its members were, therefore, effectively
The petitioners claim that they were forced to sign their respective releases in favor of locked out.
their employer, the herein private respondent, by reason of their dire necessity. The From 1 October 1987 to 7 October 1987, sixteen (16) more workers from the other
latter, for its part, insists that the petitioner entered into the compromise departments were similarly refused employment. As a consequence, these workers,
agreement freely and with open eyes and should not now be permitted to reject their through UFW, instituted a Complaint for Unfair Labor Practices and violation of labor
solemn commitments. standard laws against SIMEX
The controversy began when the petitioners, along with several co-employees, filed a On 27 June 1988, the Labor Arbiter rendered his verdict declaring that the closure of
SIMEX was a mere subterfuge in order to discourage the formation of the union.
complaint against the private respondent for unfair labor practices, underpayment, and
Issue:Whether or not a compromise had been reached by the parties
non-payment of overtime, holiday, and other benefits. This was decided in favor of the
We incline to the view that no valid compromise agreement was arrived at in this case.
complainants on October 6,1987. The motion for reconsideration, which was treated as an
Sec. 8. Compromise Agreement. — Should the party arrive at an agreement as to the
appeal, was dismissed in a resolution dated February 17, 1988.
whole or part of the dispute, said agreement shall be reduced [to] writing and signed by
On February 23, 1988, the private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and
the parties in the presence of the regional director or his duly authorized representative.
recomputation of the amount awarded to the petitioners. On April 15, 1988, while the
The questioned "Acknowledgment Receipt and Undertaking" did not comply with this
motion was pending, petitioner Alfredo Veloso, through hiswife Connie, signed a Quitclaim requisite. It was not, therefore, duly executed.
and Release for and in consideration of P25,000.00, 1 These releases were later impugned No evidence was adduced that would show that the aforementioned counsel for UFW was
by the petitioners on September 20, 1988, on the ground that they were constrained to authorized to enter into a compromise. Correspondingly, he cannot release and discharge
sign the documents because of their "extreme necessity . SIMEX and the SANTANDERs from their obligation. A perusal of the "Acknowledgment
Reconsideration of the order having been denied on March 7, 1989, the petitioners have Receipt and Undertaking" reveals that no representative of UFW signed the alleged
come to this Court oncertiorari. They ask that the quitclaims they have signed be settlement.
annulled and that writs of execution be issued for the sum of P21,267.92 in favor of The fact that said counsel undertook to obtain the signatures of the proper officers of UFW
Veloso and the sum of P26,267.92 in favor of Liguaton in settlement of their claims. shows that his action was still subject to ratification by the union members. This
Issue: confirmation was never secured as shown by the fact that no motion for the dismissal of
Whether or not the signed quitclaim and release were valid? the case at bar had been filed by UFW or on its behalf "in order to implement the full and
Ruling: final settlement of said case.

The applicable law is Article 227 of the Labor Code providing clearly as follows: 29 AG & P Co. of Mla. V. NLRC (G.R. No. 127516, May 28, 1999
Art. 227. Compromise agreements. — Any compromise settlement, including those 30 Magbanua vs. Uy, May 6, 2005
involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance 31 Philippine Journalists Inc. v. NLRC, September 22, 2008
of the Bureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and binding Facts:
upon the parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or any court shall not assume

13
In NLRC’s Resolution dated May 31, 2001, petitioner Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI) was there was no basis for the implementation of petitioners' retrenchment program.To
adjudged liable in the total reiterate, the rule is that when judgment is rendered based on a compromise agreement,
amount of P6,447,008.57 for illegally dismissing 31 complainants-employees and the judgmentbecomes immediately executory, there being an implied waiver of the
that there was no basis for theimplementation of petitioner's retrenchment parties' right to appeal from thedecision. The judgment having become final, the Court
program.Thereafter, the parties executed a Compromise Agreement dated July 9, 2001, can no longer reverse, much less modify it
where PJI undertook to reinstate the31 complainant-employees effective July 1, 2001
without loss of seniority rights and benefits; 17 of them who werepreviously retrenched 32 San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119293, June 10, 2003
were agreed to be given full and complete payment of their respective monetary claims, FACTS:
while14 others would be paid their monetary claims minus what they received by way of Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and respondent Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa
separation pay.The compromise agreement was submitted to the NLRC for approval. All (IBM), exclusive bargaining agent of petitioner’s daily
the employees mentioned in the agreementand in the NLRC Resolution affixed -paid rank and file employees, executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) under
their signatures thereon. They likewise signed the Joint Manifesto andDeclaration of which theyagreed to submit all disputes to grievance and arbitration proceedings.
Mutual Support and Cooperation which had also been submitted for the consideration of 2.The CBA also included a mutually enforceable no-strike no-lockout agreement.
the labortribunal.The NLRC forthwith issued another Resolution on July 25, 2002, which 3.On April 11, 1994, IBM, through its vice-president Alfredo Colomeda, filed with the
among others declared that the compromiseagreement was approved and NCMB-NCR-NS- National Conciliation and MediationBoard (NCMB) a notice of strike against petitioner
03-087-00 was deemed closed and terminated.In the meantime, however, the Union filed for allegedly committing:
another Notice of Strike on July 1, 2002. In an Order dated September 16,2002, the DOLE 1) illegal dismissal of union members, (2)illegal transfer, (3) violation of CBA,
Secretary certified the case to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. The case was (4) contracting out of jobs being performed by union members, (5) labor-onlycontracting,
docketedas NCMB-NCR- NS-07-251-02.In its Resolution dated July 31, 2003, the NLRC (6) harassment of union officers and members,
ruled that the complainants were not illegally dismissed. The May 31,2001 Resolution (7)on-recognition of duly-elected union officers, and (8)other acts of unfair labor practice.
declaring the retrenchment program illegal did not attain finality as "it had been 4.The next day, IBM filed another notice of strike, this time through its president Edilberto
academically mootedby the compromise agreement entered into between both parties on Galvez, raising similar grounds:(1) illegal transfer, (2) labor-only contracting, (3)
July 9, 2001."The Union assailed the ruling of the NLRC before the CA via petition for violation of CBA, (4) dismissal of union officers and members, and (5)other acts of unfair
certiorari under Rule 65. In its Decision datedAugust 17, 2004, the appellate court held labor practice
that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling for PJI. Thecompromise agreement .5.The Galvez group subsequently requested the NCMB to consolidate its notice of strike
referred only to the award given by the NLRC to the complainants in the said case, that with that of the Colomeda group,to which the latter opposed, alleging Galvez’s lack of
is,the obligation of the employer to the complainants. The CA pointed out that the NLRC authority in filing the same.
Resolution neverthelessdeclared that respondent failed to prove the validity of its 6.Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Severance of Notices of Strike with Motion to
retrenchment program, which according to it, stands evenafter the compromise Dismiss, on the grounds that thenotices raised non-strikeable issues and that they
agreement was executed; it was the reason why the agreement was reached in the first affected four corporations which are separate and distinct from eachother.
place 7.After several conciliation meetings, NCMB Director Reynaldo Ubaldo found that the
Issues: real issues involved are non-strikeable(illegal dismissal, labor only contracting and internal
. Whether or not the the NLRC of the agreement forged between it and the respondent Uni union disputes).
on did not render the NLRC resolution ineffectual, nor rendered it 8.Hence on May 2, 1994, he issued separate letter-orders to both union groups,
"moot and academic.” converting their notices of strike intopreventive mediation.
Held: 9.while separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing, the Colomeda group
Contrary to the allegation of petitioners, the execution and subsequent approval by the filed with the NCMB a notice of holding a strike vote.
NLRC of theagreement forged between it and the respondent Union did not render the 10.Petitioner opposed by filing a Manifestation and Motion to Declare Notice of Strike Vote
NLRC resolution ineffectual, norrendered it "moot and academic." The agreement becomes Illegal.
part of the judgment of the court or tribunal, andas a logical consequence, there is an
implicit waiver of the right to appeal.In any event, the compromise agreement cannot
bind a party who did not voluntarily take part in thesettlement itself and gave specific
individual consent. It must be remembered that a compromise agreementis also a ISSUE#1: Whether there was violation of the no-strike provision in the CBA?
contract; it requires the consent of the parties, and it is only then that the agreement may HELD. NO. Jurisprudence has enunciated that such clauses only bar strikes which are
beconsidered as voluntarily entered into.A careful perusal of the wordings of the economic in nature, but not strikesgrounded on unfair labor practices.
compromise agreement will show that the parties agreed that theonly issue to be resolved
was the question of the monetary claim of several employees. The agreement waslater The notices filed in the case at bar alleged unfair labor practices, the initial determination
approved by the NLRC. The case was considered closed and terminated and the Resolution of which would entail fact-finding that is best left for the labor arbiters. Nevertheless,
dated May31, 2001 fully implemented insofar as the employees "mentioned in paragraphs our finding herein (as discussed below) of the invalidity of the notices of strike dispenses
2c and 2d of thecompromise agreement" were concerned. Hence, the CA was correct in with the need to discuss this issue.
holding that the compromiseagreement pertained only to the "monetary obligation" of the
employer to the dismissed employees, and inno way affected the Resolution in NCMB- 33 Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International vs. Secretary
NCR-NS-03-087-00 dated May 31, 2001 where the NLRC madethe pronouncement that of Labor, G.R. No. 167401, July 5, 2010

14
 34 International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs, Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 92981- interest” as it cannot be in the same category as “generation and distribution of energy, or
83 those undertaken by banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries.” 13 Yet, the public
35 UST v. NLRC and UST Faculty Union, G.R. No. 89920, October 18, 1990 respondent assumed jurisdiction thereover.
a. Power to suspend effects of termination (former 277 B, last sentence) To uphold the action of the public respondent under the premises would be stretching too
Grounds? far the power of the Secretary of Labor as every case of a strike or lockout where there
Rationale? are inconveniences in the community, or work disruptions in an industry though not
Reinstatement pending resolution of the termination dispute? indispensable to the national interest, would then come within the Secretary’s power. It
Who are the appropriate officials under former 277 b would be practically allowing the Secretary of Labor to intervene in any Labor dispute at
b. Arrest and Detention (Art. 279) his pleasure.
c. Contempt powers (Art. 231) This is precisely why the law sets and defines the standard: even in the exercise of his
d. Original and Appellate powers power of compulsory arbitration under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary
36 Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW vs CA, 348 SCRA must follow the law.
565 PETITION GRANTED.
37 Phimco Industries, Inc vs Brillantes, 304 SCRA 747 G.R. No. 120751
March 17, 1999
FACTS: On March 9, 1995, the private respondent, Phimco Industries Labor Association 38 National Federation of Labor vs. LAguesma, 304 SCRA 405
(PILA), duly certified collective bargaining representative of the daily paid workers of the
petitioner PHIMCO filed a notice of strike with the NCMB against PHIMCO, a corporation 2. DOLE Regional Director
engaged in the production of matches, after a deadlock in the collective bargaining and a. Small money claims under Article 129
negotiation. Parties failed to resolve their differences PILA (during the conciliation b. Claims that may be recovered? Requisites for the valid exercise of
conferences), composed of 352 members, staged a strike. jurisdiction by DOLE regional directors or hearing officers under Article 129
PHIMCO sent notice of termination to some 47 workers including several union officers. c. Jurisdiction when total money claims exceeds 5,000?
Secretary Brillantes assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute; issued a return-to-work d. When claim does not exceed 5000 but employee prays for reinstatement
order. e. Effect of claiming separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as an alternative
Hence, petitioner files this petition. remedy
ISSUE: whether or not the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion f. Employment relationship should no longer exist at the time of the initiation
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in assuming jurisdiction over subject labor of the complaint for money claim, otherwise?
dispute. g. Appeals from decision of DOLE regional director under Article 129?
HELD: YES, the petition is impressed with merit. h. How many days? Grounds for appeal and requisites for appeal are similar to
Art. 263, paragraph (g) of the Labor Code, provides: those from LA to NLRC
(g) When, in his opinion, there exist a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or i. Visitorial and enforcement power Art. 128
lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and 39 Maternity Children’s Hopsital vs. Sec of Labor, 174 SCRA 632
Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to FACTS:
the Commission for compulsory arbitration . . .
The Labor Code vests in the Secretary of Labor the discretion to determine what industries Petitioner is a semi-government hospital , managed by the Board of Directors of the
are indispensable to the national interest. Accordingly, upon the determination by the Cagayan de Oro Women’s Club and Puericulture Center. The hospital derives its finances
Secretary of Labor that such industry is indispensable to the national interest, he will from the club itself as well as from paying patients, averaging 130 per month. It is also
assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute in the said industry. 8 This power, however, is partly subsidized by the PCSO and the CDO City government. Petitioner has 41
not without any limitation. employees. Aside from salary and living allowances, the employees are given food but
It stressed in the case of Free telephone Workers Union vs. Honorable Minister of Labor the amount spent therefor is deducted from their respective salaries.
and Employment, et al., 10 the limitation set by the legislature on the power of the
Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute, thus: On May 23, 1986, 10 employees of the petitioner employed in different
xxx cannot be any clearer, the coverage being limited to “strikes or lockouts adversely capacities/positions filed a complaint with the Office of the Regional Director of Labor and
affecting the national interest. 11 Employment in Region X for underpayment of their salaries and ECOLAS. The Regional
In this case at bar, however, the very admission by the public respondent draws the labor Director then directed 2 of his Labor Standar and Welfare Officers to inspect the records of
dispute in question out of the ambit of the Secretary’s prerogative, to wit. the petitioner to ascertain the truth of the allegations. They submitted a report confirming
While the case at bar appears on its face not to fall within the strict categorization of cases that there was underpayment of wages and ECOLAS of all the employees by the
imbued with “national interest”, this office believes that theobtaining circumstances petitioner. The Regional Director issued an Order directing the payment of P723,888.58
warrant the exercise of the powers under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, as representing the underpayment of wages and ECOLAS to all the petitioner’s employees.
amended. 12 Petitioner appealed to the Minister of Labor and Employment who rendered a Decision
The private respondent did not even make any effort to touch on the indispensability of modifying the said Order. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied
the match factory to the national interest. It must have been aware that a match factory, by the Secretary of Labor.
though of value, can scarcely be considered as an industry “indispensable to the national

15
ISSUE: by the duly authorizedrepresentative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under this
article may be appealed to the latter.In casesaid order involves a monetary award, an
WON the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the case. appealby theemployer may be perfected only upon theposting of a cash or surety bond
issued by areputable bondingcompany duly accredited bytheSecretary of Labor
HELD: andEmployment in theamount equivalent to themonetary award in theorder appealed
from. (Emphasis supplied.)The records of the House of Representativesshow that
The present case is a labor standards case governed by Art. 128-b of the Labor Code as CongressmenAlbertoS. VelosoandEriberto V. Loretosponsored the law.In hissponsorship
amended by E.O. No. 111. Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements speech, Congressman Velosocategorically declared that "this bill seeksto doaway with the
prescribed by existing laws, rules and regulations relating to wages, hours of work, cost of jurisdictional limitations imposedthrough said ruling (referring toServando) andtofinally
living allowance and other monetary and welfare benefits, including occupational, safety settle any lingering doubts on thevisitorial and enforcement powers of theSecretary of
and health standards. Under the present rules, a Regional Director exercises both Labor andEmployment."Petitioner's reliance on Servandois thus untenable
visitorial and enforcement power over labor standard cases, and is therefore empowered
to adjudicate money claims, provided there still exists an employer-employee relationship
and the findings of the regional office is not contested by the employer concerned. 3. Grievance Machinery
a. Jurisdiction?
b. Period to resolve grievance machinery?
40 Odin Security Agencty vs Dela Serna 182 SCRA 472 42 Master iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 47
41 Guico vs. Quisumbing, 298 SCRA 666 43 San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC 304 SCRA 1
Facts:
The case started when the Office of theRegional Director, Department of 4. Voluntary Arbitrator
Labor andEmployment (DOLE),RegionI,San Fernando,La Union, received a letter- (NCMB Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration)
complaint datedApril25, 1995, requesting for aninvestigation of petitioner's establishment, NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary
CopylandiaServices &Trading, for violation of labor standardslaws.Pursuant to the visitorial Arbitration Proceedings (Oct. 15, 2004)
andenforcement powers of theSecretary of Labor andEmployment or hisduly DOLE Circular No. 1
authorizedrepresentative underArticle 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, inspections a. Types of voluntary arbitrator
wereconductedat Copylandia's outlets onApril 27 and May 2,1995. The inspections yielded b. Where to file pleadings/ service/ representations/ limitation on authority to
thefollowingviolations involving twenty-one (21)employees who are copier operators: bind party/
(1)underpayment of wages; (2)underpayment of 13th month pay; and (3) no service c. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators
incentiveleave with pay. 1. Original and exclusive (6) unresolved grievances arising from
Issue: interpretation or implementation or CBA
WON the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the labor standards case 2. company personnel policies,
3. violations of CBA which are not gross in character,
4. wage distortion arising from the application of any wage orders in
organized establishments,
Held: 5. Other labor disputes including ULP and bargaining deadlocks, upon
Regional Director has jurisdiction over thecase citingArticle 128 (b) of the Labor Code, agreement of the parties.
asamended. 6. Termination dispute, is it a grievable issue?
44 Landlex Industries v. CA, G.R. No. 150278, August 9, 2007
We sustain the jurisdiction of therespondentSecretary.As the respondentcorrectly pointed
out, this Court'srulinginServando that the visitorial power of theSecretary of Labor to FACTS:
order and enforcecompliance withlabor standard laws cannot beexercised where the Ayson worked for Landtex, a business enterprise engaged in the manufacture of garments
individual claimexceedsP5,000.00, can no longer beapplied inview of the enactment of managed by William Go, for almost 17 years. He was an officer of the union which had an
R.A. No. 7730amendingArticle 128(b) of the Labor Code,viz: Art. 128 (b) existing CBA with Landtex. On March 1996, Ayson received a letter from the company
Notwithstanding the provisionsof Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to thecontrary, and which stated that he committed acts contrary to company policies. He was then asked to
incases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists, theSecretary of explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. There held two meeting
Labor andEmployment orhis duly authorizedrepresentatives shall have the power to between Ayson and the company but on the second time, the former refused to sign the
issuecompliance orders to give effect to thelabor standards provisions of the Code and attendance sheet or participate. On June 1996, through a letter, terminated Ayson’s
other labor legislation based on the findings of thelaboremployment and enforcement services. Together with the union, Ayson filed a complaint before the LA. In his position
officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection.TheSecretary or his paper, Ayson asked whether his dismissal from employment has any just cause.
duly authorizedrepresentatives shall issue writs of execution tothe appropriateauthority for The LA ruled in favor of Ayson whose decision was imputed by the petitioners insisting
the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings that the LA had no jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter. The NLRC set
ofthe labor employmentand enforcement officer and raises issuessupported by aside the decision of the LA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
documentary proofs whichwere notconsidered in the course of inspection. An order issued

16
On appeal, the Casustained the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and modified the award in bad blood between Artajo and Timbal) >>> Disloyalty Board nonetheless recommended
favor of Ayson. the expulsion of Timbal from membership in ALU, and likewise her dismissal from Del
Monte in accordance with the Union Security Clause in the existing CBA >>> ALU Regional
ISSUE: WON there is a valid ground for termination of the employment of Ayson.
VP adopted recommendations >>> ALU President affirmed the expulsion. Del Monte
RULING: Procedural due process in the dismissal of employees requires notice and terminated Timbal and her co-employees, noting that thetermination was "upon demand
hearing. The employer must furnish the employee two written notices before termination of ALU. Timbal and her co-employees filed separate complaints against Del Monte and/or
may be effected. The first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions itsPersonnel Manager Warfredo C. Balandra and ALU with the Regional ArbitrationBranch
for which his dismissal is sought, while the second notice informs the employee of the (RAB) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
employer’s decision to dismiss him. In the present case, Landtex more than complied with practice and damages. The Labor Arbiter affirmed that all five were illegally dismissed and
the two-notice rule. ordered DelMonte to reinstate complainants, to their former positions and to pay their full
backwages and other allowances >>> NLRC: all validly dismissed >>> CA: all,except
The requirement of a hearing, on the other hand, is complied with as long as there was an
opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. In the Timbal, validly dismissed .Before the Labor Arbiter, Del Monte presented its cross-claim
present case, Landtex scheduled three meetings before terminating Ayson. However, against ALU for reimbursement should it be made liable for illegal dismissal or unfair labor
Landtex failed to understand the law’s purpose in requiring the opportunity to be heard. practicepursuant to the union security clause.LA ruled that it cannot validly entertain
Landtex scheduled meetings with Ayson but these meetings were not free from the cross-claims of respondent DMPI andTabusuares against the respondent ALU-TUCP
arbitrariness. Ayson could not adequately defend himself from Landtex’s and William because of the absence of employer-employee relationship between the two
Go’s accusations. No witness was ever presented against Ayson, hence Ayson could
not test the veracity of their claims.

Landtex and William Go failed to observe due process in terminating Ayson. They likewise
failed to establish that Ayson’s termination was for a just cause. Thus, we rule that ISSUE:WoN the Labor Arbiter could properly pass judgment on the cross-claim
Landtex and William Go illegally dismissed Ayson.

7. Money claims cases? Jurisdiction over the same? (Art. 224 (c)
45 Del Monte vs. Saldivar, G.R. No. 158620, Oct. 11, 2006 HELD: NO.

The Labor Arbiter refused to exercise jurisdiction over Del Monte's cross-claim •The law precludes the Labor Arbiter from enforcing money claims arising from
(for restitution by ALU should the company be held financially liable for dismissals). The theimplementation of the CBA
CA agreed with the LA. The SC held that the law precludes the LA from enforcing money
claims arisingfrom the implementation of the CBA. Moreover, there is a provision in the •Del Monte and ALU expressly recognized the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators in
CBA that states tha tVoluntary Arbitrators have exclusive jurisdiction. theCBA

FACTS:- •Article 217 of the Labor Code sets forth the original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
Incontrast, Article 261 of the Labor Code indubitably vests on the Voluntary Arbitrator
Associated Labor Union (ALU) is the exclusive bargaining agent of plantation workersof or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators the "original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
petitioner Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (Del Monte) in Bukidnon. Respondent decideall unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation
Timbal was a rank-and-file employee of Del Monte and also amember of ALU Del Monte of theCollective Bargaining Agreement." Among those areas of conflict traditionally within
and ALU entered into a CBA. Section 5 of the CBA stipulated that "ALU assumes full the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators are
responsibility of any
such termination of any member of the bargaining unit who loses hismembership in ALU contract-interpretation and contract-implementation
and agrees to hold Del Monte free from any liability
by judgment of a competent authority for claims arising out of dismissals madeupon , the questions precisely involved in Del Monte’s claim.
demand of ALU, and latter shall reimburse the former of such sums as itshall have paid
therefore. •In reconcilingthe grants of jurisdiction vested under Articles 261 and 217 of the
Labor Code, the Court has pronounced that "the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
1Timbal, along with four other employees (collectively, co employees), were charged theLabor Arbiter under Article 217(c) for money claims is limited only to those arising
by ALU for disloyalty to the union (for encouragingdefections to a rival union, NFL). fromstatutes or contracts
They allegedly attended seminars. Disloyalty Board Affidavit of Artajo (turns out there is
other than a Collective Bargaining Agreement
17
. The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators will have original and exclusive
jurisdictionover money claims 'arising from the interpretation or implementation of the
CollectiveBargaining Agreement and, those arising from the interpretation or enforcement HELD: Article 262-A of the Labor Code does not prohibit the filing of a motion for
of company personnel policies', under Article 261 reconsideration.

On March 21, 1989, Republic Act No. 6715 took effect, amending, among others, Article
263 of the Labor Code which was originally wordedas: Art. 263.Voluntary arbitration
d. Referral to voluntary arbitrators awards or decisions
e. Concurrent Jurisdiction
f. When Jurisdiction is exercised. shall be final, unappealable, and executory. As amended, Article 263 is now Article 262-A,
g. Enforcement of Decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators. How?
which states: Art. 262-A. . [T]he award or decision . . . shall contain the facts and the law
h. Powers and duties of voluntary arbitrators?
i. May DOLE Secretary act as Voluntary Arbitrator? on which it is based.
a. Administrative Intervention for Dispute Avoidance (AIDA) No. 1 DOLE
Circular No. 1, Series of 2006 It shall be final andexecutory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the
b. Parties who may request for the Dole Secretary’s Intervention award or decision by the parties. Notably, Article 262-A deleted the word
c. Potential or ongoing dispute "unappealable"from Article 263. The deliberate selection of the language in the
d. Pre-requisite to intervention by the DOLE Secretary amendatory act differing from that of the original act indicates that the legislature
e. DOLE Regional Directors and Assistant Directors May act as EX-officio
intended a change in the law, and the court should endeavor to give effect to such intent .
Voluntary Arbitrators (Department Order No. 83-07 Series of 2007, June
8, 2007)
j. Philippine Arbitration Law, not applicable to labor case
k. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, not applicable to labor cases.
l. Initiation of arbitration, when? Ludo & Luym Corp. vs Saordino, 395 SCRA 451
m. Submission agreement, defined.
n. Contents of a submission agreement? FACTS: Petitioner LUDO operates a manufacturing plant and a wharf where raw materials
o. Notice to Arbitrate, define. and finished products are shipped out.LUDO engaged the arrastre services of Cresencio Lu
p. Submission to arbitration through Notice to Arbitrate Arrastre Services (CLAS) for the loading and unloading of its finished products at the
q. Procedure? Contents of a Notice to Arbitrate
wharf. Accordingly, several arrastre workers were deployed by CLAS to perform the
r. Submission Agreement vs Notice to Arbitrate?
services needed by LUDO.
s. Proceedings before voluntary arbitrator (nature, initial conference, effect of
non appearance, submission of position papers and other pleadings,
decision, period to render decision, sanction for failure to comply with the These arrastre workers were subsequently hired, as regular rank-and-file employees of
period to decide, finality of decision, motion for reconsideration) LUDO every time the latter needed additional manpower services. Said employees
46 Teng v. Pahagac, G.R. No. 169704, Nov. 17, 2010 thereafter joined respondent union, the LUDO Employees Union (LEU), which acted as the
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.
Facts: Albert Teng Fish Trading is engaged in deep sea fishing and, for this purpose, owns
boats (basnig), equipment, and other fishing paraphernalia. As owner of the Respondent union entered into a collective bargaining agreement with LUDO which
business, Teng claims that he customarily enters into joint venture agreements with provides certain benefits to the employees, the amount of which vary according to the
master fishermen (maestros) who are skilled and are experts in deep sea fishing; they length of service rendered by the availing employee.The union requested LUDO to include
take charge of the management of each fishing venture, including the hiring of the in its members’ period of service the time during which they rendered arrastre services to
members of its complement. He avers that the maestros hired the respondent workers as LUDO through the CLAS so that they could get higher benefits. LUDO failed to act on the
checkers to determine the volume of the fish caught in every fishing voyage. On February request. Thus, the matter was submitted for voluntary arbitration.
20, 2003, the respondent workers filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
Albert Teng Fish Trading, Teng, andChua before the NCMB, Region Branch No. IX,
Zamboanga City. The VA rendered a decision in Teng's favor and declared that no
employer-employee relationship existed between Teng and the respondent workers. The ISSUE: WON voluntary arbitrator a part of a government unit or a personnel under DOLE?
CA reversed the VA's decision after finding sufficient evidence showing the existence of WHETHER OR NOT A VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR CAN AWARD BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED IN
employer-employee relationship THE SUBMISSION AGREEMENT

Issues:Whether or not the VA‘s decision is subject to a motion for reconsideration

18
HELD: A voluntary arbitrator is not part of the governmental unit or labor department’s On grounds of very poor performance and conduct, refusal to perform his job, refusal to
personnel, said arbitrator renders arbitration services provided for under labor laws. report to the Captain or the vessel’s Engineers or cooperate with other ship officers about
the problem in cleaning the cargo holds or of the shipping pump and his dismal relations
In general, the arbitrator is expected to decide those questions expressly stated and with the Captain of the vessel, complainant was repatriated.
limited in the submission agreement. However, since arbitration is the final resort for the
adjudication of disputes, the arbitrator can assume that he has the power to make a final Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal at AMOSUP of which complainant was a
settlement. Thus, assuming that the submission empowers the arbitrator to decide member. Grievance proceedings were conducted; however, parties failed to reach and
whether an employee was discharged for just cause, the arbitrator in this instance can settle the dispute amicably, thus petitioner filed [a] complaint with the POEA.Private
reasonable assume that his powers extended beyond giving a yes-or-no answer and respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the POEA had no
included the power to reinstate him with or without back pay. jurisdiction over the case considering petitioner Vivero's failure to refer it to a Voluntary
Arbitration Committee in accordance with the CBA between the parties. Upon the
In one case, the Supreme Court stressed that “xxx the Voluntary Arbitrator had plenary enactment of RA 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the case
jurisdiction and authority to interpret the agreement to arbitrate and to determine the was transferred to the Adjudication Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission
scope of his own authority subject only, in a proper case, to the certiorari jurisdiction of
this Court.

By the same token, the issue of regularization should be viewed as two-tiered ISSUE:WON the labor arbiter has jurisdiction?
issue. While the submission agreement mentioned only the determination of the date or
regularization, law and jurisprudence give the voluntary arbitrator enough leeway of
authority as well as adequate prerogative to accomplish the reason for which the law on
voluntary arbitration was created – speedy labor justice. It bears stressing that the HELD: YES. In San Miguel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission[21] this Court
underlying reason why this case arose is to settle, once and for all, the ultimate question held that :There is a need for an express stipulation in the CBA that illegal termination
of whether respondent employees are entitled to higher benefits. To require them to file disputes should be resolved by a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators,
another action for payment of such benefits would certainly undermine labor proceedings since the same fall within a special class of disputes that are generally within the exclusive
and contravene the constitutional mandate providing full protection to labor original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters by express provision of law. Absent such express
stipulation, the phrase "all disputes" should be construed as limited to the areas of conflict
traditionally within the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators, i.e., disputes relating to
t. Execution of proceedings; enforcement of decision; motion for the issuance contract-interpretation, contract-implementation, or interpretation or enforcement of
of writ of execution must be filed with; company personnel policies. Illegal termination disputes - not falling within any of these
u. effect of filing of petition for certiorari on execution categories - should then be considered as a special area of interest governed by a specific
v. Mode of Appeal? Rule 43, Rules of Court
provision of law.
w. Is the voluntary arbitrator a part of a government unit or a personnel under
DOLE?
x. Grounds for Judicial review? Under their CBA, both Union and respondent companies are responsible for selecting an
47 Ludo & Luym Corp. vs Saordino, 395 SCRA 451 impartial arbitrator or for convening an arbitration committee; yet, it is apparent that
48 Vivero vs. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 268 neither made a move towards this end. Consequently, petitioner should not be deprived of
his legitimate recourse because of the refusal of both Union and respondent companies to
FACTS: Petitioner Vivero, a licensed seaman, is a member of the Associated Marine follow the grievance procedure.
Officers and Seamen's Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP).The Collective Bargaining
Agreement entered into by AMOSUP and private respondents provides, among others :
49 Manila Midtown Hotel v. VA Borromeo, G.R. No. 138305, 9-22-04
- Any grievance, dispute or misunderstanding concerning any ruling, practice,
wages or working conditions in the COMPANY, or any breach of the Employment Contract, FACTS: The controversy at bar arose from a complaint filed with the Office of the
or any dispute arising from the meaning or the application of the provision of this Voluntary Arbitrator, NCMB by the Manila Midtown Hotel Employees Labor Union
Agreement or a claim of violation thereof or any complaint that any such crewmembers (MMHELU-NUWHRAIN), respondent union, against the petitioner Manila Midtown
may have against the COMPANY, as well as complaint which the COMPANY may have Hotel. The complainant prayed for the reinstatement of respondent union members
against such crewmembers shall be brought to the attention of the GRIEVANCE concerned or payment of their separation pay, plus their full backwages and other
COMMITTEE before either party takes any action, legal or otherwise privileges and benefits, or their monetary equivalent, considering that they were illegally
dismissed from the service.
19
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that the Labor Arbiter, not the
Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator, has jurisdiction over the case of illegal dismissal.
Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Manager of petitioner St.
The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a Decision holding that respondent union members Martin Funeral Home on February 6, 1995. However, there was no contract of
were illegally dismissed from the service. employment executed between him and petitioner nor was his name included in the semi-
monthly payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his employment for
Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00. Petitioner on the other hand claims that private
of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, instead of an respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of Amelita Malabed, the owner of
appeal via a petition for review. The Appellate Court promulgated its Decision affirming petitioner St.Martin’s Funeral Home and in January 1996, the mother of Amelita passed
the assailed Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator. away, so the latter took over the management of the business.

Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari, ascribing to the Court of
Appeals the lone error of sustaining the Voluntary Arbitrator’s issuance of a writ of
execution.Respondent union maintains that the Appellate Court did not err in upholding Amelita made some changes in the business operation and private respondent and his
the Voluntary Arbitrator’s issuance of a writ of execution considering that his Decision was wife were no longer allowed to participate in the management thereof. As a consequence,
already final and executory when petitioner availed of the wrong remedy, i.e., filing with the latter filed a complaint charging that petitioner had illegally terminated his
the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, instead of a petition for review. employment. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner declaring that no
employer-employee relationship existed between the parties and therefore his office had
no jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE: WON the decision was already final and executory when petitioner availed of the
wrong remedy.
ISSUE: WON the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the Court of Appeals.
HELD: Upon receipt of a copy of the Voluntary Arbitrator’s Decision, petitioner should have
filed with the Court of Appeals, within the 15-day reglementary period, a petition for
review, not a petition for certiorari, which is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal.
RULING:
And without an appeal (petition for review) seasonably filed, as in this case, the
questioned Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator became final and executory after ten (10)
calendar days from notice.
The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the SC
Clearly, the Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the Voluntary Arbitrator’s Order were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action for certiorari
directing the issuance of a writ of execution. was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of
the word appeal in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a
Indeed, once a decision or resolution becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both
duty of the court or tribunal to order its execution. Such order, we repeat, is not modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The important distinction
appealable. between them, however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that
the special civil action for certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this
Court and the Court of Appeals; whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by
certiorari to the SC are allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, the intention of
5. Court of Appeals
the Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.
a. Rule 65, Rules of Court (Petition for Certiorari)
b. Grounds?
c. Is it a matter of right or not?
d. Period to file certiorari? Extendible or not?
e. Can it be filed after the NLRC decision become final and executory? Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P No. 129 to supposed appeals
f. When reckoned? from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and
50 St. Martin’s Funeral Homes vs NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule65. Consequently, all such petitions should
FACTS:

20
henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election. On appeal, the Secretary
the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. of Labor and Employment reversed the Med-Arbiter's decision and ordered the immediate
holding of a certification election.

51 Veloso vs China Airlines, Ltd., 310 SCRA 274 Shortly thereafter, respondent company terminated the employment of aforementioned
FACTS: Petitioner, Rebecca Veloso was employed as supervisor of the ticketing section of workers. Complainants wereterminated because of the 98% and 95% completion of the
respondent China Airlines Ltd. (CAL). Private respondent K.Y. Chang, then district phase of the project and expiration of their contract of employment. The affected workers
manager of the Manila branch office of CAL, informed petitioner that management had claim that they were dismissed because of their union activities. In view of the alleged
decided to temporarily close its ticketing section in order to prevent further losses. CAL illegal dismissals and harassment by their employer, the workers staged a strike. , the
decided to permanently close said ticketing section. Thus, petitioner and her staff aggrieved workers filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC their individual
members were informed that their recent lay-off from employment will be considered complaints against private respondent company for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice,
permanent, effective one month from receipt of such notice. A notice of said underpayment of wages,etc. The cases were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter
retrenchment was filed with the labor department. for arbitration. Petitioners and private respondents separately appealed the Labor Arbiter's
ruling to the National Labor Relations Commission.
Petitioner filed with the Arbitration Branch of NLRC a complaint for unfair labor practice
and illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, payment of backwages, damages and the NLRC promulgated its resolution modifying the decision of Labor Arbiter Nicolas
attorney's fees. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner. Private respondents appealed Sayon. It held that the labor arbiter erred in not resolving the issue of underpayment of
to the NLRC. Petitioner received copy of the aforesaid resolution of public wages because not all of the original complainants filed the same money claims with the
respondent. However, instead of filing the required motion for reconsideration, petitioner labor department.Thus, it awarded monetary benefits to qualified workers and the
filed the instant petition for certiorari. complainants for illegal dismissal filed by Victorio Lunzaga (Lonzaga) and Alfredo Jalet
(Jalit) are hereby dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic.
ISSUE:WON the filing petition for certiorari under Rule 65n warrants the outright
dismissal of this case. ISSUE:WON complaint is moot and academic.

HELD: The filing of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without first moving for
reconsideration of the assailed resolution warrants the outright dismissal of this case. As
we have consistently held in numerous cases,a motion for reconsideration is HELD: that herein petitioners did not move for reconsideration, as the petition did not so
indispensable, for it affords the NLRC an opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it might indicate and none appears on the records before us.Filing a petition for certiorari under
have committed before resort to the courts can be had. Rule 65 without first moving for reconsideration of the assailed resolution generally
warrants the petition's outright dismissal. As we consistently held in numerous cases, a
It is settled that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and motion for reconsideration by a concerned party is indispensable for it affords the NLRC an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against acts of public respondent. In this opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it might have committed before resort to the
case, the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by law is a motion for courts can be had.
reconsideration of the impugned resolution, to be made under oath and filed within ten
(10) days from receipt of the questioned resolution of the NLRC, a procedure which It is settled that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and
is jurisdictional. Hence, the filing of the petition forcertiorari in this case is patently adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against acts of public respondents. Here,
violative of prevailing jurisprudence and will not prosper without undue damage to the the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by law was a motion for
fundamental doctrine that undergirds the grant of this prerogative writ. reconsideration of the impugned resolution, based on palpable or patent errors, to be
made under oath and filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the questioned resolution
of the NLRC, a procedure which is jurisdictional.Further, it should be stressed that without
52 Association of Trade Unions vs. Abella, 323 SCRA 50
a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed within the ten-day reglementary period, the
FACTS: Respondent company engaged the services of the following workers to work on questioned order, resolution or decision of NLRC, becomes final and executory after ten
various projects. Their contracts indicate the particular project they are assigned, the (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.
duration of their employment and their daily wage.The workers joined petitioner union as
members. Accordingly, petitioner union filed a petition for certification election with the
53 Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 328 SCRa 273
regional office of the labor department. Respondent company opposed the petition on the
ground that the workers were project employees and therefore not qualified. Not for long,

21
FACTS: Petitioner PAL hired respondent Diamante as Integrated Ticket Representative for The case was referred to NLRC Arbitration Division as by then it was this agency which
Bacolod City station. Edgardo Pineda, Cabarloc, Subia and Velasco went to Bacolod Airport had jurisdiction over private respondent’s complaint by virtue of Republic Act 8042, the
to have their tickets booked for their flight to. Pineda requested Diamante if he could book Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. After the submission of position of
their tickets for the April 8, 1988 flight, particularly Subia, who had to attend an important papers, the labor arbiter assigned to the case rendered a decision in favor Baldameca. In
meeting in Manila. Diamante answered that all flights for the week were fully booked. He this decision, the labor arbiter held petitioners MCEI and Hanil jointly and severally liable
suggested that he leave with him their tickets. Pineda gave 4 tickets to Diamante together to Baldameca.
with the amount of P1,000.00 then Diamante assured them that they will be
accommodated When Subia failed to take the flight due to illness, Diamante returned The decision of the labor arbiter was appealed to the NLRC by petitioners however, this
Subia's ticket to Vista the following day since it was Diamante's day off. In order to appeal was dismissed by the NLRC in a Resolution. The motion for reconsideration filed
facilitate Subia's re-booking, Vista asked for the help of her friend, a neighbor of PAL by petitioners was likewise denied by the NLRC.
Station Agent Rodolfo Puentebella. With the help of Cawaling and Puentebella, Subia was
able to take the April 9, 1988 flight to Manila. On December 17, 1999, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
questioning the above Resolution and Order of the NLRC. However, the Court of Appeals
Upon their arrival in Manila, Pineda executed an affidavit charging Diamante with dismissed the petition filed by petitioners in a Resolution. The full text of the resolution is
bribery/corruption. Petitioner's Bacolod Branch Manager required Diamante to comment as follows:
on the affidavit. Diamante submitted his sworn statement denying the allegations against
him. The Committee, after deliberation, resolved the case on the basis of the evidence on “The instant Petition for Certiorari is fatally defective for two (2) reasons: (1) there is no
record. Diamante received a notice of his dismissal. certification against forum shopping by co-petitioner Hamil Development Co., Ltd.; and
(2) there is no written explanation why the service of the pleading was not done
Diamante filed with the NLRC, a complaint against PAL for illegal dismissal, reinstatement personally (Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
with backwages and damages.LA rendered a decision declaring the dismissal legal and
valid.Diamante appealed the decision to the NLRC.NLRC rendered a decision granting ISSUE:WON a certification signed by one but not all of the parties in a petition constitutes
Diamante's appeal and setting aside the Labor Arbiter's decision .Petitioner filed a motion substantial compliance with the requirements regarding the certification of non-forum
for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in a resolution. shopping.

ISSUE: WON NLRC’s findings of fact be preferred over the LA? HELD: In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals should have taken into consideration the
fact that petitioner Hanil is being sued by private respondent in its capacity as the foreign
HELD: Under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court does not assess and weigh principal of petitioner MCEI. It was petitioner MCEI, as the local private employment
the sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor arbiter and the NLRC based their agency, who entered into contracts with potential overseas workers on behalf of petitioner
decisions. Our query is limited to the determination of whether or not public respondent Hanil.
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the
assailed decisions.[7] When the findings of fact of the NLRC contradict those of the labor It must likewise be stressed that the rationale behind the requirement that the petitioners
arbiter, this Court must of necessity review the records to determine which findings should or parties to the action themselves must execute the certification of non-forum shopping
be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary facts. is that the said petitioners or parties are in the best position to know of the matters
required by the Rules of Court in the said certification.[18] Such requirement is not
circumvented and is substantially complied with when, as in this case, the local private
54 MC Engineering, Inc. vs. NLRC, 360 SCRA 183 employment agency signs the said certification alone. It is the local private employment
FACTS: Petitioner Hanil Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Hanil”) is the overseas agency, in this case petitioner MCEI, who is in the best position to know of the matters
employer of all contract workers deployed by petitioner MC Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter required in a certification of non-forum shopping.
“MCEI”) under a Service Contract Agreement between the two petitioners. Private
respondent Baldameca entered into an Employment Agreement with MCEI for deployment Considering that the local private employment agency may sue on behalf of its foreign
as a plumber in Saudi Arabia. The contract was for a term of 12 months. principal on the basis of its contractual undertakings submitted to the POEA, there is no
reason why the said agency cannot likewise sign or execute a certification of non-forum
Baldameca was not able to finish the full term of his contract and he was repatriated back shopping for its own purposes and/or on behalf of its foreign principal.
to Manila. Baldameca filed a complaint with the POEA against petitioners for illegal
dismissal.

6. Supreme Court
22
 a. Rule 45, Rules of Court submission agreement coursed through the NCMB, Cordillera Administrative Region,
b. What mode of appeal? Baguio City.
c. Reglementary period to file appeal?
d. May rule 65 substitute for a lost appeal under rule 45? The Voluntary Arbitrator issued a decision in favor of the private respondents. Philex
e. May a party file both petition under rule 45 and 65?
appealed to this Court and the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals but the CA
55 Tancinco vs GSIS, 369 SCRA 221
affirmed the decision of the VA. On August 14, 1998, Philex filed a manifestation and
FACTS SPO1 Tancinco while repairing hisservice vehicle in front of his house along the motion for leave to offer separation pay to petitioners, in lieu of reinstatement, before the
National Road in Batangas, SPO1 was shot. SPO1 Tancinco was a member of the NCR Office of Voluntary Arbitrator. Philex alleged that petitioners’ positions no longer existed
Security Protection Group of the PNP, and at the time of his death, was assigned as part and that there arose strained relations between the parties that effectively barred
of the close-in security detail of then Vice-President Joseph E. Estrada. SPO1 Tancinco reinstatement.Arbitrator Juan Valdez granted Philex’s motion in his order. Consequently,
was off-duty at the time inasmuch as the former Vice-President was in the United States petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the ground that VA
for medical treatment. acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and
affirmed the order of Arbitrator Valdez. It likewise denied the petitioners’ motion for
His widow, petitioner Rufina Tancinco, filed a claim for benefits before the Government reconsideration.
Service Insurance System (GSISbut was denied on the ground that there was no proof
that petitioner’s husband’s death was work-related. Petitioner appealed the denial to the ISSUE:WON petitioner may require the Court to look into the evidence adduced by the
Employees’ Compensation Commission (Commission) but was also denied. parties under Rule 45 of 1997 Rules of Court..

Petitioner filed a petition for review from the aforesaid decision of the Commission before HELD:NO. . It is outside its purview under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Factual
the Court of Appeals. The appellate court issued the first assailed resolution[3] dismissing findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within
the petition for review. As admitted by petitioner herself, she received a copy of the their respective jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and
resolution on June 9, 1997, and yet it was only on January 27, 1998,or seven-and-a-half bind us when supported by substantial evidence.[20] It is not our function to assess and
(7 ½) months later, that she filed a motion for reconsideration. As can be expected, the evaluate the evidence all over again, particularly where the findings of both the arbitrator
appellate court denied her motion . and the Court of Appeals coincide. Thus, in this case, absent a showing of an error of law
committed by the court below, or of whimsical or capricious exercise of its judgment, or a
ISSUE: WON the petition was timely filed? demonstrable lack of basis for its conclusions, we may not disturb its factual
findings,[21] much less reverse its judgment outright.
HELD: Under section 1 of Rule 45 of the former Revised Rules of Court, which was then
still in effect, an appeal from a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals to this Court
must be made within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or the denial of a
motion for reconsideration filed in due time. In the case at bar, petitioner filed her motion
for reconsideration from receipt of the resolution of dismissal two hundred thirty one
(231) days late, thereby rendering the said resolution final and executory. The gap of
more than seven (7) months is too large for us to ignore. Petitioner did not even offer
any explanation to account for the tardiness. It behooves the party invoking liberality in
the application of procedural rules to at least explain his non-compliance therewith.[7] We
have held that the period of appeal is not only mandatory, but more importantly, it is
jurisdictional.[8] Even we cannot ignore the immutable character of a final judgment.

56 Abalos vs Philex Mining Corp, 393 SCRA 13

FACTS: A manpower audit conducted by respondent Philex, revealed that 241 of its
employees were redundant. Thus, Philex undertook a retrenchment program that resulted
in the termination of petitioners’ employment. Consequently, petitioners filed a case for
illegal dismissal against respondent. The case was submitted for arbitration through a

23
 RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral and exemplary damages on
private respondent. However, the damages awarded by the labor arbiter, to our mind, are
excessive. In determining the amount of damages recoverable, the business, social and
Basis: Constitutional Basis (Sec 8, Art III and Sec. 3, Art. XIII, 1987 Consti)
57 Nueva Ecija Electric Coop (NEECO) Employees Association v. NLRC, Jan. financial position of the offended parties and the business and financial position of the
24, 2000, G.R. No. 116066 offender are taken into account. It is our view that herein private respondents had not
FACTS: Petitioner employees were permanent employees of respondent Nueva Ecija I fully acted in good faith. However, we are cognizant that a cooperative promotes the
Electric Cooperative (NEECO I) and members and officers of petitioner NEECO I welfare of its own members. The economic benefits filter to the cooperative members.
Employees Association. Either equally or proportionally, they are distributed among members in correlation with
the resources of the association utilized. Cooperatives help promote economic democracy
The Board of Directors adopted a policy setting the guidelines for NEECO I’s retirement and support community development. Having been illegally dismissed, individual
benefits. A few months later all regular employees were ordered by NEECO I to petitioners are entitled to reinstatement from the time they were illegally dismissed, until
accomplish Form 87, which were applications for either retirement, resignation, or they were reinstated on March 16, 1993. For that period they are likewise entitled to
separation from service. backwages minus the amount petitioners were forced to receive as “retirement” pay

The applications of petitioners Petronilo Baguisa and Ever Guevarra were approved and
they were paid the appropriate separation pay.1âwphi1.nêt
Statutory Basis:
These successive events, followed by the promotion of certain union officers to 58 UST Faculty Uniob vs Bitonio, 318 SCRA 186
supervisory rank, caused apprehension in the labor association. They were considered as FACTS:
harassment threatening the union members, and circumventing the employees’ security of
Private respondent Mariño et al are duly elected officer of UST faculty. The union has a 5-
tenure hence to strengthen and neutralize management’s arbitrary moves, the union held
year CBA with its employer and is set to expire on May 31,1998. On September 21, 1996,
a “snap election” of officers wherein four of petitioners were elected.
Sec Gen of the union posted a general assembly announcement to be held on October 5,
Petitioner labor association then passed a resolution withdrawing the applications for 1996. Various UST club presidents requested a general faculty assembly thus union and
retirement of all its members. Later, petitioners Ernesto Marin, Reynaldo Fajardo and non-union faculty members convened. New set of officers were elected, violative of the
Victorino Carillo were compulsorily retired by management. Erdie Javate was terminated CBL and that GA was held with the attendance of non-union members. Current union
from employment allegedly due to misappropriation of funds and dishonesty. officers were served with a notice to vacate the union office as new set of offices were
already elected. CBA was likewise ratified by an overwhelming majority. Mad-Arbiter
A complaint for illegal dismissal was thereafter filed. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of declared the election conducted was violative of the union’s CBL. BLR Director Bitonio
petitioners awarding among others moral damages which were deleted by the NLRC on upheld the decision with a ruling that the CBL which constituted the covenant between the
appeal. union and its members, could not be suspended during the general assembly of all faculty
members, since it had not been authorized by the union.
ISSUE: W/N the award of moral and exemplary damages was proper

ISSUE:Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in

HELD: YES. To warrant an award of moral damages, it must be shown that the dismissal refusing to recognize the officers “elected” during the general assembly.
of the employee was attended to by bad faith, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or
was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. RULING:Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution and labor
Code. Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a labor
The Labor Arbiter held that NEECO I was guilty of Unfair Labor Practice.Unfair labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must not only signify the
practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and employees to self-organization, intent to become one but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The
are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the union’s CBL. An employee
to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom who becomes a union member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go
and mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and with the new status and becomes bound by the union’s rules and regulations.
stable labor-management relations. As the conscience of the government, it is the Court’s
sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor rights. v Union election – hold pursuant to the union’s CBL, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed
only by union members.
24
v Certification election – is the process of determining, thorough secret ballot, the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit for the Concept of freedom of association: ILO Convention No. 87; (LCP 219 G;F M);
purpose of collective bargaining the purpose to ascertain whether or not a majority of the LCP Art. 252-256; (258-e); 267-271
61 Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Nills, G.R. No. L-
employees wish to be represented by a labor organization and by which particular labor
33987, Sept. 4. 1975/May 31, 1979
organization.
FACTS: A Collective Bargaining Agreement 2 was entered into by and between the
Company and the Union represented by PAFLU. The Collective Bargaining Agreement was
59 National Union Bank Employees vs. Bitonio, 110 SCRA 274
amended adding the clause “The Company agrees to encourage casual workers and non-
60 U.E. Automative Employees v. Noriel, 74 SCRA 72 union members to join the Union which is the sole and exclusive agent for all the
FACTS: Petitioner filed a petiotion for certification election before the NLRC. Thereafter, employees covered by this Agreement.” The Duration of this Agreement shall be for two
private respondent Philippine Federation of Labor submitted a motion for intervention. (2) years. President and Vice-President of the local union, wrote PAFLU, its mother
Three conferences between such labor organizations resulted in an agreement to hold a federation, complaining about the legal counsel assigned by the PAFLU to assist them in a
consent election among the rank and file workers of respondent management firm. ULP.
Petitioner obtained 59 votes, with respondent union having only 52 votes in such consent
election. There was a motion by petitioner to issue an order of certification duly granted 32 out of the 36 members of the local union disaffiliated themselves from respondent
by respondent Director who did certify petitioner as the sole and exclusive collective PAFLU pursuant to their local union's Constitution and By-Laws. A copy of the signed
bargaining representative of such rank and file employees of respondent firm. There was, resolution of disaffiliation was furnished the Company as well as the Bureau of Labor
however, a motion for reconsideration which was granted notwithstanding opposition by Relations.. PAFLU wrote the Company again requesting the termination of the employment
the union setting aside the previous order certifying petitioner as the sole bargaining of the president an VP, all petitioners herein. PAFLU at the same time expelled the
representative. aforementioned workers from their' union membership in the mother federation for
allegedly "instigating union disaffiliation.".
Respondent Director to sustain the validity of his order in the comment submitted on his
behalf follows: "Petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization that it only filed a The Company terminated the employment of the members expelled by the PAFLU. On the
petition for certification merely after a period of 27 days. Section 23(b) RA 875 provides,: last day of May, 1964, counsel for the ousted workers wrote the Company requesting their
'Any labor organization, association or union of workers duly organized for the material, reinstatement. This was denied by the Company; hence the complaint for unfair labor
intellectual and moral well-being of the members shall acquire legal personality and be practice filed with the Court of Industrial Relations.
entitled to all the rights and privileges within 30 days of filing with the Office of the
ISSUE: WON the disaffiliation which was the root cause of the dismissal.
Secretary of Labor notice of its due applicationxxx.' It is clear therefore that the petition
for certification election was filed before the expiration of the period of thirty (30) days. It
HELD: Although the fact of retraction is true, We find that the respondent court failed to
is futile therefore for the petitioner to claim that it has already legal personality and is
notice the fact that not all signatories to the resolution of disaffiliation dated May 17,
entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations by
1964, took part in the retraction. Only a number of employees, 16 to be exact, retracted.
virtue of Section 23(b) .
Also, and this is a significant factor, the retraction is dated June 3, 1964, or four days
after the petitioners herein had been dismissed. There is no use in saying that the
retraction obliterated the act of disaffiliation when they were already out of the service
ISSUE:WON the director’s order is valid? when it was done. The disaffiliation, coming as it did from the greater majority of its
members, is more than enough to show the collective desire of the members of the
Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union to sever their relations from the mother federation.
The right of disaffiliation is inherent in the compact and such act should not have been
HELD:NO. In the absence of any fatal defect to the application for registration, there is no branded as an act of disloyalty, especially considering the cause which impelled the union
justification for withholding it from petitioner to enable it to exercise fully its constitutional to take such a step.
right to freedom of association. In the alternative, the petition could very well be
considered as having been filed by the parent labor federation. What is decisive is that the
members of petitioner Union did exercise their fundamental right to self-organization and 62 BPI vs BPI employees Union Davao Chapter, G.R. No. 164301, Oct. 19,
2011
did win in a fair and honest election.

25
FACTS: In 2000, Far East Bank (FEB) was absorbed by the Bank of the Philippine Islands contending labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and,conformably with
(BPI). Now BPI has an existing Union Shop Clause agreement with the BPI Employees established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a thirdchoice: "NO UNION."
Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank (BPI Union) whereby it is a pre-
condition that new employees must join the union before they can be regularized
otherwise they will not have a continued employment. By reason of the failure of the FEB
employees to join the union, BPI Union recommended to BPI their dismissal. BPI refused. The final tally of the votes showed the following results:TUPAS1 ,TUEU-OLALIA95,
The issue went to voluntary arbitration where BPI won but the Court of Appeals reversed NO UNION1 SPOILED1 CHALLENGED141
the Voluntary Arbitrator. BPI appealed to the Supreme Court.
METHOD OF ESTABLISHING MAJORITY STATUS,PURPOSE.

The purpose of a certification election is preciselythe ascertainment of the wishes of the

ISSUE: Whether or not the Union Shop agreement violated the constitutional right of majority of the employeesin the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be
security of tenure of the FEB employees absorbed by BPI. representedby a labor organization, and in the affirmative case, by whichparticular labor
organization.

HELD: No. As a general rule, the State protects the workers right to security of tenure. An 64 Kapatiran v Calleja, 162 SCRA 367;
employee’s services can only be terminated upon just and authorized causes. In this case,
FACTS: From 1984 to 1987 Petitioner Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division (TUPAS)
the presence of a Union Shop Clause in the CBA between BPI and BPI Union must be
was the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the workers in the Meat
respected. Failure of an employee to join the union pursuant to the clause is an authorized
and Canning Division of the Universal Robina Corporation, with a 3-year collective
cause for BPI not to continue employing the employee concerned – and BPI must respect
bargaining agreement (CBA) which was to expire on November 15, 1987.
that provision of the CBA. In the hierarchy of labor rights, unionism is favored over
security of tenure. A contrary interpretation of the Union Shop Clause would dilute its
Within the freedom period of 60 days prior to the expiration of its CBA, TUPAS filed an
efficacy and put the certified union that is supposedly being protected thereby at the
amended notice of strike as a means of pressuring the company to extend, renew, or
mercy of management. Nevertheless, the FEB employees are still entitled to the twin
negotiate a new CBA with it. The NEW ULO, composed mostly of workers belonging to the
notice rule – this is to afford them ample opportunity to whether or not join the union
IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect, registered as a labor union.The TUPAS staged a strike. ROBINA
obtained an injunction against the strike, resulting in an agreement to return to work and
for the parties to negotiate a new CBA.The next day NEW ULO filed a petition for a
1. Who may unionize for purposes of collective bargaining
2. Extent and scope of the right; who may join unions (Art. 252) Art. 291 (c) certification election at the Bureau of Labor Relations.TUPAS moved to dismiss the petition
Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule II, Sec. 2; Art. 256; claiming among others that the members of the NEW ULO were mostly members of the
63 Reyes vs Trajano, 209 SCRA 484; Iglesia ni Kristo sect which three years previous refused to affiliate with any labor union.
It also accused the company of using the NEWULO to defeat TUPAS’ bargaining rights.The
FACTS: The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon.Cresenciano Trajano) Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a certification election.TUPAS appealed to the Bureau
sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of theright to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) of Labor Relations. In the meantime, it was able to negotiate a new 3-year CBA with
members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, ROBINA, which was signed on December 3, 1987 and to expire on November 15,
at a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to 1990.Respondent BLR Director Calleja dismissed the appeal.
be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.-The certification
election was authorized to be conducted
bythe Bureauof Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union IndustriesCorporation
on October 20, 1987. The competing unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union- ISSUE: W/N members of a sect who are not allowed by their religion to join a labor union
Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade may form their own union?
Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers
initially deemed to be qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, HELD: YES. This Court’s decision in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, 59 SCRA
conducted under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 54, upholding the right of members of the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect not to join a labor
240employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK. The ballots union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect
provided for 3 choices. They provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of the 2 from forming their own union. The public respondent correctly observed that

26
the “recognition of the tenets of the sect … should not infringe on the basic right of self- judgment which may be rendered in the petition for certiorari pending before SC will
organization granted by the constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation.” notconstitute res judicata in the present petition for certification election, for in the
former, privaterespondent questioned the constitutionality of Art. 244 before its
The fact that TUPAS was able to negotiate a new CBA with ROBINA within the 60-day amendment while in the latter, private respondent invokes the same article as
freedom period of the existing CBA, does not foreclose the right of the rival union, NEW already amended
ULO, to challenge TUPAS’ claim to majority status, by filing a timely petition for
certification election before TUPAS’ old CBA expired and before it signed a new CBA with 3. Workers with right to Self Organization
the company. As pointed out by Med-Arbiter Abdullah, a “certification election is the best a. All employees (Art. 252); 67 Alliance of Nationalists etc. v. Samahang
forum in ascertaining the majority status of the contending unions wherein the workers etc., 258 SCRA 371
b. Non profit Organization (same with 66 FEU vs. Trajano, 152 SCRA 725)
themselves can freely choose their bargaining representative thru secret ballot.” Since it
c. Members of Religious Group (68 Victoriano v Elizalde Workers Union, 59
has not been shown that this order is tainted with unfairness, this Court will not thwart SCRA 54)
the holding of a certification election (Associated Trade Unions [ATU] vs. Noriel, 88 SCRA
96). Facts:
Victoriano (hereinafter referred to as Appellee), a member of the religious sect
known as the "Iglesia ni Cristo", had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc.
65 Pan-Am World Airways, Inc. vs. Pan-Am Employees Association, 27 SCRA (hereinafter referred to as Company) since 1958. As such employee, he was a member of
202; the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as Union) which had with the
Company a collective bargaining agreement containing a closed shop provision which
66 FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation, Inc v. Trajano, 152 SCRA 725 reads as follows:
Facts:Petitioner has a work force of about 350 rank and file employees, majority of whom Membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment
are membersof private respondent AFW. AFW filed a Petition for Consent and/or for all permanent employeesworkers covered by this Agreement.
Certification Election with Ministry of Labor and Employment. Petitioner opposed on the The collective bargaining agreement expired on March 3, 1964 but was renewed the
ground that a similar petition involving the same issues and the same parties is pending following day, March 4, 1964.
resolution before SC. As early as May 10, 1976, private respondent filed a similar petition Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No. 875, prior to its amendment by
for certification election but the petition was denied by the MED Arbiter and Secretary of Republic Act No. 3350, the employer was not precluded "from making an agreement with
Labor on appeal, on the ground that petitioner was a non-stock, non-profit medical a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such
institution; thus, its employees may not form, join or organize a union pursuant to LC Art. labor organization is the representative of the employees." On June 18, 1961, however,
244. Also, it filed a petition for certiorari with SC assailing the constitutionality of Art. 244. Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment to — paragraph (4)
subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as follows: ... "but such agreement
Pending resolution of the said petition BP 70 was enacted amending Art. 244, thus
shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members
granting even employees of non-stock, non-profit institutions the right to form, join and in any such labor organization".
organize labor unions of their choice; and that in the exercise of such right, AFW filed Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its members with any
another petition for certification. Med Arbiter issued an Order granting the petition, labor organization, Appellee presented his resignation to appellant Union in 1962, and
declaring that a certificationelection be conducted to determine the exclusive bargaining when no action was taken thereon, he reiterated his resignation on September 3, 1974.
representative of all rank and file employees of petitioner. Respondent Director affirmed: Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company asking the latter to separate
rendered moot and academic by virtue of amendatory BP 70which allows employees Appellee from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the Union as a
of non-profit medical institutions to unionize. member. The management of the Company in turn notified Appellee and his counsel that
unless the Appellee could achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the
Company would be constrained to dismiss him from the service. This prompted Appellee
to file an action for injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. 58894 in the Court of First
Instance of Manila to enjoin the Company and the Union from dismissing Appellee. 1 In its
Issue:W/N respondent Director gravely abused his discretion in granting the petition for answer, the Union invoked the "unionsecurity clause" of the collective bargaining
certificationelection, despite the pendency of a similar petition before SC agreement; assailed the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3350; and contended that
the Court had no jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to Republic Act No. 875, Sections 24
Held: NO.At the time private respondent filed its petition on Feb. 13, Art. 244 was already and 9 (d) and (e).2 Upon the facts agreed upon by the parties during the pre-
amended by BP70: medical… institutions whether operating for profit or not.Rank and file trial conference, the Court a quo rendered its decision in favour of Victoriano
employees of non-profit medical institutions are now permitted to form, organize or join
labor unions of their choice for purposes of collective bargaining.Since private ISSUE: Constitutionality of RA 3350
respondent had complied with the requisites provided by law calling for certification Ruling: Petition granted.
election, it was incumbent upon respondent Director to conduct such election. Any
27
 . All presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who attacks a
statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt, HELD:
As stated for the Court by the now Chief Justice in AG & P Co. of Manila, Inc. vs.
that a law may work hardship does not render it unconstitutional; that if any reasonable C.I.R., 8 section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act "explicitly provides that "employees" — and
basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld, and the challenger this term includes supervisors — "shall have the right to self-organization, and to form,
must negate all possible bases; that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective
justice, policy, or expediency of a statute; and that a liberal interpretation of the bargaining through representations of their own choosing and to engage in concerted
constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted. activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection" and
What the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognize and guarantee is that "individuals employed as supervisors ... may form separate organizations of their
the "right" to form or join associations. Notwithstanding the different theories propounded own". Indeed, it is well settled that "in relation to his employer," a foreman or supervisor
by the different schools of jurisprudence regarding the nature and contents of a "right", it "is an employee within the meaning of the Act" ... For this reason, supervisors are entitled
can be safely said that whatever theory one subscribes to, a right comprehends at least to engage in union activities and any discrimination against them by reason thereof
two broad notions, namely: first, liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, constitutes an unfair labor practice."
whereby an employee may act for himself without being prevented by law; and second,
power, whereby an employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from Joining an Test:
association. 70 National Sugar Refineries Corp v. NLRC, 220 SCRA 452
To that all-embracing coverage of the closed shop arrangement, Republic Act No. Facts.
3350 introduced an exception, when it added to Section 4 (a) (4) of the Industrial Peace NASUREFCO is a domestic corporation engaged in sugar refinery. In line with the Raw
Act the following proviso: "but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious and Refined Sugar Exchange Program, Pabiona was appointed as Sugar Accountant-
sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization". Bookkeeper. She was tasked to maintain records of all transactions pertaining to the Raw
and Refined Sugar Exchange Program, validate Raw Sugar Quedans submitted by
Exchange participants prior to issuance of theRefined Sugar Delivery Orders only
(same with 64 Kapatiran, etc. v. Calleja, 162 SCRA 367
d. Government Corporation Employees (253 LC) after validation procedures have been properly complied with.
e. Supervisory employees may form or join LCP Art. 254 (219 M, 219 (G) When the books of NASUREFCO were audited in 1990 anomalous and irregular
Right: 69 Filioil Refinery Corp. v. Filioil Supervisory and Confidential transactions were uncovered in the Raw Sugar Movement Report. NASUREFCO found
Employees Association, 46 SCRA 512 Pabiona's written explanation flawed, unsatisfactory. NASUREFCO through its Human
Resource Division Officer-in-Charge charged Pabiona with several violations of accounting
Facts:Respondent association is a labor organization duly registered with the Department policies. Pabiona was again given the chance to air her side, which she did through a
of Labor. It is composed exclusively of the supervisory and confidential employees of memorandum. A formal investigation was conducted. Pabiona was advised to retain a
petitioner corporation. There exists another entirely distinct labor association composed of counsel of her choice to assist her in presenting her case. After the formal investigation,
the corporation's rank-and-file employees, the Filoil Employees & Workers Association NASUREFCO terminated the services of Pabiona for willful violation of company policies,
(FEWA) with which petitioner executed a collective bargaining agreement. This collective gross and habitual neglect of duties, and willful breach of trust.
bargaining agreement expressly excluded from its coverage petitioner's supervisory and Thus Pabiona filed her complaint with the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. On the other
confidential employees, who in turn organized their own labor association, respondent hand, NASUREFCO maintained that the dismissal was for a just cause after proper
herein. procedures were observed, hence, legal and valid.
The Labor Arbiter found that although Pabiona was guilty of neglect of duty, the duties
Respondent association filed on February 18, 1965 with the industrial court its petition for
which she performed and of which she was being charged of neglect, were not within her
certification as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent of all of
ordinary functions as Sugar Accountant-Bookkeeper. The Labor Arbiter ratiocinated that
petitioner's supervisory and confidential employees working at its refinery in Rosario, as Pabiona merely recorded transactions that ought to be recorded, whatever defects in
Cavite. the quantity or quality items transacted were no longer her responsibility.
Petitioner corporation filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of lack of For its part, NLRC found that Pabiona's infractions were not gross nor habitual but that
cause of action and of respondent court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, she merely failed to exercise due diligence in performing her duties, forgot to follow up
under its claim that supervisors are not employees within the meaning of Republic Act transactions and make necessary corrections on the records and reports she prepared.
875, the Industrial Peace Act, and that since they are part of management, they do not Neither were the infractions deliberate nor intentional as NASUREFCO failed to prove
have the right to bargain collectively although they may organize an organization of their intent on the part of Pabiona to personally gain from the transactions; in other words, her
own. infractions were in good faith.
Respondent court in its order of May 26, 1965 denied the dismissal motion. It ruled that ISSUE: WON the Pabiona is guilty of breach of trust and such dismissal is legal?
under the express provisions of section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act, "(I)ndividuals Ruling: Petition granted
employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of The basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is that the
employees under their supervision but may form separate organizations their own." 1 employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. It is the breach of this trust
that results in the employer's loss of confidence in the employee. Under Art. 282 of the
the right of supervisors and confidential employees to organize the respondent labor
ISSUE: Labor Code, as amended, loss of confidence would be the result of "fraud or willful breach
association and to bargain collectively with their employer. by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized

28
representative," a just cause for termination. It cannot be gainsaid that the breach of to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor
trust must be related to the performance of the employee's functions. 3 organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
It was only through her active participation and involvement in the illicit infringement of
the company's accounting procedures that some clients of NASUREFCO were able to 72 Samson v. NLRC, 330 SCRA 295
withdraw refined sugar in larger quantities to the prejudice of the latter.
Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual. 4 In the Facts:
instant case, Pabiona's neglect of duty was gross. As her position related to money Samson filed a case against SPC and Mr. Leo C. Riconalla, National Sales
matters, she was expected and required to be extra vigilant in the performance of her job Manager, for money equivalent of rice subsidy for the period April 1990 to December 1992
as it involved the financial interest of the company. She was also habitually remiss in her and holiday pay and illegal preventive suspension raffled to the Honorable Labor
duties. Arbiter Donato G. Quinto, Jr. and ". . . was arbitrarily and summarily terminated from
employment on 03 February 1994 on ground of loss of confidence."
On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties and evidence on record, the
71 Dunlop Slazenger Phils. Inc. v. Sec of DOLE, 300 SCRA 120 labor arbiter rendered his Decision, declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal. The labor
arbiter ruled that petitioner's conduct is not so serious as to warrant his dismissal
Facts: because: 1) the alleged offensive words were uttered during an informal and unofficial
respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election among get-together of employees where there was social drinking and petitioner was already
thesupervisory , office and technical employees of the petitioner company before tipsy; 2) the words were uttered to show disapproval over management's decision on the
the Department of Labor and Employment. Alleging that it is a legitimate labor "Cua Lim" case; 3) the penalty for the offense is only "verbal reminder" under respondent
organization, a duly chartered local of the Associated Professional, Supervisory, Office & company's rules and regulations; and 4) petitioner was already admonished during a
Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU). meeting on 4 January 1994. Accordingly, respondent company was ordered to reinstate
petitioner company filed its Answer with Motion to Dismiss based on three (3) petitioner as District Sales Manager and to pay him backwages.
The NLRC reversed the decision of LA and ruled that the foregoing actuation of
grounds, namely: (1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and rank-
petitioner constituted gross misconduct warranting his dismissal. Citing jurisprudence, the
and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a
NLRC held that "in terminating the employment of managerial employees, the employer is
single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-
allowed a wider latitude of discretion than in the case of ordinary rank-and-file."8
file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to
ISSUE: WON petitioner was illegally dismissed.
submit its books of accounts.
Ruling: Petition granted.
the respondent union alleged that its members are supervisors and not rank-and-
To constitute valid dismissal, two (2) requisites must be met: (1) the dismissal
file employees. It averred that all its members are paid monthly by the petitioner
must be for any of the causes expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (2) the
company. It alleged that the bargaining unit it seeks to represent is made up of the
employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself.7 Article 282 of
monthly paid supervisory employees and other personnel who cannot be classified as the Labor Code provides:
belonging to the rank-and-file. Art. 282. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any
The mediator arbiter granted the petition for certification which was sustained by of the following causes:
the Secretary of Labor. a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
ISSUE: whether or not the respondent union can file a petition for certification election to orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
represent the supervisory employees of the petitioner company. b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
HELD: Petition granted. c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall employer or duly authorized representative;
not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees . . . d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
." employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
In the instant case, the list of monthly paid employees submitted by the representative; and
petitioner company contains the names of about twenty seven (27) supervisory e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
employees, six (6) managerial employees, one (1) confidential employee and twenty six Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for an employee's dismissal must be
(26) office and technical employees holding various positions. The list reveals that the clearly established. 22 A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and
positions occupied by the twenty six (26) office and technical employees are in fact rank- purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
and-file positions. thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on
based on this provision [Article 245, Labor Code], a labor organization composed the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion, otherwise, the employee would
of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, remain at the mercy of the employer
for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an f. Aliens (283, LC)
organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot g. Security Guards,
possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file 73 Manila Electric Company v. Sec of Labor, 197 SCRa 275
apetition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes
necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, Facts:

29
 On November 22, 1988, the Staff and Technical Employees Association of With the elimination, security guards were thus free to join a rank and file organization.
MERALCO (hereafter "STEAM-PCWF") a labor organization of staff and technical employees
of MERALCO, filed a petition for certification election, seeking to represent regular
employees of MERALCO who are: (a) non-managerial employees with Pay Grades VII and
above; (b) non-managerial employees in the Patrol Division, Treasury Security h. Workers-Cooperatives
Services Section, Secretaries who are automatically removed from the bargaining unit;
and (c) employees within the rank and file unit who are automatically disqualified from 4. Who cannot form, join or assist labor organizations (Art. 253, 254)
becoming union members of any organization within the same bargaining unit. 5. Executive Order No. 180
Among others, the petition alleged that "while there exists a duly-organized union for rank 6. Effect of Inclusion as Members of employees outside the bargaining unit (255)
and file employees in Pay Grade I-VI, which is the MERALCO Employees and Worker's 7. Ineligible Employees or workers with no right of self organization
Association (MEWA) which holds a valid CBA for the rank and file employees, 1 there is no a. Managerial employees
other labor organization except STEAM-PCWF claiming to represent the MERALCO b. Confidential employees:
employees. 74 San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt employees union vs
The petition was premised on the exclusion/disqualification of certain MERALCO employees Laguesma, G.R, No. 110399, Aug, 15, 1997
pursuant to Art. I, Secs. 2 and 3 of the existing MEWA CBA.
Facts:
MERALCO moved for the dismissal of the petition on the following grounds: 1. Xxx ; 2)
security services personnel who are prohibited from joining or assisting the rank-and-file petitioner union filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Petition
union; 3. Xxx; 4.xxx for Direct Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors and exempt
the Med-Arbiter ruled that having been excluded from the existing Collective Bargaining employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and
Agreement for rank and file employees, these employees have the right to form a union of Otis.
their own, except those employees performing managerial functions. With respect to those Med-Arbiter Danilo L. Reynante issued an Order ordering the conduct of certification
employees who had resented their alleged involuntary membership in the existing CBA, election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry
the Med-Arbiter stated that the holding of a certification election would allow them to fully Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis as one bargaining unit.
translate their sentiment on the matter, and thus directed the holding of a certification the public respondent, Undersecretary Laguesma, granted respondent company's Appeal
election. and ordered the remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter of origin for determination of the
the Secretary of Labor affirmed with modification, the assailed order of the Med-Arbiter, true classification of each of the employees sought to be included in the appropriate
disposing as follows: bargaining unit
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order appealed from is hereby
affirmed but modified as far as the employees covered by Section 3, Upon petitioner-union's motion, Undersecretary Laguesma granted the reconsideration
Article I of the exist CBA in the Company are concerned. Said employees prayed for and directed the conduct of separate certification elections among the
shall remain in the unit of the rank-and-file already existing and may supervisors ranked as supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exempt employees in
exercise their right to self organization as above enunciated. each of the three plants at Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.
In questioning the Secretary of Labor's directive allowing security guards (Treasury/Patrol On September 21, 1991, respondent company, San Miguel Corporation filed a Motion for
Services Section) to be represented by respondents, MERALCO contends that this Reconsideration with Motion to suspend proceedings, which was granted by Laguesma
contravenes the provisions of the recently passed RA 6715 and its implementing rules
stating that . . . Confidential employees, like managerial employees, are not allowed to
(specifically par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule II, Book V) which disqualifies supervisory employees and
form, join or assist a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining.
security guards from membership in a labor organization of the rank and file.
ISSUE: won security guards are disqualified for joining labor organization In this case, S3 and S4 Supervisors and the so-called exempt employees are admittedly
Ruling: Petition denied. confidential employees and therefore, they are not allowed to form, join or assist a labor
Both rules, barring security guards from joining a rank and file organization, union for purposes of collective bargaining following the above court's ruling.
appear to have been carried over from the old rules which implemented then Art. 245 of Consequently, they are not allowed to participate in the certification election.
the Labor Code, and which provided thus: Issue: Whether Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the
Art. 245. Ineligibility of security personnel to join any labor company are considered confidential employees, hence ineligible from joining a union.
organization.—Security guards and other personnel employed for the Ruling: Petition granted.
protection and security of the person, properties and premises of the confidential employees, by the very nature of their functions, assist and act in a
employer shall not be eligible for membership in any labor organization. confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise
On December 24, 1986, Pres. Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 111 which eliminated the managerial functions in the field of labor relations. Therefore, the rationale behind the
above-cited provision on the disqualification of security guards. What was retained was ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or join a labor union was held equally
the disqualification of managerial employees, renumbered as Art. 245 (previously Art. applicable to them.
246), as follows: It must be borne in mind that Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates
Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to joint any labor the State to guarantee to "all" workers the right to self-organization. Hence, confidential
organization.—Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or employees who may be excluded from bargaining unit must be strictly defined so as not
form any labor organization.

30
to needlessly deprive many employees of their right to bargain collectively through the existing collective bargaining agreement between private respondent and Republic
representatives of their choosing. 22 Planters Bank Employees Union (RPBEU), the duly certified bargaining representative of
In the case at bar, supervisors 3 and above may not be considered confidential employees the regular employees of private respondent.
merely because they handle "confidential data" as such must first be strictly classified as Private respondent filed its position paper and moved to dismiss the petition for
pertaining to labor relations for them to fall under said restrictions. The information they certification election. Firstly, it contended that petitioner union is comprised of
handle are properly classifiable as technical and internal business operations data which, some thirty (30) employees of Superior Maintenance Services, Inc. (SMSI) 2 who
to our mind, has no relevance to negotiations and settlement of grievances wherein the are assigned to the bank as messengers and janitors under a Contract of
interests of a union and the management are invariably adversarial. Since the employees Services. The other employees in the proposed bargaining unit are employed on
are not classifiable under the confidential type, this Court rules that they may
"contractual basis" and are not members of petitioner. Secondly, it stressed the
appropriately form a bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Furthermore,
existence of a bargaining unit represented by Republic Planters Bank Employees
even assuming that they are confidential employees, jurisprudence has established that
Union (RPBEU). Thirdly, it alleged that the petition failed to state the number of
there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees who are not performing
employees in the proposed bargaining unit and there is no prior determination
managerial functions to form and join a union.
that the members of petitioner are employees of private respondent.
Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin dismissed the petition for certification election on the ground
that there is already a certified bargaining agent representing the appropriate bargaining
c. Employees-members of cooperatives: unit within private respondent. Thus, if qualified, the employees who were excluded from
75 CENECO vs DOLE, 201 SCRA 584 the existing collective bargaining agreement may join the existing bargaining unit in
accord with the one-union, one-company policy of the Department ofLabor and
CENECO entered into a collective bargaining agreement with CURE, a labor union Employment.
representing its rank-and-file employees, providing for a term of three years retroactive to Private respondent interposed an appeal protesting the finding of employer-
April 1, 1987 and extending up to March 31, 1990. On December 28, 1989, CURE wrote employee relationship. Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma reversed the Order
CENECO proposing that negotiations be conducted for a new collective bargaining of the Med-arbiter. 4
agreement (CBA). Issue: won employees under a contract of services has the right to self organization
CENECO denied CURE's request on the ground that, under applicable decisions of Ruling: Petition denied.
theSupreme Court, employees who at the same time are members of an electric if the union members are not employees, no right to organize for purposes of
cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union. bargaining, nor to be certified as bargaining agent can be recognized. Since the persons
Prior to the submission of the proposal for CBA renegotiation, CURE members, in involved are not employees of the company, we held that they are not entitled to the
constitutional right to join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective
a general assembly, it was agreed that 'all union members shall withdraw, retract, or
bargaining.
recall the union members' membership from Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. in
order to avail (of) the full benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement
e. Effect of Including Employees outside the Bargaining Unit (255)
entered into by and between CENECO and CURE, and the supposed benefits that our
f. Employees of International Org:
union may avail (of) under the renewed CBA.
77 International Catholic Migration Association v. Calleja, 190 SCRA
130
Issue: whether or not the employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership from the
cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes of the negotiations for a
Facts:
collective bargaining agreement proposed by the latter.
As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing
Ruling: Petition denied.
membership in the cooperative is on a voluntary basis. Hence, withdrawal from South Vietnam's communist rule confronted the international community.
therefrom cannot be restricted unnecessarily. The right to join an organization necessarily In response to this crisis, on 23 February 1981, an Agreement was forged between
includes the equivalent right not to join the same. the Philippine Governmentand the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
whereby an operating center for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for eventual
resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan
d. Non-employees (252) ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the
76 Republic Planters Bank etc. v. Laguesma, 264 SCRA 637 refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. As an international organization rendering
voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines, its activities are parallel to those of
petitioner filed a petition for certification election to determine the sole and exclusive the International Committee for Migration (ICM) and the International Committee of the
bargaining representative of all regular employees outside the bargaining unit of Republic Red Cross (ICRC).
Planters Bank. 1 The proposed bargaining unit is composed of clerks, messengers, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry
janitors, plumbers, telex operators, mailing and printing personnel, drivers, mechanics of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file
and computer personnel. Allegedly, these employees are regular employees but are members employed by ICMC The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an
considered as contractual employees by private respondent bank. They are excluded from international organization registered with the United Nations and, hence, enjoys
diplomatic immunity.
31
Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for lack of members of the Mactan Workers Union unless ordered by the Court, otherwise the ALU
jurisdiction. On appeal by TUPAS, Director Pura Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations will take such step to protect the interest of its members ... . Because this warning given
(BLR), reversed the Med-Arbiter's Decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a by the intervenor union the defendant corporation did not pay to the plaintiffs the sum of
certification election. P4,035.82 which was returned by the Associated Labor Union, but instead, deposited the
Respondent BLR Director, on the other hand, with whom the Solicitor General agrees, said amount with the Labor Administrator. For the recovery of this amount this case was
cites State policy and Philippine labor laws to justify its assailed Order, particularly, Article filed with the lower court.”
II, Section 18 and Article III, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution, infra; and Articles 243 Issue: won petitioners as non members of ALU are also included in CBA
and 246 of the Labor Code, as amended, ibid. In addition, she contends that a certification Ruling: Petition granted.
election is not a litigation but a mere investigation of a non-adversary, fact-finding "the right to be the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
character. It is not a suit against ICMC its property, funds or assets, but is the sole collective bargaining unit is vested in the labor union 'designated or selected' for such
concern of the workers themselves. purpose 'by the majority of the employees' in the unit concerned." 9 If it were otherwise,
the highly salutory purpose and objective of the collective bargaining scheme to enable
Issue: whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunites to ICMC extends to labor to secure better terms in employment condition as well as rates of pay would be
immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws. frustrated insofar as non-members are concerned, deprived as they are of participation in
Ruling; Petition granted. whatever advantages could thereby be gained. The labor union that gets the majority vote
Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine Government and ICMC as the exclusive bargaining representative does not act for its members alone. It
provides that ICMC shall have a status "similar to that of a specialized agency." Article III, represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit. It is not to be indulged in any
Sections 4 and 5 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized attempt on its part to disregard the rights of non-members. Yet that is what intervenor
Agencies, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 November 1947 and concurred in labor union was guilty of, resulting in the complaint filed on behalf of the laborers, who
by the Philippine Senate through Resolution No. 19 on 17 May 1949, explicitly provides: were in the ranks of plaintiff Mactan Labor Union.
Art. III, Section 4. The specialized agencies, their property and assets,
wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from 9. Non-abridgment of Right (256)
every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case they 10. Sanctions for Violation of Right (Art. 256, 258, 259, 302, 303)
have expressly waived their immunity. It is, however, understood that
no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of execution. CASES:
Sec. 5. — The premises of the specialized agencies shall be inviolable. The property and 78 Arizala vs Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 584
assets of the specialized agencies, wherever located and by whomsoever held shall be
immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of Facts: Under the Industrial Peace Act, 1 government-owned or controlled corporations had
interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action. the duty to bargain collectively and were otherwise subject to the obligations and duties
The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly necessitated by of employers in the private sector. 2 The Act also prohibited supervisors to become, or
their international character and respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger continue to be, members of labor organizations composed of rank-and-file
of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings. The exercise employees, 3 and prescribedcriminal sanctions for breach of the prohibition. 4
of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very It was under the regime of said Industrial Peace Act that the Government
purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in Service Insurance System (GSIS, for short) became bound by a collective bargaining
accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host agreement executed between it and the labor organization representing the majority of its
country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the employees, the GSIS Employees Association. The agreement contained a "maintenance-
unhampered performance of their functions. of-membership" clause, a condition for their continued employment in the GSIS.
Demands were made on all four of them to resign from the GSIS Employees Association,
8. Party protected in view of their supervisory positions. They refused to do so. Consequently, two (2)
criminal cases for violation of the Industrial Peace Act were lodged against them in the
78 Mactan Workers Union v. Aboitiz, 45 SCRA 577 City Court of Cebu: one involving Arizala and Maribao 6 and the other, Joven and
Facts: Bulandus. 7
In compliance with the collective bargaining agreement, in March, 1965 the defendant The appeals were consolidated on motion of the appellants, and eventuated in a judgment
Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. delivered to the ALU for distribution to the promulgated on January 29, 1976 affirming the convictions of all four appellants. The
laborers or employees working with the defendant corporation to the profit- appellants moved for reconsideration. They argued that when the so called "1973
sharing bonus corresponding to the first installment for the year 1965. Again in June 1965 Constitution" took effect on January 17, 1973 pursuant to Proclamation No. 1104, the
the defendant corporation delivered to the Associated Labor Union the profit-sharing case of Arizala and Maribao was still pending in the Court of Appeals and that of Joven and
bonus corresponding to the second installment for 1965. The members of the Mactan Bulandus, pending decision in the City Court of Cebu; that since the provisions of that
Workers Union failed to receive their shares in the second installment of bonus because constitution and of the Labor Code subsequently promulgated (eff., November 1, 1974),
they did not like to go to the office of the ALU to collect their shares. In accordance with repealing the Industrial Peace Act-placed employees of all categories in government-
the terms of the collective bargaining after 60 days, the uncollected shares of the plaintiff owned or controlled corporations without distinction within the Civil Service, and provided
union members was returned by the ALU to the defendant corporation. At the same time that the terms and conditions of their employment were to be "governed by the Civil
the defendant corporation was advised by the ALU not to deliver the said amount to the Service Law, rules and regulations" and hence, no longer subject of collective bargaining,
32
the appellants ceased to fall within the coverage of the Industrial Peace Act and should On appeal, respondent Undersecretary, upheld the order of respondent Med-Arbiter
thus no longer continue to be prosecuted and exposed to punishment for a violation Issue: won public respondent gravely abuse its discretion of finding of facts and substance
thereof. They pointed out further that the criminal sanction in the Industrial Peace Act no of law in favour of private respondent
longer appeared in the Labor Code. The Appellate Court denied their plea for Ruling: Petition denied.
reconsideration.
Issue: whether or not the petitioners' criminal liability for a violation of the Industrial a) Findings of fact of labor officials are generally conclusive and binding upon this
Peace Act may be deemed to have been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation and Court when supported by substantial evidence.
the provisions of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. b) the employees at the Cinema operation and those at the garment manufacturing
Ruling : Petition granted. operation do not share commonality of interest as the former clearly perform
The decisive consideration is that at present, supervisors who were already work entirely different from that of the latter. Thus, their separation into two (2)
members of a rank-and-file labor organization at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. distinct bargaining units is proper.
6715, are authorized to "remain therein." It seems plain, in other words, that the c) The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party whether as
maintenance by supervisors of membership in a rank-and-file labor organization even complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case may be, the nearest
after the enactment of a statute imposing a prohibition on such membership, is not only governmental machinery to settle a labor dispute must be placed at his
not a crime, but is explicitly allowed, under present law. immediate disposal and the employer must in no case be allowed a choice in
The repeal here was absolute and not a reenactment and repeal by implication. Nor was favor of another competent agency sitting in another place to the inconvenience
there any saving clause. The legislative intent as shown by the action of the municipal is of the worker.
that such conduct, formerly denounced, is no longer deemed criminal, and it would be
illogical for this court to attempt to sentence appellant for the offense that no longer 81 Portworkers Union vs LAguesma, 207 SCRA 329
exists. Facts:
We are therefore of the opinion that the proceedings against appellant must be dismissed. The CBA of private respondent APCWU was due to expire on April 14, 1990.
(SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25%
79 Benguet Electric Cooperative vs Calleja, 180 SCRA 740 of the employees in thebargaining unit were submitted on March 26, 1990, or eleven days
after the petition.
80 Cruzvale, Inc. vs Laguesma, 238 SCRA 389 Still another petition for certification election was filed by Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990.
The consent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990, or thirty-five days after the
Facts: filing of the petition.
Private respondent, a labor union, filed with the (DOLE), Regional Office No. IV, a The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. On April 26,
petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file workers of petitioner 1990, APCWU filed amotion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with
petitioner sought to dismiss the petition of private respondent alleging that a) the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, quoted
no charter certificate evidencing the organization of a local union therein was attached to in part as follows:
the petition or submitted to the DOLE at the time the petition was filed, b)That the In a petition involving an organized establishment or enterprise where the majority status
respondent Union has not presented any proof that it is a legitimate labor organization; of the incumbent collective bargaining union is questioned through a verified petition by
and c) That the Regional Office No. IV of the DOLE has no jurisdiction over the petition a legitimate labor organization, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the certification
since petitioner Company's place of business is located at Cubao, Quezon City, which is election by secret ballot if the petition is filed during the last sixty (60) days of the
outside the jurisdiction of the said Regional Office. Consequently, it is the National Capital collective bargaining agreement and supported by the written consent of at least twenty-
Region or NCR of the DOLE which has jurisdiction over said petition five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Any petition filed before or
Respondent Med-Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of private respondent stating that after the sixty-day freedom period shall be dismissed outright. The twenty-five percent
the status of the petitioner, it is established that the petitioner is a legitimate organization (25%) requirement shall be satisfied upon the filing of the petition, otherwise the petition
with Dole Registration Certificate No. 11106 LC (FED) and has a local chapter in the shall be dismissed.
respondent's company located at Cainta, Rizal. The existence of a local union is likewise Specifically, APCWU faulted both petitions for non-compliance with the requirement for the
undisputed as the same is evidenced by Charter Certificate No. 82 issued to it by the 25% consent signatures at the time of filing. This contention was upheld by the Med-
petitioner, United Filipino Workers, and submitted to this Office which automatically forms Arbiter in an order dated June 5, 1990, dismissing the consolidated petitions.
part of the records of this case. PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor on June 28, 1990, arguing that Article 256 of
As regards the second and third issues on whether or not the herein petition is duly filed the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with
or not, the allegation of the respondent that the same is defective in form and substance the petition for certification election. The principalpetitioners did not appeal. On August
since no charter certificate and signatories were attached thereto at the time of filing of 21, 1990, DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the order of the Med-
this petition is unmeritorious and without legal basis. Arbiter and dismissed PWUP's appeal.
The respondent is an unorganized establishment which is governed by Article 257 of the Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining
Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, which read as follows: agreement, which was concluded on September 28, 1990. This was ratified on October 7,
Petitions in unorganized establishments. — In any establishment where there is no 1990, by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit, i.e., 910 out of the 1,223
certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the members, and subsequently registered with the DOLE.
Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization
33
Issue: won grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent in the KAMPIL moved for reconsideration, and when this was denied, instituted in this Court the
application of Article 256 of the Labor Code. present certiorari action.
Ruling: Petition granted. Issue: won certification election should not be dismissed by the director of BLR.
There was indeed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on Ruling: Petition granted.
the part of public respondents when they dismissed the petitions for certification election It is evident that the prohibition imposed by law on the holding of a certification
because the consent signatures had not been submitted simultaneously with the petition. election "within one year from the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification
The issue of majority representation thus remains open and awaits settlement. Following election result' — in this case, from February 27, 1981, the date of the Resolution
the rulings above-quoted, we hereby declare that the newly-concluded CBA cannot declaring NAFLU the exclusive bargaining representative of rank-and-file workers of
constitute a bar to the holding of a certification election. VIRON — can have no application to the case at bar. That one-year period-known as the
Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct ascertainment of the labor "certification year" during which the certified union is required to negotiate with the
union that has the support of confidence of the majority of the workers and is thus employer, and certification election is prohibited 2 — has long since expired.
entitled to represent them in their dealings with management.
83 National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines
82 Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino vs Trajano, 201 SCRA 453 vs. Trajano, 208 SCRA 18
Facts:
By virtue of a Resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated February 27, 1981, the Facts:
National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) was declared the exclusive bargaining Petitioner National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines
representative of all rank-and-file employees of Viron Garments Manufacturing Co., Inc. (NACUSIP)-TUCP is the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file
(VIRON). workers of Calinog Refinery Corporation. Private respondent Federation of Unions of Rizal
More than four years thereafter, or on April 11, 1985, another union, the Kaisahan ng (FUR)-TUCP is a labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and
Manggagawang Pilipino KAMPIL Katipunan filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a Employment while private respondent Calinog Refineries Employees Union (CREU)-
petition for certification election among the employees of VIRON. The petition allegedly NACUSIP is the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file workers
counted with the support of more than thirty percent (30%) of the workers at VIRON. of the private respondent Calinog Refinery Corporation by virtue of the certification
NAFLU opposed the petition, as might be expected. The Med-Arbiter however ordered, on election held on March 30, 1981.
June 14, 1985, that a certification election be held at VIRON as prayed for, after On July 21, 1982, private respondent FUR-TUCP filed with the Regional Office No. VI,
ascertaining that KAMPIL had complied with all the requirements of law and that since the MOLE (now DOLE), Iloilo City a petition for certification election among the rank and file
certification of NAFLU as sole bargaining representative in 1981, nocollective bargaining employees of private respondent company, alleging that: (1) about forty-five percent
agreement had been executed between it and VIRON. (45%) of private respondent company's employees had disaffiliated from petitioner union
NAFLU appealed. It contended that at the time the petition for certification election was and joined private respondent union; (2) no election had been held for the past twelve
filed on April 11, 1985, it was in process of collective bargaining with VIRON; that there (12) months; and (3) while petitioner union had been certified as the sole collective
was in fact a deadlock in the negotiations which had prompted it to file a notice of strike; bargaining agent, for over a year it failed to conclude a collective bargaining
and that these circumstances constituted a bar to the petition for election in accordance agreement with private respondent company. Petitioner union filed a motion to intervene
with Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, in the petition for certification election filed by private respondent union.
1
reading as follows: , a bargaining deadlock was already submitted to arbitration when private respondent
SEC. 3. When to file. — In the absence of a collective bargaining FUR-TUCP filed a petition for certification election. The same petition was dismissed for
agreement submitted in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a lack of merit by the Acting Med-Arbiter in an order dated July 23, 1982 on the sole ground
petition for certification election may be filed at any time. However, no that the petition is barred by a pending bargaining deadlock. However, respondent
certification election may be held within one year from the date of Director set aside the same order and subsequently affirmed an order giving due course to
issuance of declaration of a final certification election result. Neither may the petition for certification election and ordering that an election be held.
a representation question be entertained if, before the filing of a petition Issue: is whether or not a petition for certification election may be filed during the
for certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or pendency of a bargaining deadlock submitted to arbitration or conciliation
certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation Ruling: petition granted.
or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or The law on the matter is Section 3, Book V, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
lockout. the Labor Code, to wit:
If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in Sec. 3. When to file. — In the absence of a collective bargaining
accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification agreement duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a
election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty petition for certification election may be filed at any time. However, no
(60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement. certification election may be held within one year from the date of
issuance of a final certification election result. Neither may a
Finding merit in a NAFLU's appeal, the Director of Labor Relations rendered a Resolution representation question be entertained if, before the filing of a petition
on April 30, 1986 setting aside the Med-Arbiter's Order of June 14, 1985 and dismissing for certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or
KAMPIL's petition for certification election. certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation

34
 or arbitration or had become the subject of valid notice or strike or accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting
lockout. of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall
If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in be observed.(Emphasis supplied)
accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification Since the "procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions" refers to
election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty the certification and attestation requirements contained in Article 235, paragraph 2, it
(60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement. follows that the constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts submitted
The clear mandate of the aforequoted section is that a petition for certification election by the local and chapter must likewise comply with these requirements. The same
may be filed at any time, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Otherwise rationale for requiring the submission of duly subscribed documents upon union
put, the rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification election in the following registration exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover, there is greater reason to
cases: exact compliance with the certification and attestation requirements because, as
(1) during the existence of a collective bargaining agreement except within the freedom previously mentioned, several requirements applicable to independent union registration
period; are no longer required in the case of formation of a local or chapter. The policy of the law
(2) within one (1) year from the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification in conferring greater bargaining power upon labor unions must be balanced with the policy
election result; or of providing preventive measures against the commission of fraud.
(3) during the existence of a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified
bargaining agent is a party and which had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or 85 Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club, Inc. vs Tagaytay
had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO, 395 SCRA 699
The Deadlock Bar Rule simply provides that a petition for certification election can only be
entertained if there is no pending bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or Facts:
arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. The principal On October 16, 1997, the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)–Philippine
purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the management. 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
84 Progressive Development Corp vs Secretary, 205 SCRA 802 THIGCI, filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration
Unit, Regional Branch No. IV.
Facts: THIGCI, in its Comment1 filed on November 27, 1997, opposed THEU’s petition for
Kilusan) filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a petition for certification election on the ground that the list of union members submitted by it was
certification election among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors,
a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive Development Employees resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as employees
Union, was issued charter certificate No. 90-6-1-153. Kilusan claimed that there was no of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that out
existing collective bargaining agreement and that no other legitimate labor organization of the 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of
existed in the bargaining unit. THIGCI.
PDC filed its motion to dismiss dated July 11, 1990 contending that the local union failed THEU asserted that it had complied with all the requirements for valid affiliation and
to comply with Rule II Section 3, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations pursuant to DOLE Department
amended, which requires the submission of: (a) the constitution and by-laws; (b) names, Order No. 9, series of 1997,5 on account of which it was duly granted a Certification of
addresses and list of officers and/or members; and (c) books of accounts. Affiliation by DOLE on on October 10, 1997;6 and that Section 5, Rule V of said
respondent Kilusan submitted a rejoinder to PDC's motion to dismiss claiming that it had Department Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject
submitted the necessary documentary requirements for registration except for books of to collateral attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation, it continues to
account because the local union was only recently organized. enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.
Med Arbiter dela Cruz held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements THEU thus concluded in its Reply7 that under the circumstances, the Med-Arbiter should,
for the formation of the chapter. He further stated that mere issuance of pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department
the charter certificate by the federation was sufficient compliance with the rules. Order No. 09, automatically order the conduct of a certification election.
Considering that the establishment was unorganized, he maintained that a certification DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin ordered the holding of a certification election among
election should be conducted to resolve the question of representation. the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI in this wise “, the accompanying documents
On appeal by PDC to Sec of DOLE, the latter dismissed the petition. show that indeed petitioner union is a legitimate labor federation and its
Issue: won local or chapter must at the same time comply with the requirement of local/chapter was duly reported to this Office as one of its affiliate
local/chapter”
submission of duly subscribed constitution and by-laws, list of officers and books of
On appeal and MR both to Sec of DOLE and CA respectively- Petition Denied.
accounts.
Issue: the legitimacy of labor organization.
Ruling: Petition granted.
Ruling: Petition denied.
In the case of the union affiliation with a federation, the documentary requirements are
. After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be
found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again quote as
subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for
follows:
cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book IV of the "Rules to Implement
(c) The local chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have
the Labor Code" (Implementing Rules) which section reads:
and maintain a constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of

35
 Sec. 5. Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers’ association shall the abovementioned case was certified in an Order by the then Minister of Labor and
be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance Employment to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration; the Order also forbade the holding of
of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be strikes or lock-outs.
subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent one of the demands raised by AWU was that Metro terminate the employment of
petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. (Emphasis supplied) respondents Adriano Yumul and ten (10) others (individual respondents), for having
The grounds for cancellation of union registration are provided for under Article 239 of the organized, on 26 October 1984, the Associated Workers Union in Metroport ("AWUM")
Labor Code, as follows: among the rank-and-file employees of Metro, ostensibly as a local or chapter of AWU.
Art. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. The following shall AWU had earlier expelled individual respondents from membership in AUW for disloyalty
constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: and, pursuant to the closed-shop provision of the existing AWU-Metro collective
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
bargaining agreement ("CBA"), sought the termination of their employment.
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes
Metro initially resisted AWU's request to terminate the employment of individual
of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
respondents, contending that the termination would be premature as individual
(b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within
thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or respondents had not been afforded due process. Metro, however, eventually relented and
amendments thereto; suspended individual respondents after AWU—despite the express prohibition in the Order
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of dated 3 April 1985—staged a strike against it. On 18 April 1985, Metro executed a
officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to subject Compromise Agreement ("Agreement") with AWU to end the strike which was attested to
these documents together with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers by then Deputy Labor Minister Carmelo Noriel..
and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election; As a result of Metro's implementation of the Agreement, individual respondents filed a
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty (30) complaint against Metro, and the latter file a complaint for illegal strike with damages
days after the losing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation, false entries or against AWU and its officers.
fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself; Labor Arbiter Ceferina Diosana in an Order directed Metro provisionally to reinstate
(e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise individual respondents pending resolution of the issues raised therein, with which Order
engaging in any activity prohibited by law; Metro complied.
(f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and Issue: won metro should be held solidary liable with AWU because it had merely
conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law; suspended individual respondents pursuant to the Agreement dated 18 April 1985 it had
(g) Asking for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation fees from employers; executed with AWU and, later, had merely obeyed the Resolution of the NLRC dated 1
(h) Other than for mandatory activities under this Code, checking off special August 1985 ordering Metro to re-suspend individual respondents.
assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual written Ruling: Petition denied.
authorizations of the members;
14
Notwithstanding AWU's closed-shop clause in the CBA, Metro was bound to conduct its
(i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or own inquiry to determine the existence of substantial basis for terminating the
whenever required by the Bureau; and employment of individual respondents. 15 That AWU, disregarding the Minister of Labor
(j) Failure to comply with the requirements under Articles 237 and 238, and Employment's express order, had threatened to go on strike, and indeed actually
(Emphasis supplied), went on strike, if Metro had continued with the services of individual respondents, did not
while the procedure for cancellation of registration is provided for in Rule VIII, relieve Metro from the duty to accord procedural due process to individual respondents.
Book V of the Implementing Rules. 87 ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Unino vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting
The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for Corp. 304 SCRA 489
cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239
of above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code.
THEU, having been validly issued a certificate of registration, should be considered to have
already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally.

86 Associated Labor Union-PTGWO vs NLRC, 188 SCRA 123

Facts:
petitioner Associated Workers Union ("AWU")—PTGWO, the then bargaining
representative of the dockworkers at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, filed a Notice of LABOR ORGANIZATION/REGULATION OF LABOR
Strike against respondent Metro Port Service, Inc. ("Metro"), the then arrastre contractor ORGANIZATIONS: (Art. 239-248)
in the South Harbor, on the issues, among others, of unfilled vacancies and union busting.
1. POLICY – 218 (b,c)
36
Art. 218. Declaration of Policy. disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. (Section 2(j), R.a.
b. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy 875).
and the promotion of social justice and development; In our opinion, it is perfectly within the powers and prerogatives of a labor organization,
c. To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement; through its duly elected officers, to authorize a segment of that organization to
bargain collectively with a particular employer, particularly where those
2. Definitions: Labor Org constituting the segment share a common and distinguishable interest, apart
Art. 219 (g) (h) from the rest of their fellow union members, on matters that directly affect the
g. "Labor organization" means any union or association of employees which exists in terms and conditions of their particular employment. As the circumstances pertinent
whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers to the case at bar presently stand, ALPAP (Gaston) has extended recognition to ALPAP
concerning terms and conditions of employment. (Gomez) to enter and conclude collective bargaining contracts with PAL. Having given
ALPAP (Gomez) this authority, it would be clearly unreasonable on the part of ALPAP
LABOR ORGANIZATION (Gaston) to disallow the former a certain use of the office, funds and name of ALPAP when
such use is necessary or would be required to enable ALPAP (Gomez) to exercise, in a
Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines v. CIR, 76 SCRA 274 (77) proper manner, its delegated authority to bargain collectively with PAL. Clearly, an
FACTS: Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines, represented by Ben Hur Gomez who intelligently considered adjustment of grievances and integration of the diverse and
claimed to be its President, filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations praying varying interests that not infrequently and, often, unavoidably permeate the membership
for certification as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of "all the of a labor organization, will go a long way, in achieving peace and harmony within the
pilots now under employment by the Philippine Air Lines, Inc, and are on active flight ranks of ALPAP. Of course, in the eventuality that the pilots presently employed by PAL
and/or operational assignments." It was opposed in the name of the same association by and who subscribe to the leadership of Ben Hur Gomez should consider it to their better
Felix C. Gaston (who also claimed to be its President) on the ground that the industrial interest to have their own separate office, name and union funds, nothing can prevent
court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter o" the petition "because a certification them from setting up a separate labor union. In that eventuality, whatever vested rights,
proceeding in the Court of Industrial Relations is not the proper forum for the adjudication interest or participation they may have in the assets, including cash funds, of ALPAP as a
of the question as to who is the lawful president of a LLO." result of their membership therein should properly be liquidated in favor of such
XXXXX withdrawing members of the association….
…a group of pilots of a particular airline, allegedly anticipation their forced retirement or
resignation on account of strained relations with the airline arising from unfulfilled Dunlop v. Secretary of Labor, 300 SCRA 120 (98)
economic demands, decided to adopt an amendment to their organization's constitution
and by-laws in order to enable them to retain their membership standing therein even FACTS: Respondent union filed a PCE among the supervisory, office and technical
after the termination of their employment with the employer concerned. employees of the petitioner company before the DOLE, Regional Office No. III, San
This Court nonetheless finds, after a close and dispassionate study of the facts on record, Fernando, Pampanga. It alleged that it is a LLO, a duly chartered local of the Associated
that the industrial court's conclusion, that the mentioned amendment to the ALPAP Professional, Supervisory, Office & Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU); that petitioner
constitution and by-laws is illegal (a) because it was not adopted in accordance with the is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of tennis balls and other allied
procedure prescribed and (b) because member of labor organization cannot adopt an products; that petitioner is an unorganized establishment and there is no certified
amendment to their fundamental charter so as to include non employees (of PAL) as bargaining agreement that will bar the filing of its PCE; and that no certification election
member, is erroneous. has been conducted within one (1) year prior to the filing certification election.
We have made a careful examination of the records of L-33705 and we find the adoption On October 9, 1995, the petitioner company filed its Answer with Motion to Dismiss based
of the resolution introducing the questioned amendment to be substancial compliance with on three (3) grounds, namely: (1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory
the ALPAP constitution and by-law. Indeed, there is no refutation of the act that 221out of and rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit;
the 270 members of ALPAP did cast their votesin favor of the said amendment on October (2) that a single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and
30, 1970 at the ALPAP general membership meeting. rank-and-file employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it
Their Court cannot likewise subcribe to the restrictive interpretation made by the court failed to submit its books of accounts. 2 Respondent union alleged that its members are
below of the term "labor organization," which Section 2(e) of R.A. 875 defines as supervisors and not rank-and-file employees.
any union or association of employees which exist, in whole or in part, for the We agree with the public respondent that supervisors can be an appropriate
purpose of the collective bargaining or dealing with employers concerning terms bargaining unit. This is in accord with our repeated ruling that "[a]n appropriate
and conditions of employment." The absence of the condition which the court below bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, composed of all or less than
would attach to the statutory concept of a labor organization, as being limited to the the entire body of employees, which the collective interests of all the employees,
employees of particular employer, is quite evident from the law. The emphasis of consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights
Industrial Peace Act is clearly on the purposes for which a union or association of and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of law. Otherwise
employees established rather than that membership therein should be limited only to the stated, it is a legal collectivity for collective bargaining purposes whose members have
employees of a particular employer. Trite to say, under Section 2(h) of R.A 875 substantially mutual bargaining interests in terms and conditions of employment as will
"representative" is define as including "a LLO or any officer or agent of such organization, assure to all employees their collective bargaining rights. A unit to be appropriate must
whether or not employed by the employer or employee whom he represents." It cannot be effect a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours,
overemphasized likewise that labor dispute can exist "regardless of whether the working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining." 7

37
The critical issue, however, is whether or not the respondent union can file a PCE to their rights under the LC are concerned. Hence, SAPI and not the CSAI is entitled to the
represent the supervisory employees of the petitioner company. The resolution of this release and custody of union fees with Aboitiz Shipping and other shipping companies with
issue depends on whether the respondent union is composed solely of supervisory whom it had an existing CBA.
employees or of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees. Article 245 of the LC
clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a The election of the so-called set of officers headed by Manuel Gabayoyo was conducted
labor organization of the rank-and-file employees . . . ." under the supervision of the SEC. That being the case, the aforementioned set of officers
xxx xxx xxx is of the CSAI and not of SAPI. It follows, then, that any proceedings, and actions taken
Clearly, based on this provision [Article 245, LC], a labor organization composed by said set of officers can not, in any manner, affect the union and its members.
of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all.
It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a LLO. Not being one, an organization
which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. V SEC. OF DOLE; 205 SCRA 802; G.R. No.
possess any of the rights of a LLO, including the right to file a PCE for the 96425 February 4, 1992
purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to
the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the
ISSUE: …requirements before a local or chapter of a federation may file a petition for
composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor
certification election and be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the LC.
petitioner's employees.
Needless to stress, the respondent union has no legal right to file a certification election to
represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for so long as it counts rank-and-file
employees among its members. FACTS: Respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa (KILUSAN) -TUCP (Kilusan) filed
with DOLE a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of the
petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive
Definitions: Legitimate Labor Org Development Employees Union, was issued charter certificate. Kilusan claimed that there
Art. 219 (h) was no existing CBA and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the
h. "LLO" means any labor organization duly registered with the Dept of Labor and bargaining unit.Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss contending that the local union
Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof. 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 by-laws; (b)
BASIS OF LEGITIMACY names, addresses and list of officers and/or members; and (c) books of accounts…that the
CEBU SEAMAN’S ASSOCIATION VS FERRER-CALLEJA alleged minutes of the organizational meeting was unauthenticated, the list of members
Facts: A group of deck officers and marine engineers organized themselves into an did not bear the corresponding signatures of the purported members, and the constitution
association and registered the same as a non-stock corporation known as Cebu Seaman's and by-laws did not bear the signature of the members and was not duly subscribe.
Association, Inc. (CSAI) with the SEC. The same group subsequently registered its
association with the Bureau of Labor Relations as a labor union known as the Seamen's Respondent Kilusan submitted a rejoinder to PDC's motion to dismiss claiming that it had
Association of the Philippines, Incorporated (SAPI). 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
SAPI has an existing CBA with Aboitiz Shipping Corporation which remitted checked-off addresses. Kilusan further averred that no books of accounts could be submitted as the
dues to SAPI. Later on, a group of union members headed by Manuel Gabayoyo claimed local union was only recently organized.
that they are entitled to the custody of the union dues because they were elected as the
new set of officers under the supervision of SEC. Another group headed by Dominica
Nacua, claiming that they were the duly elected set of officers of the union and therefore It is the petitioner's contention that a labor organization (such as the Kilusan) may not
entitled to the union dues, filed a complaint to restrain the group of Gabayoyo from validly invest the status of legitimacy upon a local or chapter through the mere expedient
representing the union. CSAI represented by the Gabayoyo group, however, claimed that of issuing a charter certificate and submitting such certificate to the BLR (Rollo, p. 85)
since Nacua was already expelled as officer/member, she has no personality to represent Petitioner PDC posits that such local or chapter must at the same time comply with the
the union. requirement of submission of duly subscribed constitution and by-laws, list of officers and
books of accounts. (Rollo, p. 35) PDC points out that the constitution and by-laws and list
Issue: Whether or not Seamen's Association of the Philippines is a LLO, and therefore of officers submitted were not duly subscribed. Likewise, the petitioner claims that the
entitled to the custody of the union dues mere filing of the aforementioned documents is insufficient; that there must be due
recognition or acknowledgment accorded to the local or chapter by BLR through a
Held: No. CSAI is not a LLO because it is only registered with SEC. It is the certificate of registration or any communication emanating from it. (Rollo, p. 86)
registration of the organization with the BLR and not with the SEC which made it
a LLO with rights and privileges granted under the LC. OSG: Article 268 [257] of the Labor Code which mandates the automatic conduct by the
Med-Arbiter of a certification election in any establishment where there is no certified
On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, SAPI, the legitimate labor union, bargaining agreement… The Court has repeatedly stressed that the holding of a
registered with its office, is not the same association as CSAI, the corporation, insofar as certification election is based on a statutory policy that cannot be circumvented.

38
The workers must be allowed to freely express their choice in a determination a statement on the set of officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified
where everything is open to their sound judgment and the possibility of fraud under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter,
and misrepresentation is eliminated. and attested to by its president.

But while Article 268 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not
certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires that the become a legitimate labor organization.
petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization.
Article 242 enumerates the exclusive rights of a legitimate labor organization among which is the right
to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the
bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Article 212(h) defines a legitimate required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status.
labor organization as "any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE
and includes any branch or local thereof." Rule I, Section 1 (j), Book V of the …mother union, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate, had the status of an agent while
Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitimate labor organization as "any the local union remained the basic unit of the association, free to serve the common
labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch, local interest of all its members subject only to the restraints imposed by the constitution and
or affiliate thereof. by-laws of the association. Thus, where as in this case the petition for certification election
was filed by the federation which is merely an agent, the petition is deemed to be
...In the case at bar, the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted in filed by the chapter, the principal, which must be a legitimate labor organization. The
the BLR, while attested to by the chapter's president, were not certified under chapter cannot merely rely on the legitimate status of the mother union.
oath by the secretary. Does such defect warrant the withholding of the status of
legitimacy to the local or chapter? … the local union must first comply with the statutory requirements in order to exercise
this right. Big federations and national unions of workers should take the lead in requiring
In the case of union registration, the rationale for requiring that the submitted documents their locals and chapters to faithfully comply with the law and the rules instead of merely
and papers be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, and snapping union after union into their folds in a furious bid with rival federations to get the
attested to by president is apparent. The submission of the required documents (and most number of members.
payment of P50.00 registration fee) becomes the Bureau's basis for approval of the
application for registration. Upon approval, the labor union acquires legal personality and
is entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC v. TAGAYTAY
The employer naturally needs assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO 395 SCRA 699 CARPIO-MORALES;
fide organization, one which has not submitted false statements or misrepresentations to January 22, 2003
the Bureau. The inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements will in a marked
degree allay these apprehensions of management. Not only is the issuance of any false FACTS : Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU), Philippine Transport and General
statement and misrepresentation a ground for cancellation of registration (see Article 239 Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a LLO said to represent majority
(a), (c) and (d)); it is also a ground for a criminal charge of perjury. of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a PCE before the DOLE Mediation-
Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV. PCE was opposed because the list of union
The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and
commission of fraud. They likewise afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL)
employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct and
purpose is to control union funds or to use the union for dubious ends. 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
In the case of the union affiliation with a federation, the documentary requirements are the handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the
found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again quote as petition.
follows: (c) The local chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and
maintain a constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts. For reporting THEU asserted that it complied with all the requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion
purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, in the roster of LLOs pursuant to DOLE Dept Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account of
federations or national unions shall be observed… "procedure governing the reporting which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on October 10, 1997; and
of independently registered unions" refers to the certification and attestation that Section 5, Rule V of said Dept Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration
requirements cannot be subject to collateral attack, and for as long as there is no final order of
cancellation, it continues to enjoy the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.
A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant to Article 257 of the LC and Section 11, Rule
submission of the following to the BLR: 1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from XI of DOLE Dept Order No. 09, automatically order the conduct of a certification election.
its issuance by the labor federation or national union, and 2) The constitution and by-laws,

39
DOLE Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a certification election. DOLE Resolution of
1 Meanwhile, respondent shipping companies separately served notices of termination of
November 12, 1998 > setting aside the June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the PCE. MFR
service upon sixty-four(64) employees, effective December 31, 1959, for reasons ranging
denied. CA - denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution
from stoppage of operations due to the death of a partner to business losses and
dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a PCE is an exception to the innocent
reversals. Because of these notices of termination of service upon USUP members (who,
bystander rule, hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the
admittedly, were also members of the Association.
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
USUP filed an unfair labor practice case against herein respondents (Case No. 49-ULP-
support its allegations.
DB), alleging that "while its PCE is still pending consideration before this Honorable Court,
respondents herein by their respective officers interfered with and have been interfering
ISSUE :WON the withdrawal of some union members from the certification election will
with their employees' guaranteed right to self-organization and discriminated and have
affect the result
been discriminating against their respective employees, who are members of the
complainant, in regard to hire or tenure of office or condition of employment in order to
HELD:
NO
- As for petitioner’ s allegation that some of the signatures in the PCE were
deter organizational activity amongst employees, to induce those already organized to
obtained through fraud, false statement and misrepresentation, the proper procedure is,
drop from the rank, disrupt union morale and ultimately to break up the complainant
as reflected above, for it to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of
union . . ."
registration, and not to intervene in a PCE. Regarding the alleged withdrawal of union
members from participating in the certification election, this Court’s following ruling is
USUP filed its Notice of Strike even before it received the Shipowners' answer to its set of
instructive:
demands. It seems that regardless of whether the Shipowners would be willing to
"T]he best forum for determining whether there were indeed retractions from some of the negotiate with USUP or not, USUP was already predisposed to go on with the strike. There
laborers is in the certification election itself wherein the workers can freely could only be one reason for USUP to anticipate the Shipowners' negative stand: USUP
express their choice in a secret ballot. Suffice it to say that the will of the rank-and- was aware of the existence of a valid CBA between the Shipowners and the Association
file employees should in every possible instance be determined by secret ballot rather which would operate as a legal bar for the Shipowners to entertain USUP's demands.
than by administrative or quasi-judicial inquiry. Such representation and certification
Knowing as it did that its demands could not be entertained by the Shipowners, USUP at
election cases are not to be taken as contentious litigations for suits but as mere
that early stage could not have had any legitimate excuse for seeking recognition as the
investigations of a non-adversary, fact- finding character as to which of the competing
sole collective bargaining agent of the employees.
unions represents the genuine choice of the workers to be their sole and exclusive
collective bargaining representative with their employer."
In seeking to justify their action, USUP asserts that the strike it staged was a matter of
"self-defense" and/or "union survival", claiming that the respondent shipping companies
Company Union – 219 (i)
were the first to violate the covenant to preserve and observe the status quo by a
i. “Company Union” means any labor organization whose formation, function or
concerted action in sending out notices of dismissal or separation…
administration has been assisted by any act defined as ULP by this code
Undoubtedly, the parties adopted a graduated procedure in the settlement of their labor
3. RATIONALE FOR UNIONIZATION
disputes because of their desire to maintain harmonious relations and prevent as much as
possible the declaration of a strike, which in the last analysis works adversely to both
United Seaman’s Union of the Philippines v. Davao Shipowners Association, 20
capital and labor.
SCRA 1226 (67)
FACTS: United Seamen's Union of the Philippines (USUP) presented a set of demands to
The employees concerned who after all were bound by the CBA, as members of the
respondent Davao Shipowners Association, representing respondent shipping companies,
Association, totally disregarded, the procedure laid down therein by immediately going on
for union recognition, union security, standardization of wages and other benefits. In its
strike without coursing their complaints through the grievance committee for possible
answer, the Shipowners invited USUP's attention to the existence of a CBA with the Davao
settlement. Having failed to take advantage of a legal right granted them under the
Marine Association to which all the crewmen of their launches belonged. Since the
agreement, they are in no position to demand relief from the consequences of their own
Shipowners were bound by said CBA until the end of that year (1959), it suggested that
impulsive acts.
USUP first take the necessary steps to be certified as the collective bargaining agent of the
employees before they could negotiate in connection with its proposals.
A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of promoting the
interests of labor without unnecessary labor disputes. That is why it is given
However, even before receiving the Shipowners' answer to its set of demands, USUP had
personality and recognition in concluding CBAs. But if it is made use of as a
filed with Regional Office No. 8 of the DOL of Davao City a notice of strike against all the
subterfuge, or as a means to subvert valid commitments, it defeats its own
individual shipowners. The Chief of the Labor Operations Section of the Davao Regional
purpose, for it tends to undermine the harmonious relations between
Office requested USUP and the Shipowners to a conference with a view to settling the
management and labor. The situation does not deserve any approving sanction from
conflict. On August 20, 1959 the USUP, the Shipowners and the Association reached an
the Court.
agreement. Then, USUP filed with the CIR a PCE to determine the sole collective
bargaining representative of all the workers and employees of respondent shipping
companies.

40
University of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs NLRC and University of Pangasinan, considered as a resignation from the union, the fact remains that at the time of the
218 SCRA 65 union’s application for registration, the affiants were members of respondent and they
FACTS: Petitioner filed the following complaints against the University of Pangasinan for comprised more than the required 20% membership for purposes of registration as a
monetary claims. In its position paper, the petitioner included matters which were labor union. Article 234 of the LC merely requires a 20% minimum membership
"beyond the scope of the issues alleged in the complaints". Complaints were dismissed for during the application for union registration. It does not mandate that a union must
lack of merit. Respondent however, is required to integrate the allowance of P60.00 under maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all throughout its existence.
P.D. 1123 into the basic pay of the covered employees if the same has not as yet been
complied with. Respondent is also reminded to pay the employees at intervals not On the second issue, it appears undisputedly that the 31 union members had withdrawn
exceeding sixteen (16) days pursuant to Article 102 of the LC…. their support to the petition before the filing of said petition. The distinction must be that
withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed voluntary unless
The petitioner appealed the said decision to the NLRC. NLRC affirmed the decision of there is convincing proof to the contrary, whereas withdrawals made after the filing of
Executive LA. Hence, the instant petition for mandamus and certiorari… the petition are deemed involuntary. Therefore, following jurisprudence, the
employees were not totally free from the employer’s pressure and so the voluntariness of
The University's contention that petitioner had no legal personality to institute and the employees’ execution of the affidavits becomes suspect. The cancellation of a union’s
prosecute money claims must, therefore, fail. To quote then Associate Justice Teehankee registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-
in Heirs of Teodelo M. Cruz v. CIR, 18 "[w]hat should be borne in mind is that the organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union
interest of the individual worker can be better protected on the whole by a registration under the LC, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be
strong union aware of its moral and legal obligations to represent the rank and grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union
file faithfully and secure for them the best wages and working terms and members.
conditions. . . . Although this was stated within the context of collective bargaining, it
applies equally well to cases, such as the present wherein the union, through its Electromat Manufacturing and Recording Corporation v. Lagunzad [G.R. No.
president, presented its individual members' grievances through proper proceedings. 172699. July 27, 2011]
While the complaints might not have disclosed the identities of the individual employees FACTS: Private respondent applied for the registration with the BLR with its supporting
claiming monetary benefits, 19 such technical defect should not be taken against the documents. BLR issued Certification of Creation of Local Chapter (equivalent to the
claimants, especially because the University appears to have failed to demand a bill of certificate of registration of an independent union), pursuant to Dept Order No. (D.O.) 40-
particulars during the proceedings before the LA. 03. The union has submitted: (1) copies of the ratified CBL; (2) the minutes of the CBL’s
adoption and ratification; (3) the minutes of the organizational meetings; (4) the names
4. LABOR UNION AND GOVT REGULATION and addresses of the union officers; (5) the list of union members; (6) the list of rank-
a. Registration of Unions;requirements; modes of acquiring legitimate status; Art and-file employees in the company; (7) a certification of non-existence of a CBA in the
(239-243); Book V, Rules III, IV company; (8) the resolution of affiliation with WASTO and the latter’s acceptance; and (9)
their Charter Certificate. These submissions were properly verified as required by the
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC., vs. THE SEC. OF THE DOLE, et al
G.R. No. rules. In sum, the petitioner has no factual basis for questioning the union’s registration,
183317 Dec 21, 2009 as even the requirements for registration as an independent local have been substantially
FACTS:
Private respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, complied with. Petitioner filed a petition to cancel the union’s registration certificate for
Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a LLO by the DOLE, the union’s failure to comply with Article 239 [234] of the LC. DOLE-NCR dismissed the
Region IV-A. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union petition. In the appeal, the BLR affirmed the dismissed petition. Petitioner sought relief
Registration against private respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of the from the CA through a petition for certiorari contending that BLR committed grave abuse
LC for not complying with the 20% requirement and that it committed massive fraud and of discretion in affirming the union’s registration. The CA dismissed the petition as well as
misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 of the same code. The RD of DOLE IV-A its MR.
issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the registration of respondent, and
delisting it from the roster of active labor unions. SMMSC-Independent appealed to the ISSUES: Whether or not the respondents were validly registered in accordance with the
BLR. BLR ruled in favor of the respondent, thus, they remain in the roster of LLOs. LC.

The petitioner appealed and insisted that private respondent failed to comply with the RULINGS: Yes. The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union becomes a LLO
20% union membership requirement for its registration as a LLO because of the upon compliance with Section 3, Rule II, Book V of the Rules Implementing the LC, the
disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102 employees who executed only requirement being the submission of the charter certificate to the BLR. The local
affidavits recanting their union membership union in the present case has more than satisfied the requirements the petitioner
complains about.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not there was failure to comply with the 20% union
membership requirement
2) Whether or not the withdrawal of 31 union Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club vs. CA, et. al.

G.R. No. 178989, March 18,
members affected the PCE insofar as the 20% requirement is concerned 2010

Facts: Petitioner Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club(Eagle Ridge), which has around 112
RULING: On the first issue, while it is true that the withdrawal of support may be rank-and-file employees, alleges that Eagle Ridge Employees Union (EREU) committed

41
fraud, misrepresentation and false statement when it filed for its registration and that UNION (SSVLU) AND DIR. HANS LEO CACDAC, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR
EREU failed to comply with the membership requirement for the registration as a labor OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS (BLR), RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 161690,
organization. Eagle Ridge seeks to have EREU’s registration cancelled when the Union filed
July 23, 2008
a PCE. Eagle Ridge alleged that the EREU declared in its application for registration having
30 members, when the minutes of its December 6, 2005 organizational meeting showed it
FACTS: Ventures is an export firm located in Bataan and is in the business of
only had 26 members. The misrepresentation was exacerbated by the discrepancy
manufacturing rubbershoes. SS Ventures labor union (union), is a labor organization
between the certification issued by the Union secretary and president that 25 members
registered with DOLE. The Union filed with Dole a PCE in behalf of the rank and file
actually ratified the constitution and by-laws on December 6, 2005 and the fact that 26
employees of Ventures. There were 542 signatures, 82 of which belong to terminated
members affixed their signatures on the documents, making one signature a
Ventures employees. Ventures filed a petition to cancel the certificate of registration of the
forgery. 
 DOLE RD granted Eagle Ridge’s petition and delisted EREU from the roster of Union because:
LLOs. EREU appealed to the BLR, which initially affirmed the order of the RD, but upon
filing of the EREU of MR it was reinstated in the roster of LLOs. Eagle Ridge filed MR but 1. The Union deliberately and maliciously included the names of more or less 82 former
was denied, thus a petition for certiorari to the CA. The CA dismissed Eagle Ridge’s employees no longer connected with Ventures in its list of members who attended the
petition for being deficient as the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was organizational meeting and in the adoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws held
subscribed to by Luna C. Piezas on her representation as the legal counsel of the on January 9, 2000 in Mariveles, Bataan; and the Union forged the signatures of these 82
petitioner, but lacking [the requisite] Secretary’s Certificate or Board Resolution former employees to make it appear they took part in the organizational meeting and
authorizing her to execute and sign the same. The CA denied a MR.
 
 adoption and ratification of the constitution;
2. The Union maliciously twice entered the signatures of three persons namely: Mara
Santos, Raymond Balangbang, and Karen Agunos;
Issue: Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Eagle Ridge’s
3. No organizational meeting and ratification actually took place; and
petition to cancel EREU’s registration?
 
 4. The Union's application for registration was not supported by at least 20% of the
rank-and-file employees of Ventures, or 418 of the total 2,197- employee complement.
Ruling: No. A scrutiny of the records fails to show any misrepresentation, false statement, Since more or less 82 of the 500 signatures were forged or invalid, then the remaining
or fraud committed by EREU to merit cancellation of its registration. The Union submitted valid signatures would only be 418, which is very much short of the 439 minimum (2197
the required documents attesting to the facts of the organizational meeting on December total employees x 20% = 439.4) required by the LC.
6, 2005, the election of its officers, and the adoption of the Union’s constitution and by-
laws. EREU complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Union’s answer:
Art. 234(c). when it had 30 employees as member when it registered. Any seeming 1. the organizational meeting actually took place on January 9, 2000 at the Shoe City
infirmity in the application and admission of union membership, most especially in cases of basketball court in Mariveles;
independent labor unions, must be viewed in favor of valid membership. In the issue of the 2. the 82 employees adverted to in Ventures' petition were qualified Union members for,
affidavits of retraction executed by 6 union members, the probative value of these although they have been ordered dismissed, the one-year prescriptive period to question
affidavits cannot overcome those of the supporting affidavits of 12 union members and their dismissal had not yet lapsed;
their counsel as to the proceedings and the conduct of the organizational meeting on 3. it had complied with the 20%-member registration requirement since it had 542
December 6, 2005. The DOLE RD and the BLR OIC Director obviously erred in giving members; and
credence to the affidavits of retraction, but not according the same treatment to the 4. the "double" signatures were inadvertent human error.
supporting affidavits. It is settled that affidavits partake the nature of hearsay evidence,
since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own Ventures showed affidavits showing that the 82 employees were coerced into signing the
language in writing the affiant’s statement, which may thus be either omitted or minutes that an organizational meeting was held. DOLE RD found for Ventures. In a MR,
misunderstood by the one writing them. It is required for affiants to re-affirm the contents the BLR, reversed DOLE decision. CA affirmed.
of their affidavits during the hearing of the instant case for them to be examined by the
opposing party, i.e., the Union. For their non-presentation, the six affidavits of retraction Issue: could Ventures have the Union decertified for violating Art 246 (a) [239
are inadmissible as evidence against the Union in the instant case. Twenty percent (20%) (a)] of the LC? (misrepresentation with regard to adoption or ratification of the union’s
of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge would require a union membership of at constitution and like documents)
least 22 employees. When the EREU filed its application for registration on December 19,
2005, there were clearly 30 union members. Thus, when the certificate of registration HELD: No. To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible
was granted, there is no dispute that the Union complied with the mandatory 20% employees in its membership. It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation,
membership requirement. Prior to their withdrawal, the 6 employees who retracted false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for registration and the
were bona fide union members. With the withdrawal of 6 union members, there is still supporting documents, such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws
compliance with the mandatory membership requirement under Art. 234(c), for the or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws,
remaining 24 union members constitute more than the 20% membership requirement of among other documents. The employees' withdrawal from a labor union made before
22 employees. the filing of the PCE is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such
petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same.
S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. S.S. VENTURES LABOR

42
After a labor organization has filed the necessary registration documents, it becomes complied with:
mandatory for the BLR to check if the requirements under Art. 234 of the LC have been 1. Non-subversive affidavits of Messrs. Teodoro Sison, Alfonso Atienza, Rodolfo Zalameda,
sedulously complied with. If the union's application is infected by falsification and like Raymundo Sabino and Napoleon Pefianco who were elected along with others on January
serious irregularities, especial those appearing on the face of the application and its 30, 1962.
attachments, a union should be denied recognition as a LLO…. the issuance to the Union 2. Names, postal addresses and non-subversive affidavits of all the officers who were
of Certificate of necessarily implies that its application for registration and the supporting supposedly elected on October (1st Sunday), of its constitution and by-laws.
documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities.
Alfredo Fajardo, president of the SSSEA moved for a reconsideration of said decision and
The assailed inclusion of the said 82 individuals to the meeting and proceedings adverted prayed for time, up to November 15, within which to submit the requisite papers and
to is not really fatal to the Union's cause for, as determined by the BLR, the allegations data. An opposition thereto having been filed by one Paulino Escueta, a member of the
of falsification of signatures or misrepresentation with respect to these individuals are SSSEA, upon the ground that the latter had never submitted any financial statement to its
without basis. , the procedure for acquiring or losing union membership and the members, said motion was heard on November 27, 1963. Subsequently, or on December
determination of who are qualified or disqualified to be members are matters 4, 1963, the Registrar issued an order declaring that the SSSEA had “failed to submit
internal to the union and flow from its right to self-organization. the abovementioned requirements and granting the SSSEA 15 days from notice
In its union records on file with this Bureau, respondent union submitted the names of [542] members to comply with said requirements, as well as meanwhile holding in abeyance the
x x x. This number easily complied with the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202 employees in the resolution of its MR.
establishment. Even subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves 460 union members, still within
440 or 20% of the maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file employees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the effect of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 (AN ACT
TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES: Section 23. Registration of
The issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of
Labor Organizations. Xxxx) unduly curtails the freedom of assembly and association
membership or voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel union registration.
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
"[F]or fraud and misrepresentation [to be grounds for] cancellation of union registration
under Article 246 [of the LC], the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be
RULING: There is no incompatibility between Republic Act No. 875 and the Universal
grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union
Declaration of Human Rights. Upon the other hand, the cancellation of the SSSEA’s
members."
registration certificate would not entail a dissolution of said association or its suspension.
The existence of the SSSEA would not be affected by said cancellation, although its
The Union points out that for almost seven (7) years following the filing of its petition, no
juridical personality and its statutory rights and privileges — as distinguished from those
certification election has yet been conducted among the rank-and-file employees. If this
conferred by the Constitution — would be suspended thereby.
be the case, the delay has gone far enough and can no longer be allowed to continue. A
certification election is exclusively the concern of employees and the employer lacks the To be registered, pursuant to Section 23(b) of Republic Act No. 875, a labor organization, association
legal personality to challenge it. or union of workers must file with the Department of Labor the following documents:
(1) A copy of the constitution and by-laws of the organization together with a list of all officers of the
association, their addresses and the address of the principal office of the organization; (2) A sworn
statement of all the officers of the said organization, association or union to the effect that they are not
members of the Communist Party and that they are not members of any organization which teaches
the overthrow of the Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional method; and (3) If the
G.R. No. L-22228 February 27, 1969
 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LABOR applicant organization has been in existence for one or more years, a copy of its last annual financial
UNIONS (PAFLU) SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-PAFLU, report. Moreover, paragraph (d) of said-Section ordains that:
AL FAJARDO AND ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE SOCIAL The registration and permit of a legitimate labor organization shall be cancelled by the Department of
SECURITY AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-PAFLU v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, Labor, if the Department has reason to believe that the labor organization no longer meets one or
more of the requirements of paragraph (b) above; or fails to file with the Department Labor either its
THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS and THE REGISTRAR OF LABOR
financial report within the sixty days of the end of its fiscal year or the names of its new officers along
ORGANIZATIONS with their non-subversive affidavits as outlined in paragraph (b) above within sixty days of their
election; however, the Department of Labor shall not order the cancellation of the registration and
FACTS: The Registration of Labor Organization (Registrar) rendered a decision cancelling permit without due notice and hearing, as provided under paragraph (c) above and the affected labor
the SSSEA’s Registration Certificate No. 1-IP169 for failure to submit the following: organization shall have the same right of appeal to the courts as previously provided.
1. Failure to furnish the Bureau of Labor Relations with copies of the reports on the ***Thus, in Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Secretary of Labor, 27
finances of that union duly verified by affidavits which its treasurer or treasurers rendered SCRA 40 (1969), the Court declared:
to said union and its members… The theory to the effect that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 unduly curtails
2. Failure to submit to this office the names, postal addresses and non-subversive the freedom of assembly and association guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is
affidavits of the officers of that union within sixty days of their election… devoid of factual basis. The registration prescribed in Paragraph (b) of said
section is not a limitation to the right of assembly or association, which may be
On the following day, Manuel Villagracia, Assistant Secretary of the SSSEA filed with the exercised with or without said registration. The latter is merely a condition sine
Office of the Registrar, a letter enclosing documents that supposed to comply with the qua non for the acquisition of legal personality by the labor organizations,
abovementioned requirements, but the Registrar found out that the following are still not associations or unions and the possession of the "rights and privileges granted

43
 by law to legitimate labor organizations." The Constitution does not guarantee acquires no rights, particularly the right to ask for certification election in a bargaining
these rights and the privileges, much less said personality, which are mere unit. The invalidity of respondent Union's registration would negate its legal personality to
statutory creations, for the possession and exercise of participate in certification election.
which registration is required to protect both labor and the public
against abuses, fraud or impostors who pose as organizers, although Vassar Industries Employees Union (VIEU) v. Estrella, 82 SCRA 280 (78)
not truly accredited agents of the union they purport to represent. Such FACTS: Respondent is the Acting Dir of the BLR. He refused to register VIEU because
requirement is a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in there is already a registered collective bargaining agent in the company. The Solgen and
which labor organizations, associations and unions of workers are engaged the BLR Dir agreed with petitioners VIEU that they should be registered. There was an
affect public interest, which should be protected. Furthermore, the obligation to existing CBA between Vassar (company) and Associated Labor Unions (ALU), which later
submit financial statements, as a condition for the non-cancellation of a expired. After the expiration of the CBA, 111 of the 150 EEs disaffiliated itself with the
certificate of registration, is a reasonable regulation for the benefit of the ALU. These 111 decided to form their own labor union; hence, they filed a cert for
members of the organization, considering that the same generally solicits funds registration with the BLR. However, while the approval for their registration was pending,
or membership, as well as oftentimes collects, on behalf of its members, huge they filed with the Med Arbiter a PCE. The Med Arbiter denied the application for
amounts of money due to them or to the organization. registration because there is already an existing registered collective bargaining agent in
the company.
Progressive Development Corporation (PIZZA HUT) v. Laguesma, 271 SCRA 593 The Solgen and the BLR director sided with VIEU claiming that records do not show that
(97) the ALU has been certified anew, and that as long as an applicant union complies with all
the legal req’mnts for reg., it becomes the BLR’s ministerial duty to register the union.
FACTS: Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan (respondent Union) filed a Nonetheless, a new CBA was entered into by the ALU and company pending the result of
PCE with the Dept of Labor in behalf of the rank and file employees of the Progressive the petition filed by the VIEU.
Development Corporation (Pizza Hut).
- August 20, 1993: Progressive (petitioner) filed a
verified Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification and misrepresentation in Issue: WON VIUE should be issued a license and be allowed to hold a cert
the respondent Union's registration making it void and invalid. Among the bases of fraud election?
was the fact that while the application for registration of the charter was supposed to have
been approved in the organizational meeting held on June 27, 1993, the charter HELD: Yes. The certification election is the most expeditious way of determining which
certification issued by the federation KATIPUNAN was dated June 26, 1993 or one (1) day labor union is to be the exclusive bargaining agent. As long as an applicant union complies
prior to the formation of the chapter, and that the Constitution and by Laws submitted in with all the legal requirements for registration, it becomes the BLR’s ministerial duty to
support of its petition were not properly acknowledged and notarized.
 register the union. The CBA entered into by ALU and the company should not be
recognized until it is determined which among the two unions has won the cert. election.
Progressive filed a Petition seeking the cancellation of the Union's registration on the
grounds of fraud and falsification. Motion was likewise filed by petitioner with the Med- Acedera v. International Container Services, Inc. (ICTSI) 395 SCRA 103 (03)
Arbiter requesting suspension of proceedings in the certification election case until after
the prejudicial question of the Union's legal personality is determined in the proceedings FACTS: Jerry Acedera, et al. are employees of herein private respondent International
for cancellation of registration.
Med-Arbiter directed the holding of a certification election Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and are officers/members of Associated Port
among petitioner's rank and file employees.
On appeal to the office of the Sec of Labor, Checkers & Workers Union-International Container Terminal Services, Inc. Local Chapter
Laguesma, denied the same. (APCWU-ICTSI), a labor organization duly registered as a local affiliate of the Associated
Port Checkers & Workers Union (APCWU).
ISSUE:WON after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor
When ICTSI started its operations in 1988, it determined the rate of pay of its employees by using 304 days, the
organization, recognition by the BLR merely becomes a ministerial function. (Action and number of days of work of the employees in a year, as divisor, which continued even after CBA was entered into despite
Denial of Application and Remedy) the employees’ work week being reduced to five days or a total of 250 days a year. On November 10, 1990, the NCR
daily wage increase for all workers
Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB) decreed a P17.00
HELD: NO. Registration requirements specifically afford a measure of protection APCWU, together with
and employees receiving P125.00 per day or lower in the NCR. The then president of
to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly- some union members, thus requested the ICTSI’s HR Dept to compute the actual monthly
by- night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the labor increase in the employees’ wages by multiplying the RTWPB mandated increase by 365 days and dividing the
organization for illegitimate ends. Such requirements are a valid exercise of the police product by 12 months to which ICTSI heeded and consequently, it started using 365 days as divisor in determining the

power, because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of ICTSI went on a retrenchment program
daily wage and other consequential compensation. In early 1997,

workers are engaged directly affect the public interest and should be protected. that prompted the APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice of strike which included as cause of action
not only the retrenchment of the employees but also ICTSI’s use of 365 days as divisor in
EFFECT, PENDING PETITION, CANCELLATION TRADE UNION REGISTRATION- the computation of wages. The dispute respecting the retrenchment was resolved by a
Once a labor organization attains the status of a LLO it begins to possess all of the rights compromise settlement12 while that respecting the computation of wages was referred to
and privileges granted by law to such organizations. Registration based on false and the Labor Arbiter. Meanwhile, APCWU, on behalf of its members and other employees
fraudulent statements and documents confer no legitimacy upon a labor organization similarly situated, filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against ICTSI. Acedera et al
irregularly recognized. Under such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a LLO, then filed with the Labor Arbiter a Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene

44
justifying their move that they wanted to insure by their intervention that the case would
thereafter be prosecuted with all due diligence and would not again be dismissed for lack HELD: - Yes, the ruling in the case of Progressive still stands.Non-submission of such
of interest to prosecute on the part of the union. Labor Arb ruled that correct divisor is books of account certified by and attested to by the appropriate officer is a ground which
250 (in favor of APCWU) but denied Motion for Intervention holding that they are already the employer can invoke legitimately to oppose a petition for certification election filed by
well represented by APCWU. NLRC reversed LA as regards the APCWU complaint but the local or chapter concerned.
affirmed denial of intervention. APCWU and Acedera et al filed appeal separately, both of Although the federation with which the Union is affiliated submitted documents purporting
which were denied. Hence present appeal of Acedera as regards denial of Intervention. to show that the latter had offered books of account to support its (the Union's)
application for registration as a legitimate labor organization, what had been actually
Issue: WON Acedera et al can validly intervene on the grounds that they have an interest submitted to the BLR by the Union was a mere "financial statement."
in the outcome of the case. Books of account are quite different in their essential nature from financial statements. In
generally accepted accounting practice, the former consist of journals, ledgers and other
Held: No. Acedera et al failed to consider, in addition to the rule on intervention, the rule accounting books containing a record of individual transactions wherein monies are
on representation, thusly: Sec. 3. Representatives as parties.- Where the action is allowed received and disbursed by an establishment or entity; entries are made on such books on
to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary a day-to-day basis. Statements of accounts or financial reports, upon the other hand,
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to merely summarize such individual transactions as have been set out in the books of
be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a account and are usually prepared at the end of an accounting period, commonly
guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. . . 27 corresponding to the fiscal year of the establishment or entity concerned.

A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under Article 242(a)
of the LC which provides that a union may act as the representative of its members for Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc v. Laguesma, 324 SCRA 425
the purpose of collective bargaining. This authority includes the power to represent its
members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA. That APCWU acted in a FACTS: Sugbuanon Rural Bank employed some 5 supervisory employees. APSOLTEU-
representative capacity "for and in behalf of its Union members and other employees TUCP, a legitimate labor organization, then filed a petition for certification election of the
similarly situated," the title of the case filed by it at the Labor Arbiter’s Office so expressly said supervisory employees. The bank opposed the petition on the ground that the
states. supervisory employees were actually managerial/confidential employees. In addition, the
union was represented in the petition by ALU-TUCP, and since according to the Bank the
While a party acting in a representative capacity, such as a union, may be permitted to latter also sought to represent the rank and file members, granting the petition would
intervene in a case, ordinarily, a person whose interests are already represented violate the principle of separation of unions.
will not be permitted to do the same except when there is a suggestion of fraud
or collusion or that the representative will not act in good faith for the protection ISSUE: Should the petition for certification election be granted, or denied?
of all interests represented by him. The dismissal of the APCWU case does not, by
itself show the existence of fraud or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of APCWU. HELD: It should be granted. For one, the supervisory employees cannot be considered
There must be clear and convincing evidence of fraud or collusion or lack of good faith managerial or confidential employees. While the nature of the employees’ work
independently of the dismissal. (evaluating borrowers’ capacity to pay, approving loans, scheduling terms of repayment of
the latter, and endorsing delinquent accounts to legal counsel for collection) indeed
Protection Technology Inc. v. Sec of Labor, 242 SCRA 99 constituted the core of the bank’s business, their functions did not fall within the definition
of either a managerial employee (lay down and execute management policies related to
FACTS: On 12 January 1994, private respondent SamahanngManggagawasa Protection- labor relations) or a confidential employee (they did not act in a confidential capacity to
Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations ("Union"), a newly organized persons who formulate and execute management policies related to labor relations).
union affiliated with a federation, filed a Petition for direct certification or for certification Secondly, granting the petition would not be violative of the separation of union doctrine.
election to determine the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the regular rank The petition for certification election was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP, a legitimate
and file employees of petitioner Protection Technology Inc. labor organization. True, it was assisted to some extent by ALU and the national
federation TUCP. However, APSOTEU-TUCP had separate legal personality from ALU and
Petitioner Company stated that the Union was not a legitimate labor organization capable TUCP, under the principle that a local union maintains its separate legal personality
of filing the petition because it had failed to submit its books of account with the Bureau despite affiliation with a national federation.
of Labor Relations ("BLR") at the time it was registered as a legitimate labor organization,
which is a requirement before a union can exercise the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization, pursuant to the Court's ruling in ruling Progressive.

Med-Arbiter ruled for the Company but the Secretary ruled for the union.

ISSUE: W/n the filing of books of accounts is necessary for the registration of a labor HEIRS OF TEODOLO M. CRUZ, (represented by ARSENIA, FREDESWINDA,
organization? TEODOLO, JR., ERLINDA, EDGARDO and MYRNA, all surnamed CRUZ). MARY

45
CONCEPCION and EDGARDO CRUZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL charges made by petitioners could have been threshed out and verified, if the formal
RELALATIONS, SANTIAGO RICE MILL and KING HONG AND COMPANy, conference had been held with the presence of union counsel.
respondents.
 GRN L-23331-32 December 27, 1969 The transcript of the conference is deficient and does not reflect the actual discussions and
proceedings. This is to be deplored, for in a matter of such great importance, especially
FACTS:
 June 21, 1952, the Santiago Labor Union, composed of workers of the Santiago where the union officials were unassisted by counsel in an unscheduled conference, care
Rice Mill, a business enterprises engaged in the, buying. and milling of palay at Santiago, should be taken by the trial judge that the proceedings are faithfully recorded.
Isabela, and owned and operated by King Hong Co., Inc., filed before the respondent We find the forcing through of the settlement arbitrary, unfair and unconscionable.
Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) cases for petition for overtime pay, premium pay for
night, Sunday and holiday work, and for reinstatement of workers illegally laid off. CIR
favored the union by a split decision of 3-2 vote. The case reached the Supreme Court but UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio, 318 SCRA 185 (99)
the SC still favored the union. The SC remanded the records for enforcement by Facts:
respondent CIR. In examination of books, said CIR’s Chief Examiner filed his Partial Report  Petitioner USTFU is the exclusive bargaining representative of the faculty of UST. In
regarding the computation of the benefits rendered in the case in favor of the Union. September 1996, the Union announced the convening of a general assembly on 05
Petitioners claim that in this computation of the Examiner did not, include the claims of 70 October 1996. Among the agenda in the general assembly is the election of USTFU.
other laborers whose total claims (for back wages), at the rate of P6,300.00 each and The proposed election was contested by some members of the Union alleging that the
would be P441,000.00. Therefore, the correct. grand total amount due the laborers would preparations for the said election as demanded by the Union’s constitution and by-
be 864,756.74. laws (CBL) were not satisfied. The meeting was moved earlier to 04 October 1996.
The trial judge took no action on the latest Urgent Motion of the union, wherein it  On 04 October 1996, the general faculty assembly was held. It was attended by both
emphasized that respondent, with Court’s action rejecting its appeal, no longer had any members of USTFU and non-members thereof. In the said general assembly a new
excuse for refusing to comply with the deposit Order. Instead, an unscheduled conference set of USTFU’s officers was elected by acclamation and clapping of hands.
was called and held on October 31, 1963 in the chambers of the trial judge, and attended  Respondents filed a petition with the med-arbiter alleging the illegality of the election
by representatives of respondent firm, including their counsels of record and the President conducted on 04 October 1996 as it did not conform to the requirements of the CBL.
of the union and 8 directors of the union. Four of these nine union representatives,  In the meantime a new CBA was declared to be ratified purportedly by a majority of
including the union president himself, had no claims or awards whatever under the UST’s academic community.
judgment. Said union officials were not assisted by counsel, as petitioner Mary  The med-arbiter rendered a decision declaring the election done in 04 October 1996
Concepcion, counsel of record of the union, was not present, not having been notified of as null and void for not having been executed conformably to the CBL of the Union.
the conference. The said decision was affirmed by public respondent Bitonio Jr., hence this petition.
In this conference respondent firm made again the same offer to settle and quitclaim the Issue: WON the election conducted on 04 October 1996 is null and void
judgment in favor of the union members for the same amount of P110,000.00, which offer Held:
had already been ‘rejected by the union at the earlier conference held on June 25, 1963.  Yes the election is null and void. Petitioners argue that the anomalies allegedly
But this time, respondent and the directors of the union decided to settle the case comtted by the respondents impelled them to conduct the election on 04 October
amicably with the payment by the firm of the same amount of P110,000.00 which was 1996 and that such exercise was pursuant to their right to self-organization.
deposited with the Court’s disbursing officer “immediately upon the signing of the  Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the workers by the Philippine
settlement which will be prepared by the respondent firm through its counsel.” Constitution and the LC. Such right is better understood in the context of ILO
One of the union director together with 49 of its members questioned the amicable Convention No. 87 to which the Philippines is a signatory. It provides that the incident
settlement that took place. They claim that the Board of Directors did not have any of the assertion of the right to self-organization is reflected in the promulgation of the
express authority of the members of the Santiago Labor Union to enter into any union’s CBL which governs the relationship between the members of the union. It is
compromise for the sum of P110,000.00, that it was tainted by apparent bad faith on the where the rights, duties and obligations, powers, functions and authority of the
part of the President of the Union, that the amount of P110,000.00 is unconscionable, officers and as well as the members is defined. It determines the validity of the
considering, that the total claims of the members of the union is more than P400,000.00. acts done by any officer or member of the union.
ISSUE: Whether the amicable settlement is valid.  Clearly the election conducted on 04 October 1996 was tainted with irregularities as:
RULING:
 NO. Petitioners were not accorded due process of law. The union was deprived o The assembly was not convened in accordance with the provision of the CBL
of the assistance of its counsel. The lack or due deliberation and caution in the trial o There was no commission of elections to oversee the election as mandated
judge’s instant approval of the settlement is seen from the stipulations therein that the by Sections 1 and 2 of Article IX of the CBL
union thereby waived and quitclaimed any and all claims which it may have against the o The purported election was not done thru secret balloting as provided by
respondent, as well as the claim of each and every one of the members of the union Section 6 Article IX of the CBL as well as Article 241 (c) of the LC
against respondent, when precisely the authority of the union board members to enter  The foregoing infirmities more than justifies the conclusion by the public respondents
into any such compromise or settlement was under express challenge by petitioner that the proceedings were rendered void due to lack of due process.
Magalpo, a board member herself which the trial judge completely disregarded. As to the contention that the 04 October 1996 assembly suspended the operation of the
Petitioners were deprived of the formal conference on the and of their right to be assisted CBL, such argument is bereft of merit. Such is in fact, an implied admission that the
by the union counsel as expressly requested, so that a fair hearing could be accorded election held on that date could not be considered as valid under the existing USTFU
petitioners and an opportunity afforded them to air their serious charges of bad faith and constitution.
lack authority against the Union leadership. Certainly, all these serious questions and

46
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMASv.SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG UST (SM-UST) consequence the Management of the employer is hereby requested to terminate them
from their employment in conformity with the security clause.
Facts:SM-UST was the authorized bargaining agent of the 619 non-academic/non-teaching Issues: WON PAFLU had the authority to investigate the petitioners and, thereafter, expel
rank-and-file daily- andmonthly-paid employees of UST. During formal negotiations for a them from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
new CBA, the parties agreed in principle on allnon-economic provisions of the proposed SC: YES. That PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners on the charges filed by
CBA, except those pertaining to Agency Contract or contractualizationand Union Leave their co-employees in the local union and after finding them guilty as charged, to expel
of the SM-UST President.SM-UST demanded fora monthly salary increase and signing them from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under the
bonus for each employee, but petitioner insisted onits final offer. As a result, SM-UST declared a constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated. And pursuant to the
deadlock and filed a notice of strike with the NCMB-NCR.Conciliation and mediation proved to security clause of the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old CBA, PAFLU was
be futile and majority of SM-UST members voted to stage a strike.DOLE Secretary issued justified in applying said security clause.
an Order subscribing to UST s position on "salary distortion"deemed it proper to award Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for that matter, is the right of self-
preservation. When members of a labor union, therefore, sow the seeds of dissension and
anincrease, not in salary but in signing bonus.Petitioner filed a MR, which the appellate
strife within the union; when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very
court denied.
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
Issues
justice, therefore, compelling mandate the adoption by the labor union of such corrective
W/N respondents members individual acceptance of the award and the resulting payments
and remedial measures in keeping with its laws and regulations, for its preservation and
made bypetitioner operate as a ratification of the DOLE Secretary’s award.
continued existence; lest by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.
Issue: WON the petitioners were entitled to disaffiliate from the Union.
HELD: NO. Such do not operate as a ratification of the DOLE Secretary’s award; nor a
SC: Yes. Although they are entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new
waiver of their right to receivefurther benefits, or what they may be entitled to under the
organization of their own, they must, however, suffer the consequences of their
law. Respondent’s members were merely constrainedto accept payment at the time.
separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA. Disaffiliation from a labor
Christmas was then just around the corner, and the union members were in noposition to
union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association ordained by
resist the temptation to accept much-needed cash for use during the most auspicious
the Constitution. But this Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form
occasion of theyear. Time and again, we have held that necessitous men are not, truly
of union security, and such provision in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of
speaking, free men; but to answer apresent emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may
association guaranteed by the Constitution.
impose upon them.As individual components of a union possessed of a distinct and separate
corporate personality, respondent’smembers should realize that in joining the
Bugay v. Kapisanan ng Mga Manggagawa sa MRR, 4 SCRA 487 (62)
organization, they have surrendered a portion of their individualfreedom for the benefit of
Facts: Bugay, auditor of the Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad
all the other members; they submit to the will of the majority of the members in orderthat
Company (Kapisanan) and a payroll clerk of Manila Railroad.
they may derive the advantages to be gained from the concerted action of all. Since its
Bugay was requested by the secretary-treasurer of the company to deliver certain
board of directors or trustees personifies the will of the members, the decisions it makes
documents belonging to the union and in compliance therewith he delivered them without
should accordingly bind them. Precisely, alabor union exists in whole or in part for the
consulting the officers of the union. Making use of these documents, the management of
purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employersconcerning terms and
the company president of the union a charge for falsification of commercial document.
conditions of employment. What the individual employee may not do alone, as for
Subsequently, charges for disloyalty and conduct unbecoming a union member were
exampleobtain more favorable terms and conditions of work, the labor organization,
preferred against Bugay, which caused his explusion. Bugay filed a charge for ULP against
through persuasive and coercivepower gained as a group, can accomplish better.
the union before the CIR which, after due hearing, rendered decision holding that Bugay’s
expulsion was illegal it appearing that the same has not been approved by the majority of
the chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws. Bugay did not have
Villar v. Inciong, 121 SCRA 444 (83)
sufficient opportunity to defend himself.
Facts: Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, a duly registered
Kapisanan filed a MTD on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to
labor organization which was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private
constitute a COA in that neither the decision of the CIR nor that of the SC contain any
respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. They then signed a joint resolution which stated
statement that the ULP act imputed to the Kapisanan was true. Further, that majority of
that they were disaffiliating themselves as members of the PAFLU, and were not further
the chapters voted in favor of Bugay's expulsion is not borne by the evidence.
authorizing PAFLU to represent them in any CBA. During a special meeting of the Union, a
Issue: WON Bugay expulsion as a union member is proper.
Resolution was approved which called for the investigation of all the petitioners for
SC: No. Bugay’s affiliation with the Kapisanan was never terminated. That being
"continuously maligning, libelling and slandering not only the incumbent officers but even
the case, Bugay is entitled to all the rights and obligations appertaining to every
the union itself and the federation" and for causing divisiveness.
member of the Kapisanan Union actions, whether favorable or otherwise, must be
The union security clause was reincorporated in the new CBA: “any member who shall
taken by the chapters within a period of ten days from the time they receive the
resign, be expelled, or shall in any manner cease to be a member of the UNION, shall be
resolution. Even under the assumption that the proceedings against Bugay were not
dismissed from his employment upon written request of the UNION to the Company.”
irregular, the resolution in question never had any valid effect on his union membership.
Petitioners contend that their acts do not constitute disloyalty as these are in the exercise
Considering that he has been unduly and discriminatorily deprived of such rights and
of their constitutional right to self-organization. PAFLU President then rendered a decision
finding them guilty of the charges and expelling them from the Union and as a

47
obligations, the Court finds, and so holds, that the Kapisanan, by their act and conduct,
have engaged in and are engaging in ULP. SC: Yes. That 51 of the 56 disenfranchised voters were not yet union members at the
It should be observed that the main basis of Bugay's action is his claim that because of time of the election of union officers because their names do not appear in the records of
the ULP committed by the officers of defendant union as found by the CIR and the SC, he the Union does not have a leg to stand on. Submission of the employees names with
has suffered moral damages. It is true that the decisions both of the CIR and SC do not the BLR as qualified members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to
contain any statement that the charges preferred by the officers of the union against him enable said members to vote in the election of union's officers. It is true that under
which resulted in his expulsion were "trumped up" or fabricated, or that said officers acted article 242(c) of the LC, as amended, only members of the union can participate in the
maliciously or in bad faith, but the fact remains that the two courts have found that his election of union officers. The question however of eligibility to vote may be determined
expulsion was illegal because of the irregularities committed in his investigation. In effect, through the use of the payroll and employee's status during the applicable payroll period.
it was found that not only has he not been given an opportunity to defend himself but his In the case, considering that none of the parties insisted on the use of the payroll period-
expulsion was not submitted to the different chapters of the union as required by its list as voting list and considering further that the 51 remaining employees were correctly
constitution and by-laws. ruled to be qualified for membership, their act of joining the election by casting their votes
Issue: WON Bugay was afforded due process. is a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union.
Issue: WON since a CBA has been concluded between the union and ITM, the
SC: No. In the investigation held and in the board meeting where the committee’s report determination of the legal question as to voter’s list may destroy the cordial relations
recommending Bugay’s expulsion was approved, Bugay was not present. The committee existing between the management and the union.
assigned to summon him failed to serve notice upon him because he was in Lucena. SC: No. Existence of a CBA and cordial relationship developed between the union and the
However, proceedings still continued anent the absence of Bugay. management should not be a justification to frustrate the decision of the union members
as to who should properly represent them in the bargaining unit. Neither may the
inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes serve to disturb the existing
e. Election Officers – Qualifications, Manner of Election, Tenure and relationship with management. The inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes
Compensation would not necessarily mean success in favor of Tancinco group as feared by Lacanilao
f. Voters List group.

Tancinco v. Calleja, 157 SCRA 203 (88) UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio, 318 SCRA 185 (99)
Employer: Imperial Textile Mills Inc. Facts:
Union: Imperial Textile Mills Inc. Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA).  Petitioner USTFU is the exclusive bargaining representative of the faculty of UST. In
Employees: The prime organizers of ITM-MEA. While they were preparing to file a petition September 1996, the Union announced the convening of a general assembly on 05
for direct certification of the Union, the union's Vice-President, Carlos Dalmacio was October 1996. Among the agenda in the general assembly is the election of USTFU.
promoted to the position of Dept Head, thereby disqualifying him for union membership. The proposed election was contested by some members of the Union alleging that the
Said incident, among others led to a strike spearheaded by Lacanilao group. Another preparations for the said election as demanded by the Union’s constitution and by-
group however, led by herein petitioners (Tancinco group) staged a strike inside the laws (CBL) were not satisfied. The meeting was moved earlier to 04 October 1996.
company premises. An agreement was entered into by the representatives of the  On 04 October 1996, the general faculty assembly was held. It was attended by both
management, Lacanilao group and the Tancinco group that all monthly-paid employees members of USTFU and non-members thereof. In the said general assembly a new
shall be United under one union, the ITM-MEA, to be affiliated with ANGLO; ANGLO as the set of USTFU’s officers was elected by acclamation and clapping of hands.
sole and exclusive bargaining agent; that an election of union officers shall be held.  Respondents filed a petition with the med-arbiter alleging the illegality of the election
A pre-election conference was held, but the parties failed to agree on the list of voters. conducted on 04 October 1996 as it did not conform to the requirements of the CBL.
ANGLO made a unilateral ruling excluding some 56 employees consisting of the Manila  In the meantime a new CBA was declared to be ratified purportedly by a majority of
office employees, members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card employees, drivers of one UST’s academic community.
Mrs. Salazar and the cooperative employees of Mrs. Salazar.  The med-arbiter rendered a decision declaring the election done in 04 October 1996
Prior to the holding of the election of union officers, Tancinco group sent protes to MOLE as null and void for not having been executed conformably to the CBL of the Union.
San Fernando Pampanga. Lacanilao's group won with a margin of three (3) votes over The said decision was affirmed by public respondent Bitonio Jr., hence this petition.
Tancinco.
Tancincofiled a formal protest with the MOLE claiming that the determination of the Issue: WON the election conducted on 04 October 1996 is null and void
qualification of the 56 votes is beyond the competence of ANGLO.
MA directed the opening and counting of the segregated votes. BLR rendered a decision Held:
holding the exclusion of the 56 employees as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal  Yes the election is null and void. Petitioners argue that the anomalies allegedly
basis but 51 of 56 challenged voters were not yet union members at the time of the comtted by the respondents impelled them to conduct the election on 04 October
election as their names do not appear in the records of the Union; hence, Lacanilao's 1996 and that such exercise was pursuant to their right to self-organization.
group should be proclaimed as the duly elected officers and for ITM-MEA.  Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the workers by the Philippine
Tancinco group allege grave abuse of discretion by the MA and MOLE. Constitution and the LC. Such right is better understood in the context of ILO
Convention No. 87 to which the Philippines is a signatory. It provides that the incident
Issue: WON 51/56 names of the employees should be included in t he voter’s list. of the assertion of the right to self-organization is reflected in the promulgation of the

48
 union’s CBL which governs the relationship between the members of the union. It is We agree with the petitioners that disobedience to a resolution of this Court should not be
where the rights, duties and obligations, powers, functions and authority of the left unpunished. However, before the alleged disobedient party may be cited for contempt,
officers and as well as the members is defined. It determines the validity of the the allegations against him should be clearly established.
acts done by any officer or member of the union. Even if the disqualification of Babula faction could be justified, the candidates of Manalad
 Clearly the election conducted on 04 October 1996 was tainted with irregularities as: function certainly cannot be declared as the winners in the disputed election. The mere
o The assembly was not convened in accordance with the provision of the CBL fact that they obtained the second highest number of votes does not mean that they will
o There was no commission of elections to oversee the election as mandated thereby be considered as the elected officers if the true winners are disqualified.
by Sections 1 and 2 of Article IX of the CBL
o The purported election was not done thru secret balloting as provided by h. Expulsion Remedy
Section 6 Article IX of the CBL as well as Article 241 (c) of the LC
 The foregoing infirmities more than justifies the conclusion by the public respondents Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap (KNP) v. Trajano, 134 SCRA 236 (85)
that the proceedings were rendered void due to lack of due process. FACTS:
As to the contention that the 04 October 1996 assembly suspended the operation of the In 1981, private respondents Silvestre and 13 other union members filed a request for
CBL, such argument is bereft of merit. Such is in fact, an implied admission that the accounts examination of the financial status of the KMP, the existing labor union at
election held on that date could not be considered as valid under the existing USTFU Franklin Baker Company. DOLE Union Account examiner conducted an investigation and
constitution. submitted a report with the findings: total of P1,278 as disallowed expenditures; that KMP
failed to maintain records of union accounts for 1977-1979; failed to segregate
g. Disqualification Candidate disbursement receipts; and that the constitution and bylaws were not ratified by the
Manalad v. Trajano, 174 SCRA 322 (89) general membership, and hence illegal.
Employer: United Dockhandlers, Inc. Based on the foregoing revelations, private respondents filed with the DOLE Regional
Employees: Members of the Associated Port Checkers and Workers' Union (APCWU for Office a petition for the expulsion of the union officers on the ground that they committed
short) - Manalad faction and Babula Faction. gross violation of the LC (Art 242) and the union’s constitution and by-laws.
Event: Manalad faction members were disqualified from running as candidates in the In their Answer, the union officers contend that: the disallowed expenditures were made
election of APCWU officers by the MA. BLR set aside the decision. Manalad, Leano and in good faith and used for the benefit of the members; they should not be held
Puerto, winning over Babula, Mijares and Navarro, for the positions of president, treasurer accountable for the non-production of the books of accounts for the years 1977-1979
and auditor, respectively. because they were not the officers then; that the non-ratification of the constitution and
As a consequence, Babula group questioned the BLR decision. SC ordered the holding of a by-laws and the non-segregation of the union funds occurred before they became officers
special election of union officers under the supervision of the NCR Labor Office, later and that they have already been correcting the same.
amended to be supervised by Director Trajano. SC also issued a cease and desist order, Instead of ordering expulsion, Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a referendum to decide
restraining Babula et al from conducting their duties as union officers in acting capacity. on the issue of whether to expel or suspend the union officers from their respective
Manalad group sought for the disqualification from running in the projected special positions. BLR affirmed. In the meantime, the same officers were re-elected in a general
election of the Babula faction due to their alleged refusal to comply with the resolution of election of the union.
the SC. ISSUES: 1) WON the officers should be expelled.
Babula group won in the special election; hence, Manalad’s petition for annulment of the HELD: No. Petition granted.
special election, repeating their allegation that there was non-compliance with the SC’s 1) First of all: If the union officers were guilty of the alleged acts imputed against them,
resolution by the Babula faction. said public respondent pursuant to Article 242 of the New LC and in the light of the ruling
Director Trajano proclaimed Babula faction as the winners in the special election. in Duyag vs. Inciong, should have meted out the appropriate penalty, i.e., to expel them
from the Union, as prayed for, and not call for a referendum to decide the issue.
Issue: WON the Babula faction is disqualified from running in the union officership. But in this case, the alleged falsification and misrepresentation of the union officers were
not supported by substantial evidence. The expenditures appeared to have been made in
SC: No. After a careful consideration of the facts of this case, We are of the considered good faith and for the union members’ benefit. Furthermore, their re-election is a
view that the expiration of the terms of office of the union officers and the election of convincing manifestation and demonstration of the union membership's faith in the herein
officers have rendered the issues raised by petitioners in this case moot and academic. officers' leadership.
Manalad faction, having participated in the special elections, they cannot now claim a Effect of re-election: The holding of the referendum in question has become moot and
right to the positions under consideration on the basis of said special elections. It is academic. As held in Pascual vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, “The Court should never
pointless and unrealistic to insist on annulling an election of officers whose terms had remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise
already expired. We would have thereby a judgment on a matter which cannot have any would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When the people have
practical legal effect upon a controversy, even if existing, and which, in the nature of elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life
things, cannot be enforced. We must consequently abide by our consistent ruling that and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had
where certain events or circumstances have taken place during the pendency of the case been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to
which would render the case moot and academic, the petition should be dismissed. practically overrule the will of the people.”

d. Election Invalid

49
 the requirement of the union constitution and by-laws; and that proof is wanting of proper
Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor relations, 165 SCRA 239 (88) ratification of the resolution by a majority of the general union membership at a plebiscite
FACTS: The case involves the consolidated disputes involving employees of PLDT who are conducted for that purpose, again in violation of the constitution and by-laws.
members of the Free Telephone Workers Union (FTWU). The disputes concern the validity
of the general elections for union officers in 1986, and the increase of union dues adopted j. Major Policy Matter 249 (d)
and put into effect by the incumbent officers subsequent to said elections.
The union's by-laws provide for the election of officers every 3 years, in July. Pursuant Halili v. CIR, 136 SCRA 112 (85)
thereto, the union's Legislative Council set the provincial elections for its officers on July FACTS: The herein petition was filed by the Halili Bus Drivers and Conductors Union
14 to 18, 1986, and those for Metro Manila on July 25, 1986. The same Council raised the (Union), to recover unpaid overtime pay of 897 members against Fortunato Halili, then
fees for the filing of certificates of candidates which had ranged from P75.00 to P100.00, doing business under the name and style, Halili Transit. After Fortunato’s died, the dispute
to a range of P1,000 to P3,000. was settled amicably. The Union and the administratrix of Fortunato’s estate reached an
Notwithstanding the cases questioning the candidates' fees, the provincial elections were Agreement whereby the administratrix would transfer to the employees title to a tract of
held on July 21 and 22, 1986, which are dates different from those specified by the land (34,000 sqm) in Caloocan, and pay in addition the cash amount of P25,000 in full
Legislative Council (i.e., July 14 to 18). The validity of the elections was challenged on the and final satisfaction of all the claims of all of the employees. The officers and members of
ground of lack of (1) due notice and (2) adequate ground rules. Some candidates filed a the Union accordingly withdrew their complaints, with prejudice.
petition with the BLR, praying that the Union's COMELEC be directed to promulgate The administratrix executed a Deed of Conveyance of Real Property, transferring said land
ground rules for the conduct of the provincial elections. A TRO was also issued prohibiting to the Union in trust for its individual members, and it was registered without
the holding of elections in Metro Manila. Despite the TRO, the Union COMELEC proceeded encumbrance in the name of the Union.
with the general elections in all the PLDT branches in Metro Manila on July 25, 1986. It Later, the Union through its legal counsel, Atty. Pineda, filed an urgent motion with the
then reported that there was a voter turnout of 73%, higher than in previous elections. Ministry of Labor requesting that authority be granted to sell and dispose of the property.
The other candidates and their respective groups filed separate motions praying that the The motion was granted. Thereafter, he filed another urgent motion praying that the
COMELEC be declared guilty of contempt for defying the temporary restraining order, and Union be authorized to sell the lot to the respondent Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc.
for the nullification not only of the Metro Manila elections but also the provincial elections. (MMPCI). This was also granted. The sale of the property held in trust by the Union was
Med-Arbiter denied the petitions to nullify the elections, as well as the motion for consummated, and the property was registered in the name of respondent MMPCI.
contempt, but invalidated the increase in rates of filing fees for certificates of candidacies. Significantly, however, the Orders which granted the two motions of the Union were set
BLR Labor Relations reversed. aside by the SC in a Resolution, for they were issued without due process of law. The
ISSUES: 1) WON the elections are null and void, despite the overwhelming voter Union filed a complaint with the NLRC seeking to compel the buyer MMPCI, to reconvey
turnout. the property it bought from Atty. Pineda upon the ground that the latter sold it without
2) WON the BLR has jurisdiction in view of the argument that the petition was not proper authority from the Supreme Court.
supported by 30% of the general union membership. NLRC refused to take cognizance of the case for lack of jurisdiction, opining that the
3) WON the increase in the union is void. matter is within the province of the regular courts. Hence, the Union filed this
HELD: 1) YES. A review of the record fails to disclose any grave abuse of discretion Petition/Motion with Prayer for Clarification, through which it seeks, among others, the
tainting the decision of the Director of Labor Relations that the general elections were recovery of subject real property.
attended by grave irregularities, rendering the elections invalid. That finding must thus be ISSUE: 1) WON the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case.
sustained. The claim that there had been a record-breaking voter turnout of 73%, even if HELD: 1) NO. Art 217 delineates the scope of jurisdiction of the NLRC: “ART. 217.
true, cannot purge the elections of their grave infirmities. The elections were closely Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission (a) Except as otherwise provided under
contested. Free and honest elections are indispensable to the enjoyment by employees this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
and workers of their constitutionally protected right to self-organization. decide:
2) YES. Art 242 states that a report of a violation of rights and conditions of membership 1. Unfair labor practice cases;
in a labor organization may be made by "(a)t least thirty percent (30%) of all the 2. Termination disputes;
members of a union or any member or members specially concerned." The use of the 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file
permissive "may" in the provision at once negates the notion that the assent of 30% of all involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
the members is mandatory. More decisive is the fact that the provision expressly declares employment;
that the report may be made, alternatively by "any member or members specially 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the
concerned." And further confirmation that the assent of 30% of the union members is not employer-employee relations;
a factor in the acquisition of jurisdiction by the BLR is furnished by Article 226 of the same 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions
LC, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau, and the Labor Relations involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and
Division in the Regional Offices of DOLE, over "all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity
and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor management benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of
relations," making no reference whatsoever to any such 30% support requirement. persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
3) YES. As regards the final issue concerning the increase of union dues, the respondent pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
Director found that the resolution of the union's Legislative Council to this effect does not (b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
bear the signature of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Council, contrary to Labor Arbiters.

50
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of CBAs and those arising adopting a hands-off attitude in his first resolution and holding that the payment of the
from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of fees was a question between the lawyer and the union.
by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary 2) NO. There is no doubt that lawyer Saavedra is entitled to the payment of his fees
arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.” but article 222 ordains that union funds should be used for that purpose. The union, not
The reconveyance of the disputed real property to the Union by the respondent MMPCI the employees, is obligated to Saavedra. The case is covered squarely by Art 222 which is
does not fall under any of the issues cognizable by the NLRC. Hence, NLRC committed no a guarantee intended to protect the employee against unwarranted practices that would
error in dismissing the complaint. diminish his compensation without his knowledge and consent. Other provisions of the LC
Furthermore, all portions of said land, now known as Holy Cross Memorial Park, have with the same intent are: “ART. 242. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor
already been sold out to individual lot buyers, who are innocent purchasers for value. To organization. — The following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor
disregard their rights and effect an outright cancellation would be to impair public organization: “(n) No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon
confidence in the Certificate of Title (Torrens System). The law will in no way oblige the members of a labor organization unless authorized by a written resolution of a
buyers to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose.
SC Note: Ownership of the lot in question had already been vested in the Union upon sale The secretary of the organization shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list
to it by the Heirs of Halili. Considering this, the Union had every right to dispose of the of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees and
property. It is to be assumed that the sale by the Union, as virtual owner of the property, the recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be attested to by the president;
to MMPCI would not need any authority to sell from the NLRC or from SC. X X X “(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessment,
attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from
k. Union Funds any amount due an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by
the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and
l. Source – Payment – Attorney’s Fees beneficiary of the deduction.”

Pacific Banking Corporation v. Clave, 128 SCRA 112 (84) m. Examination Books
FACTS: In 1979, there was a deadlock in the negotiations between the Pacific Banking Duyag v. Inciong, 98 SCRA 522 (81)
Corporation and the Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization (PABECO) for a FACTS: This case is about the removal of private respondents as union officers due to
CBA for 1979 to 1981. The Minister of Labor assumed jurisdiction and later rendered a alleged irregularities and anomalies in the administration of the affairs of the union.
decision directing the parties to execute a CBA in accordance with the terms and The 5 petitioners, who are arrastre checkers of E. Razon, Inc. as well as members of the
conditions set forth in his decision. Associated Port Checkers and Workers Union, filed with the Regional Office of DOLE a
The union was represented in the negotiations by its president, Paula Paug, allegedly complaint containing several charges against the 4 private respondents who are officers of
assisted as consultant by Umali, the president of the National Union of Bank Employees. the union, the president (Manalad), treasurer (Leano), vice-president (Amparo) and
Atty. Saavedra’s participation in the case was the filing of a MR and a supplemental auditor (Puerto).
motion. No action was taken on said motions, causing the parties to appeal to the Office The record reveals the following facts which are summarized in the decisions of the med-
of the President, which issued a resolution directing the parties to execute a CBA arbiter and the Director of Labor Relations:
containing the terms and conditions of employment embodied in the resolution. The CBA A) Unauthorized increases in union dues — for arrastre checkers, the monthly union dues
was ultimately finalized, and monetary benefits of more than P14-million were involved in amount to ten pesos, as fixed in the constitution and bylaws. The monthly union dues
the 3-year CBA. were increased by P2 and then by P5 in two resolutions. In 1976, a deduction of P8.50
Even before the formalization of the CBA, Saavedra filed in the case his notice of attorney was made from the mid-year bonus without any board resolution.
‘s lien. In a (fourth) resolution, the Office of the President ordered the bank to pay the B) Withholding of union members' share in the profits — E. Razon, Inc., the arrastre
union the said attorney’s fees. It held that the following Art 222 of the LC, as amended by operator, paid to the union in 1973 a certain sum as its share of the profits (profit-share)
Presidential Decree No. 1691 had no retroactive effect to the case: “ART. 222. for 1973. Instead of distributing the whole amount to the union members, the officers
Appearances and Fees - (b) No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any only paid them a fraction. The Med-Arbiter surmised that the union officers must have
kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective deducted a considerable amount from the profit-shares because they started that practice
agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided, in 1966. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case, the private respondents submitted a
however, that attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be resolution dated November 25, 1977 wherein more than 90% of the union members
agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the allegedly ratified the deductions from the mid-year bonus and profit-shares and
contrary shall be null and void.” authorized future deductions.
ISSUES: 1) WON the Office of the President has jurisdiction. C. Membership in another union —Manalad, Amparo and Puerto are also officers of the
2) WON attorney’s fees should be charged against the CBA benefits. Philippine Technical Clerical Commercial Employees Association, another labor union. Their
HELD: 1) NO. Under the circumstances, the Office of the President had no jurisdiction membership in the latter union is manifestly violative of section 9, article III of the
to make an adjudication on Saavedra’s attorney’s fees. The case was appealed with constitution and by-laws of the arrastre checkers' union which provides that an elected
respect to the CBA terms and conditions, not with respect to attorney’s fees. Although the officer shall be deemed disqualified if he becomes a member of another organization.
fees were a mere incident, nevertheless, the jurisdiction to fix the same and to order the D. Conflict of interest on the part of Manalad — Respondent Manalad organized a family
payment thereof was outside the pale of Clave’s appellate jurisdiction. He was right in corporation known as the Comet Integrated Stevedoring Services, Inc. whose rank-and-
file employees are also members of the arrastre checkers' union. Thus, Manalad has

51
functioned in the dual capacity of labor leader and employer, not to mention the fact that voters, (2) failure to disseminate the election ground rules to all parties concerned, and
he is also an officer of another labor union, PTCCEA. (3) disregard of the temporary restraining order of the Med-Arbiter. SC dismissed.
Under these facts, the med-arbiter ordered the removal of the private respondents as Controversy Respecting Labor Union Dues
officers of the union and directed them to reimburse to the members thereof the amounts The old officers continued to exercise the functions of their respective offices under the
illegally collected from them. The Undersecretary of Labor modified. It ruled that the leadership of Manolito Paran because the newly elected officers cannot assume office
expulsion of union officers is the prerogative of the members of the union. As for the because of the proceeding challenging the validity of the elections held. The Legislative
charge of illegal disbursements, he directed the BLR to examine the union’s books. Council passed a resolution which increased the amount of the union dues from P21.00 to
ISSUES: P50.00 a month. According to the union officers, said resolution was ratified during the
1) WON the increases in the union dues are void. referendum despite the boycott of 829 members. PLDT was requested to deduct the union
2) WON the deductions from the midyear bonus is rendered valid by the subsequent dues at the new, increased rates, from the salaries of all union members and dispense
resolution. with their individual written authorizations . PLDT acceded and effected the check-off. Rey
3) WON the Labor Arbiter erred in expelling the union officers on the ground of conflict of Sumangil et al. filed a petition to the BLR challenging the resolution. The Med-Arbiter
interest. denied their petition on the ground of lack of support of at least 30% of all members of
4) (MAIN ISSUE) WON the order of DOLE Director directing BLR to examine the union’s the union, citing Article 242 of the LC. The DLR reversed the said decision and ordered the
books is proper. cessation of the collection of the twenty-nine peso increase and the return of the amounts
HELD: already collected since the petition was supported by 6,022 signatures which is more than
1) YES. The med-arbiter correctly concluded that the increases in union dues and the 30% of the total membership of the union (10,413 and even they lack of 30%-support,
deduction from the mid-year bonus are void because the same were collected in this will not preclude the BLR from taking cognizance of the petition where there is a clear
contravention of the constitution and by-laws (requiring 2/3 votes of Board members). violation of the rights and conditions of union membership because Article 226 of the LC.
Moreover, their collection was not covered by any check-off authorization nor evidenced Regarding Art. 242, this is not mandatory. Then later the DLR reversed again saying that
by any receipt and was in contravention of the LC. See Art 242. The petitioners are the intervenor (MKP) was correct in its contention that there was no 30%-membership-
entitled to the refund of the union dues illegally collected from them. support for the petition, since only 829 members had signed their support and because of
2) NO. Although the 1977 resolution (authorization given by the members) rendered this this, the BLR never acquired jurisdiction. SC granted.
aspect of the case moot, it cannot obliterate the violations already committed by Issue: (1) WON the general elections for union officers was valid. (2) WON 30%-
respondents. The deduction of union dues from the mid-year bonus and the withholding of membership support is indispensable for acquisition of jurisdiction by the BLR. (3) WON
part of the profit-shares were illegal and improper at the time they were made. the increase in union dues is valid.
3) NO. The membership of Manalad and Puerto in another union is a sufficient ground for Held: (1) No. The elections were held without prior notice to all voting members and
their removal under the constitution and bylaws of the union. In Manalad's case, his without ground rules duly prescribed.
organization of a family-owned corporation competing with the union headed by him (2) No. The 30% requirement mentioned in Article 242 of the LC is not mandatory and
renders it untenable that he should remain as union president. Puerto and Leano also essential to the filing of a complaint for any violation of rights and conditions of
violated the rights and conditions of membership in the union within the meaning of membership in a labor organization. The use of the permissive "may" in the provision at
Article 242. Hence, on that ground their expulsion from office is also justified. once negates the notion that the assent of 30% of all the members is mandatory.
4) YES. The Director acted correctly in ordering an examination of the books and records (3) No. The resolution of the union's Legislative Council does not bear the signature of at
of the union. The examination should include a verification of the charge that the petty least 2/3 of the members of the Council, contrary to the requirement of the union
loans extended by the union to its members were usurious and that the fee for the constitution and by-laws; and there is no proper ratification of the resolution by a
issuance of cheeks is unwarranted since the loans were made in cash. (However, the majority of the general union membership.
Director erred in holding that the tenure of union office being a "political question is, ". . . All amounts already collected must be credited accordingly in favor of the respective
generally, a matter outside his Bureau's jurisdiction and should be passed upon by the members either for their future legal dues or other assessments or even delinquencies, if
union members themselves.” The Director should apply the law and not make policy any. And if this arrangement regarding the actual refund of what might be excessive dues
considerations prevail over its clear intent and meaning.) is not acceptable to the majority of the members, the matter may be decided in a general
meeting called for the purpose."
N. Union Dues
o. Source – Payment – Special Assessment
Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, 165 SCRA 239 (88)
Facts: This case involves a dispute between the members of the Free Telephone Workers Palacol v. Calleja, 182 SCRA 710 (90)
Union (FTWU), the union organization of employees of PLDT, regarding the validity of the Facts: Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union (Union), as the collective bargaining agent of all
general elections for union officers and the increase of union dues adopted. regular salesmen, regular helpers, and relief helpers of the Manila Plant and Metro Manila
Controversy Respecting Elections of Officers Sales Office of the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers (Philippines), Inc. (Company) concluded
The legislative council set the provincial elections pursuant to the union's by-laws which a new CBA with the latter. Among the compensation benefits granted to the employees
provides for the election of officers every 3 years in the month of July. The same council was a general salary increase to be given in lump-sum including recomputation of actual
raised the fees for the filing of certificates of candidates. BLR OIC annulled the election of commissions earned based on the new rates of increase. A board resolution was passed to
the officers of the union on the following grounds: (1) lack of notice to the candidates and deduct 10% from the lump-sum as union dues. The petitioners assailed that the 10%

52
special assessment as a violation of Article 241(o) in relation to Article 222(b) of the LC. FACTS: Appellant National Brewery & Allied Industries Labor Union of the Philippines is
Med-arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner. BLR reversed. SC reversed. the bargaining representative of all regular workers paid on the daily basis and of route
Issue: WON a special assessment be validly deducted by a labor union from the lump-sum helpers of San Miguel Brewery, Inc.
pay of its members, granted under a CBA, notwithstanding a subsequent disauthorization It signed a CBA with the company, which provided, among other things, that —
by a majority of the union members. The COMPANY will deduct the UNION agency fee from the wages of workers who
Held: No. A. The union failed to meet the following requirements: are not members of the UNION, provided the aforesaid workers authorized the
(1) The Union must submit to the Company a written resolution of a majority of all COMPANY to make such deductions in writing or if no such authorization is given,
the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. – The union if a competent court direct the COMPANY to make such deduction. (Art. II, Sec.
held local membership meetings on separate occasions, on different dates and at various 4)
venues Alleging that it had obtained benefits for all workers in the company and that "defendant
(2) The secretary of the organization must record the minutes of the meeting (a Independent S.M.B. Workers' Association refused and still refuses to pay UNION AGENCY
general resolution) which, in turn, must include, among others, the list of all the members FEE to the plaintiff UNION and defendant COMPANY also refuses and still refuses to deduct
present as well as the votes cast. – The union only submitted minutes of the local the UNION AGENCY FEE from the wages of workers who are not members of the plaintiff
membership meetings recorded by the union director. UNION and remit the same to the latter," the union brought suit in the Court of First
(3) Individual written authorization duly signed by every employee in order that a Instance of Manila on November 17, 1960 for the collection of union agency fees under
special assessment may be validly checked-off – Majority of of the union members had the bargaining contract.
already withdrawn their individual authorizations.
B. The collection of the special assessment partly for the payment for services rendered The lower court, in dismissing the complaint, held that there was nothing in the Industrial
by union officers, consultants and others may not be in the category of "attorney's fees or Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875) which would authorize the collection of agency fees and
negotiations fees" but it falls within the category of a "similar charge," and prohibited that neither may such collection be justified under the rules of quasi contract because the
under Article 222 (b) of the LC. There is also no proof that the purpose for which the workers had not neglected their business so as to warrant the intervention, of an officious
special assessment is sought cannot be covered by the regular union dues. manager. The trial court also held the rules of agency inapplicable because there was no
agreement between the union and the workers belonging to the other union as to the
ABS-CBN, etc. v. ABS-CBN, etc. 304 SCRA 489 (99) payment of fee nor was there, said the court, any allegation in the complaint that the
Facts: By virtue of a CBA entered into by the ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union amount of P4.00, which the union sought to collect from each employee, was the expense
(Union) and the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., (Company) the latter deducted from incurred by the union in representing him.
petitioners' salaries a special assessment of ten (10%) percent of the sum total of all Its MR having been denied, the union appealed to this Court.
salary increases and signing bonuses granted by the company to the members of the
union. This amount is an advance to the Union to cover the Union's incidental expenses, The right of employees "to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations
including attorney's fees and representation expense for its organization and conduct. The of their own choosing" (Sec. 3, Republic Act No. 875) is a fundamental right that yields
petitioners questioned the legality of said assessment and deductions before the Bureau of only to the proviso that "nothing in this Act or statute of the Republic of the Philippines
Labor Relations. The Med-Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. On appeal, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require
the judgment was affirmed in toto but subsequently reversed upon a MR. SC denied. as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the
Issue: WON the special assessment is valid. representative of the employees as provided in Section twelve." (Sec. 4[a] [4]).
Held. Yes. Considering that there was a compliance with the requisites for the validity of
the ten percent (10%) special assessment, namely: a) authorization by a written The only question here is whether such an agreement is a permissible form of union
resolution of the majority of all the members at the general membership meeting; b) security under Section 4(a)(4) as contended by the union…
secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting; and 3) individual written authorization
for check-off duly signed by the employee concerned, the Court upheld the validity. For although a closed-shop agreement may validly be entered into under Section 4 (a) (4)
A check-off is a progress or device whereby the employer, on agreement with the Union, of the Industrial Peace Act, We held that the same cannot be made to apply to employees
recognized as the proper bargaining representative, or on prior authorization from its who, like the employees in this case, are already in the service and are members of
employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter's wages and remits them another union. Hence, if a closed shop agreement cannot be applied to these employees,
directly to the union." Its desirability in a labor organization is quite evident. It is assured neither may an agency fee, as a lesser form of union security, be imposed upon them.
thereby of continuous funding. The system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of the
Union and only indirectly, for the individual employees. The legal basis of check-off is It is true, as the union claims, that whatever benefits the majority union obtains from the
found in statutes or in contracts. The statutory limitations on check-offs are found in employer accrue to its members as well as to nonmembers. But this alone does not justify
Article 241 in relation to Article 222. the collection of agency fee from non-members. For the benefits of a CBA are
extended to all employees regardless of their membership in the union because
National Brewery and Allied Industrial Labor Union vs SMC, 8 SCRA 805 to withhold the same from the nonmembers would be to discriminate against
them.
ISSUE: validity of a union agency fee as a form of union security. Moreover, when a union bids to be the bargaining agent, it voluntarily assumes the
responsibility of representing all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. That is
why Section 12 of the law states that "The labor organization designated or selected for

53
the purpose of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate improvement, with retroactive effect, of PLDT’s last offer to the deadlock in the CBA
collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of all employees in such negotiation.
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of PLDT’s last offer referred to on the wage increases was P230 for the 1st year of the
employment, or other conditions of employment." proposed CBA, P100 for the 2nd year and P90 for the 3rd year. The Minister of Labor and
Employment assumed jurisdiction over the bargaining deadlock. He awarded across the
The union's contention, that nonmembers are "free riders" who should be made to pay for board wage increases of P330/m effective Nov. 9, 1982; P155/m effective Nov. 9, 1983
benefits received by them…This statement of the limits to permissible encouragement of and P155/m effective November 9, 1984, in addition to the xmas bonus of 1 ½ month pay
union membership restricts unions, in contractually guaranteeing their own financial per employee. There were improvements obtained from PLDT’s last offer.
security against "free riders," to agreements of the types contemplated by Congress, i.e., The Executive Board of the Union passed a Resolution requesting PLDT to deduct P115 per
"permitted union shop" or "maintenance of membership contract," both being agreements employee for the legal services extended by Atty. Espinas. The petitioners filed a letter-
explicitly "requiring membership." complaint before the MOLE assailing the imposition of P155/employee as attorney’s fees of
Atty. Espinas. They claimed that the attorney’s fees of Atty. Espinas were violative of Art.
Lastly, it is contended that the collection of agency fee may be justified on the principle of 242 (o) of the LC and that deductions cannot be given legal effect by a mere Board
agency. In answer to this point, it may be stated that when a union acts as the bargaining resolution but need the ratification by the general membership of the Union. The Union
agent, it assumes the responsibility imposed upon it by law to represent not only its and Atty. Espinas, on the other hand, assert that the said fees pertained to the legal
members but all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit of which it is the agent. The services during compulsory arbitration proceedings and cannot be considered as
Civil Code states that agency is presumed to be for compensation unless there is proof to negotiation fees or attorney’s fees under Art. 242 (o).
the contrary. (Art. 1875.) There can be no better proof that the agency created by law PLDT filed notice that assessment had been withheld from the differential pay due
between the bargaining representative and the employees in the unit is without petitioners but the same would not be turned over to the Union without prior MOLE
compensation than the fact that these employees in the minority voted against the authority. The Union filed a Manifestation that about 6,067 of their members ratified the
appellant union. legislative council in a plebiscite. Atty. Espinas moved for the payment of his legal fees.
However, petitioners questioned the said plebiscite saying that Q2 therein was misleading
Vengco v. Trajano, 173 SCRA 155 (8a) and deceptive as it assumed that there was no dispute regarding the deduction of
Facts: The Management of the Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation and the Kapisanan ng attorney’s fees from the monetary benefits awarded to PLDT employees.
Manggagawa sa Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation. (FOI-TAF) entered into a The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed petitioner’s complaint. The
compromise agreement whereby the company will pay to the union members the sum of Solicitor General, however, agreed with the petitioners that the issue is covered by Art.
P150,000.00 for their claims arising from the unpaid ECOLA and other benefits. The 222 (b) of the LC so that attorney’s fees can only be charged against Union funds.
respondent union president received the money which was paid in installments. The The SC held that deductions from wages of the employees may only be made by the
petitioner union members alleged that Timbungco was not authorized by the union employer in cases authorized by law, including deductions for union dues where the right
workers to get the money and that 10% had been deducted to pay for attorney's fees of check-off is authorized in writing by the individual employee himself. Under Secs. 222
without their written authorization so. Med-arbiter dimissed. BLR set aside med-arbiters (b) and 242 (o), it is clear that no check-offs from any amounts due employees may be
order. The OIC set aside the previous resolution. effected without individual written authorizations duly signed by the employees specifically
Issue: WON the 10% attorneys' fees from petitioners' backwages was validly deducted. stating the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. The individual
Held: No. Attorney's fees may not be deducted or checked off from any amount due to an authorizations in this case are wanting and in fact, petitioners were vigorously objecting.
employee without his written consent except for mandatory activities under the Code. A The benefits awarded the PLDT employees still formed part of the collective bargaining
mandatory activity has been defined as a judicial process of settling dispute laid down by negotiations although placed under compulsory arbitration. This is not the mandatory
the law. In the instant case, the amicable settlement entered into by the management activity under which the Code which dispenses with individual written authorizations for
and the union can not be considered as a mandatory activity under the Code. It is true check-offs, notwithstanding its “compulsory” nature. Art. 222 (b) does not except a CBA
that the union filed a claim for emergency cost of living allowance and other benefits placed under compulsory arbitration from its prohibition. Employees are protected by law
before the Ministry of Labor. But this case never reached its conclusion in view of the from unwarranted practices that diminish their compensation without their knowledge and
parties' agreement. It is not also shown from the records that the lawyer an was consent.
instrumental in forging the said agreement on behalf of the union members. Written The decision of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations was set aside. SC held that
consent can be dispensed with in judicial or administrative proceedings for recovery of the attorney’s fees may be charged against Union funds pursuant to Art. 222 (b) of the
wages but not in this case. LC.

Galvadores v. Trajano, 144 SCRA 138 (86) 7. Union Information – 241 (p)
Petitioners were employees of PLDT and members of the Free Telephone Workers Union Art. 241. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. The
(Union). They question the legality of the check-off for attorney’s fees amounting to P1M following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization:
of respondent Atty. Jose Espinas from the monetary benefits awarded to PLDT employees p. It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform its members on
in a deadlocked CBA negotiation. the provisions of its constitution and by-laws, CBA, the prevailing labor relations system
Atty. Espinas has been the legal counsel of the Union since 1964. On September 7, 1983, and all their rights and obligations under existing labor laws.
he was again requested to appear as counsel of the Union in an on going labor dispute. Union Officer – Obligation
The Union agreed to pay Atty. Espinas on a contingent basis equivalent to 10% of any

54
Continental Cement Corporation Labor Union v. Continental Cement, 189 SCRA appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of the members of a union or any member or
134 (90) members specially concerned may report such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau shall
have the power to hear and decide any reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty.
FACTS: NLRC issued an arbitration award resolving certain demands of the petitioner Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above rights and conditions of
respecting the working terms and conditions that should be observed in the establishment membership shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
of private respondent. However, due to disagreement on the interpretation of the Art. 226. Bureau of Labor Relations. The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor
provisions of the award concerning vacation, sick leaves and standardization of wages, Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the Dept of Labor, shall have original and
compliance therewith was delayed. In order to compel private respondent to immediately exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties,
implement the award, petitioner staged a strike… on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems
Petitioner staged a strike, picketing the entrance of the premises of private respondent. arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces, whether
Minister of Labor issued an order thru the Director of the BLR, directing the striking agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or
workers to resume work under the terms and conditions prevailing prior to the work interpretation of CBAs which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary
stoppage. arbitration.
Minister of Labor certified the dispute between the parties to the NLRC for compulsory The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on labor cases before it, subject to
arbitration in NLRC. Under the Labor Code, this certification had the effect of automatically extension by agreement of the parties. (As amended by Section 14, Republic Act No.
enjoining any strike by the Union or lockout by the private respondent. Nonetheless, some 6715, March 21, 1989).
110 striking workers did not return to work.
President of petitioner and 7 other officers requested admission to work but were informed Jurisdiction – Exhaustion Internal Remedies
that their employment had been terminated by the company. Requirements:
ISSUES: (1) whether or not the strike staged by petitioner and (2) in the affirmative, Diamonon v. DOLE, 327 SCRA 282 (00)
whether or not the penalties meted out by the NLRC to the Union officers and the Petition for certiorari
members are warranted by the circumstances and the law. Petitioner Diamonon filed 2 complaints before the DOLE after being removed from his
HELD: …manufacture of cement—vital industry in which a strike or lockout is prohibited… capacity as vice president of the unions NACUSIP and PACIWU. In his first complaint, he
even assuming that private respondent was not engaged in a vital industry, the strike that questioned the validity of his removal from office and in the second, he accused both the
was staged by petitioner was nonetheless illegal. It was not in connection with any national treasurer and national president of NACUSIP and PACIWU (private respondents)
unresolved economic issue in collective bargaining which is the only ground for which a for wanton violation of the Constitution and By-Laws of both orgs, unauthorized and illegal
lawful strike can be held. disbursement of union funds and also, abuse of authority.
… at the time of the strike concerned merely the implementation of an arbitration award The 1st complaint was decided in his favor, his removal was declared null and void. The 2nd
of the NLRC. The petitioner had a remedy by applying for a writ of execution to enforce complaint was dismissed for lack of personality in view of his removal from the offices he
that award. Its resort to a strike was without lawful basis. Petitioner invokes the right to held. Diamonon appealed but public respondent Laguesma, as undersecretary of DOLE,
strike as a measure of self-defense as it had been driven to the wall by the unjust refusal held that petitioner’s failure to show, in his complaint, that the administrative remedies
of private respondent to comply with the NLRC award. provided for in the constitution and by-laws of both unions have been exhausted or such
The non-compliance by the private respondent with the said award did not threaten the remedies are not available, was fatal. With his MFR denied, Diamonon filed this case.
existence of petitioner or that of its members. The dispute did not concern the right of the ISSUE: WON respondent Laguesma acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
Union to organize nor the employees' right to work. It merely involved the non-payment appeal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
of the vacation and sick leaves of the employees for the past years' services. HELD: No.
Petitioner then contends that the separation from work of the officers of the union is quite Ratio When the Constitution and By-Laws of Unions dictate the remedy for internal
severe. The officers had the duty to guide their members to respect the law. Instead, they dispute, they should be resorted to before recourse can be made to the appropriate
urged them to violate the law and defy the duly constituted authorities. Their administrative or judicial body.
responsibility is greater than that of the members. Their dismissal from the service is a - A party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed
just penalty for their unlawful acts. administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion
The officers of petitioner misinformed the members and led them into staging an illegal before seeking judicial intervention.
strike. If the NLRC is to attain the objective of the Labor Code to ensure a stable but Reasoning Not only did petitioner fail to comply with Section 2, Rule VIII, Book V of the
dynamic and just industrial peace 6 the removal of undesirable labor leaders must be Implementing Rules of the LC but also the record reveals that neither did he exhaust the
effected. remedies set forth by the Constitution and by-laws of both unions. In the National
Convention of PACIWU and NACUSIP, nothing was heard of petitioner’s complaint against
private respondents on the latter’s alleged unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union
8. Enforcement and Remedies – Procedure and Sanctions – 241 last par., 226 funds. His failure to seek recourse before the National convention on his complaint against
Art. 241. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. For this private respondents taints his action with prematurity.
purpose, registered labor organizations may assess reasonable dues to finance labor Disposition Petition DISMISSED.
relations seminars and other labor education activities.
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a ground for
cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers from office, whichever is

55
UNION AFFILIATION: LOCAL AND PARENT UNION RELATIONS; NATURE . . . The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure
OF RELATIONS and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and
ILO No. 87, Art 5: Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to their employee-members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint
establish and join federations and confederations and any such organisation, federation or productive effort of labor and capital; and the association of the locals into
confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organisations of workers the national union (PAFLU) was in furtherance of the same end. These
and employers. associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal
Art 218 (c): To foster free and voluntary organization of a stong and united labor relations with their member. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the
movement. local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the
common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor.
A. NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve their own
and the common interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed by the
Tropical Hut Employees Union v. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc., 181 SCRA 173 Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the
(90) affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement
which brought it into existence. (Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR, No. L-
FACTS: Rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated, organized a 35120, January 31, 1984, 127 SCRA 268; Elisco-Elirol Labor Union (NAFLU)
local union called the Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU), elected their officers, v. Noriel, No. L-41955, December 29, 1977, 80 SCRA 681; Liberty Cotton
adopted their constitution and by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., supra).
National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). NATU accepted the THEU application
for affiliation. Following such affiliation with NATU, Registration Certificate No. 5544-IP The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration
was issued by the Department of Labor in the name of the Tropical Hut Employees Union with the Department of Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU's affiliate at the
— NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was not registered time of the registration. It does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its
with the Department of Labor. Respondent company and THEU-NATU entered into a CBA own. Neither can it be interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue its own interests
which incorporated the previous union-shop security clause and the attached check-off independently of the federation. A local union owes its creation and continued existence to
authorization form. NATU received a letter informing the them that THEU was disaffiliating the will of its members and not to the federation to which it belongs.
from the NATU federation. Secretary of the THEU, Nemesio Barro, made an announcement
in an open letter to the general membership of the THEU, concerning the latter's When the local union withdrew from the old federation to join a new federation, it was
disaffiliation from the NATU and its affiliation with the Confederation of General merely exercising its primary right to labor organization for the effective enhancement and
Workers (CGW). Around one hundred and thirty-seven (137) signatures appeared as protection of common interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the
having given their consent to and acknowledgment of the decision to disaffiliate the THEU federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union a local may sever its
from the NATU. relationship with its parent (People's Industrial and Commercial Employees and Workers
Organization (FFW) v. People's Industrial and Commercial Corporation, No. 37687, March
….employees filed with the Secretary of Labor, the NLRC Chairman and Director of Labor 15, 1982, 112 SCRA 440).
Relations to cancel the words NATU after the name of Tropical Hut Employee Union There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the constitution of the THEU-NATU
under Registration Certificate…issues raised by the parties became moot and academic that the THEU was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation (pp. 62,
when the NLRC directed the holding of a certification election among the rank and file 281, Rollo), The alleged non-compliance of the local union with the provision in the NATU
workers of the respondent company between the THEU-NATU and THEU-CGW. Constitution requiring the service of three months notice of intention to withdraw did not
produce the effect of nullifying the disaffiliation for the following grounds: firstly, NATU
ISSUES: whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation was not even a legitimate labor organization, it appearing that it was not registered at
was valid; and 3) whether or not the dismissal of petitioner employees resulting from their that time with the Department of Labor, and therefore did not possess and acquire, in the
unions disaffiliation for the mother federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor first place, the legal personality to enforce its constitution and laws, much less the right
practice on the part of respondent company and federation and privilege under the Labor Code to organize and affiliate chapters or locals within its
group, and secondly, the act of non-compliance with the procedure on withdrawal is
HELD: The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-settled. A premised on purely technical grounds which cannot rise above the fundamental right of
local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all self-organization.
its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is
consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. …The prerogative of the employer to dismiss or lay-off an employee should be done
All employees enjoy the right to self organization and to form and join labor organizations without abuse of discretion or arbitrainess, for what is at stake is not only the employee's
of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted name or position but also his means of livelihood. Thus, the discharge of an employee
activities for their mutual aid or protection. This is a fundamental right of labor that from his employment is null and void where the employee was not formally investigated
derives its existence from the Constitution. In interpreting the protection to labor and and given the opportunity to refute the alleged findings made by the company. Likewise,
social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws or rules or regulations, We an employer can be adjudged guilty of unfair labor practice for having dismissed its
have always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights. employees in line with a closed shop provision if they were not given a proper hearing.

56
In view of the fact that the dispute revolved around the mother federation and its local, private respondent on March 23, 1983, merely affirmed the status of FPWU as the
with the company suspending and dismissing the workers at the instance of the mother recognized bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of petitioner
federation then, the company's liability should be limited to the immediate reinstatement company.
of the workers. And since their dismissals were effected without previous hearing and at
the instance of NATU, this federation should be held liable to the petitioners for the Evidently, direct and primary responsibility for the damages allegedly caused by the illegal
payment of their backwages… strike sued upon fall on the local union FPWU, being the principal, and not on respondent
NLU-TUCP, a mere agent of FPWU-NLU which assisted the latter in filing the notice of
FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS strike. Being just an agent, the notice of strike filed by Atty. Eulogio Lerum, the national
COMMISSION, NATIONAL LABOR UNION — TUCP, and EULOGIO LERUM; G.R. No. president of NLU-TUCP, is deemed to have been filed by its principal, the FPWU-NLU.
115180 November 16, 1999 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
FACTS: Repondent National Labor Union-Trade Union Trade Union Congress of the to stand on and should also be dismissed.
Philippines (NLU-TUCP), a national federation of labor unions, filed with the then MOLE, in
behalf of its local chapter, the Filipino Pipe Workers Union-National Labor Union (FPWU- B. EFFECT-LEGAL PERSONALITY
NLU, hereinafter referred to as Union), a notice of strike signed by its national president,
Atty. Eulogio R. Lerum, against the petitioner, Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corporation, ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC., vs.THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and
alleging as grounds therefor union busting and non-implementation of the Collective ADAMSON & ADAMSON SUPERVISORY UNION (FFW); G.R. No. L-35120 January
Bargaining Agreement. 6 FPWU-NLU staged the strike in question until a return to work 31, 1984
agreement was reached by the union and petitioner company. 7
FACTS: Adamson and Adamson, Inc., filed this petition to set aside orders of the
Petitioner company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal with prayer for damages respondent Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) holding that the Adamson and Adamson,
which was granted. Inc. supervisory Union (FFW) can legally represent supervisors of the petitioner
corporation notwithstanding the affiliation of the rank and file union of the same
Anent the responsibility for the damages allegedly sustained by petitioner company on company with the same labor federation, the Federation of Free Workers.
account of the illegal strike, the latter theorized that the liability therefor should be borne
by NLU-TUCP and its national president, Atty. Eulogio Lerum, for having directly The Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) informed the petitioner about
participated in aiding and abetting the illegal strike. It is argued that FPWU-NLU is a mere its having organized on the same date that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Salesmen
agent of respondent NLU-TUCP, because FPWU-NLU, which was formed by respondent Association (FFW) advised the petitioner that the rank and file salesmen had formed their
NLU-TUCP is not registered as a local unit or chapter but directly affiliated with the latter own union… the rank and file employees formed their own union, naming it Adamson and
and therefore, could not have acted on its own. Otherwise stated, petitioner is of the view Adamson Independent Workers (FFW). Here, the rank-and-file employees are not directly
that FPWU-NLU, a local union, cannot act as the principal of respondent NLU-TUCP, a under the supervisors who comprise the supervisors' union and the national union did not
mother federation, because it is not a legitimate labor organization. actively represent its local chapters.

Evidently, in the case under scrutiny, whether or not FPWU, the local chapter, complied …The petitioner argues that the affiliation of the respondent union of supervisors, the salesmen's
with the procedural requirements that would make it a legitimate labor organization is association, and the Adamson and Adamson independent Workers Union of rank and file personnel with
the same national federation (FFW) violates Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act, as amended,
immaterial. It would not affect its status as the principal and basic unit of the association.
because — (1) it results in the indirect affiliation Of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one
The requirement laid down in the Progressive Development case, that the local union must labor organization; (2) since respondent union and the unions of non-supervisors in the same company
be a legitimate labor organization, pertains to the conditions before a union may file a are governed by the same constitution and by-laws of the national federation, in practical effect, there
petition for certification election and to be certified as sole and exclusive bargaining agent. is but one union; and (3) it would result in the respondent union's losing its independence because it
In the present case, there is no dispute that FPWU-NLU is the sole and exclusive becomes the alter ego of the federation.
bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of petitioner company. The
union's status as a legitimate labor organization is therefore of no moment in the …The respondents on the other hand argue that the supervisory employees of an employer may validly
join an organization of the rank-and-file employees so long as the said rank and file employees are not
resolution of the controversy here. As the local union, it is considered as the principal;
under their supervision. They submit that Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union (FFW) is not
the entity which staged the illegal strike and the one responsible for the resulting composed of sales supervisors and, therefore, the salesmen of the company are not under the
damages allegedly sustained by petitioner company. supervision of the supervisory employees forming the union. Respondents also argue that even if the
salesmen of the petitioner company are under the supervision of the members of the supervisory
Furthermore, the petitioner company is now estopped from reneging on the recognition it union, the prohibition would not apply because the salesmen and the supervisory employees of the
extended to the FPUW-NLU as the bargaining representative of its rank and file workers, company have their separate and distinct labor organizations, and, as a matter of fact, their respective
by belatedly attacking its status which petitioner company had voluntarily recognized. It unions sent separate proposal for collective bargaining agreements. They contend that their respective
labor organizations, not the FFW, will represent their members in the negotiations as well as in the
should be noted that even as early as 1981, when the collective bargaining agreement
signing of their respective contracts. Respondents further argue that the Federation of Free Workers
sought to be implemented by the union was entered into, the latter was already the has, as its affiliates, supervisory as well as rank-and-file employees, and should both the supervisory
bargaining representative of the employees concerned. It is not, therefore, true that it and the rank-and-file employees of a certain employer who have separate certificates of registration
was respondent NLU-TUCP which formed FPWU. At most, the entry into the picture of the

57
affiliate with the same federation, the prohibition does not apply as the federation is not the bargaining negotiations with the same employer of the supervisors and in the
organization of the supervisory employees contemplated in the law. implementation of resulting collective bargaining agreements.
In deciding this case, we start with the recognized rule that the right of supervisory HELD:
employees to organize under the Industrial Peace Act carries certain restrictions but the In the case at bar, the rank-and file employees are directly under the supervisors
right itself may not be denied or unduly abridged. The supervisory employees of an organized by one and the same federation.
employer cannot join any labor organization of employees under their In the present case, the local union is actively represented by the national federation. In
supervision but may validly form a separate organization of their own. ..Republic fact, it was the national federation, the KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN, which initially filed a petition
Act 875, in its Section 3, recognizes the right of supervisors to form a separate for certification in behalf of the respondent union.
organization of their own, albeit they cannot be members of a labor organization of
employees under their supervision, that authority of supervisors to form a separate labor Thus, if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge
union carries with it the right to bargain collectively with the employer. with the rank and-file or where the supervisors' labor organization would
represent conflicting interests, then a local supervisors' union should not be
ISSUE: whether or not a supervisor's union may affiliate with a federation with which allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank-and-file
unions of rank and-file employees of the same employer are also affiliated. employees where that federation actively participates in union activity in the
company. Such a situation would obtain only where two conditions concur:
HELD: YES. The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and 1. rank-and-file employees are directly under the authority of supervisory employees
Adamson, Inc., Salesmen Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and 2. the national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company.
by-laws. They are separately and independently registered of each other. Both sent their
separate proposals for collective bar agreements with their employer. There could be no The prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local union of rank-and-file is replete
employer influence on rank-and-file organizational activities nor their could be any rank with jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of
and file influence on the supervisory function of the supervisors because of the supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file local union. The prohibition extends to a
representation sought to be proscribed. 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
C. SUPERVISOR- RANK AND FILE UNION AFFILIATION (22 and 254, LC) especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those
employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.
D. RULE AFFILIATION
…Supervisors are not prohibited from forming their own union. What the law prohibits is
ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC. vs. LAGUESMA (DOLE) and ATLAS their membership in a labor organization of rank-and-file employees (Art. 245,
LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC. SUPERVISORY, ADMINISTRATIVE, PERSONNEL, Labor Code) or their joining a national federation of rank-and-file employees that
PRODUCTION, ACCOUNTING AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION- includes the very local union which they are not allowed to directly join.
KAISAHAN NG MANGGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN); G.R. No. 96566 THEREFORE, private respondent is disqualified from affiliating with a national federation of
January 6, 1992 labor organizations which includes the petitioner's rank-and-file employees.

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF

FACTS: The supervisory, administrative personnel, production, accounting and MEDICINE, petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of
confidential employees of the petitioner Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. (ALSI) affiliated Labor and Employment; ROLANDO S. DE LA CRUZ, Med-Arbiter Regional Office
with private respondent Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino, a national labor No. IV, DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
organization. The local union adopted the name Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. SUPERVISORY UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS; [G.R. No.
Supervisory, Administrative, Personnel, Production, Accounting and Confidential 102084. August 12, 1998]
Employees Association or ALSI-SAPPACEA-KAMPIL in short and which we shall De La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine (DLSUMCCM) is a hospital and medical
hereafter refer to as the "supervisors" union. Kampil-Katipunan filed on behalf of the school at Dasmariñas, Cavite. Private respondent Federation of Free Workers–De La Salle University
"supervisors" union a petition for certification election so that it could be the sole and Medical Center and College of Medicine Supervisory Union Chapter (FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC), on the other
exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory employees. hand, is a labor organization composed of the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM.

The petitioners opposed the private respondent's petition claiming that under Article 245 FACTS: Federation of Free Workers (FFW), a national federation of labor unions, issued a
of the Labor bode the private respondent cannot represent the supervisory employees for certificate to private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC recognizing it as a local chapter. On
collective bargaining purposeless because the private respondent also represents the the same day, it filed on behalf of private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC a petition for
rank-and-file employees' union. certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM. Its
petition was opposed by petitioner DLSUMCCM on the grounds that several employees
ISSUE: WON a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate who signed the petition for certification election were managerial employees and that the
with a national federation of labor organizations of rank-and-file employees and FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC was composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees in
which national federation actively represents its affiliates in collective the company.[1]… Med-arbiter granting respondent union’s petition for certification
election…claims that based on the job descriptions which will be presented at the hearing,

58
the covered employees who are considered managers occupy the positions of purchasing entering into such legal relations with their members. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the
officers, personnel officers, property officers, cashiers, heads of various sections and the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining power in
respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association,
like.
free to serve their own and the common interest of all, … and free also to renounce the affiliation for
mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it to existence. [16]
[Petitioner] also argues that assuming that some of the employees concerned are not managerial but
mere supervisory employees, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) cannot extend a charter certificate
to this group of employees without violating the express provision of Article 245 which provides that ISSUE: whether the rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM who
“supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file compose a labor union are directly under the supervisory employees whose own
employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own” because the FFW had union is affiliated with the same national federation (Federation of Free
similarly issued a charter certificate to its rank-and-file employees.. . . .In its position paper, Workers) and whether such national federation is actively involved in union
[petitioner] stated that most, if not all, of the employees listed in . . . the petition are considered activities in the company so as to make the two unions in the same company, in
managerial employees, thereby admitting that it has supervisory employees who are undoubtedly
reality, just one union.
qualified to join or form a labor organization of their own. The record likewise shows that [petitioner]
promised to present the job descriptions of the concerned employees during the hearing but failed to
do so. Thus, this office has no basis in determining at this point in time who among them are Although private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union composed of
considered managerial or supervisory employees. At any rate, there is now no question that rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed affiliated with the same
[petitioner] has in its employ supervisory employees who are qualified to join or form a labor national federation, the FFW, petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence
union. Consequently, this office is left with no alternative but to order the holding of certification showing that the rank-and-file employees composing the other union are directly under
election pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code, as amended, which mandates the holding of the authority of the supervisory employees. As held in Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v.
certification election if a petition is filed by a legitimate labor organization involving an unorganized
CIR,[17] the fact that the two groups of workers are employed by the same company and
establishment, as in the case of herein respondent.
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
As to the allegation of [petitioner] that the act of the supervisory employees in affiliating
professional relationship must be established. To borrow the language of Adamson &
with FFW to whom the rank-and-file employees are also affiliated is violative of Article 245
Adamson, Inc. v. CIR:[18]
of the Labor Code, suffice it to state that the two groups are considered separate
We find without merit the contention of petitioner that if affiliation will be allowed, only
bargaining units and local chapters of FFW. They are, for all intents and purposes,
one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the
separate with each other and their affiliation with FFW would not make them members of
petitioner; that there would be an indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and–file
the same labor union. This must be the case because it is settled that the locals are
employees with one labor organization; that there would be a merging of the two
considered the basic unit or principal with the labor federation assuming the role of an
bargaining units; and that the respondent union will lose its independence because it
agent. The mere fact, therefore, that they are represented by or under the same agent is
becomes an alter ego of the federation.[19]
of no moment. They are still considered separate with each other.[3]
Mention has already been made of the fact that the petition for certification election
in this case was filed by the FFW on behalf of the local union. This circumstance, while
..unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a
showing active involvement by the FFW in union activities at the company, is by itself
company may legally affiliate with the same national federation.
insufficient to justify a finding of violation of Art. 245 since there is no proof that the
supervisors who compose the local union have direct authority over the rank-and-file
Supervisory employees have the right to self-organization as do other classes of
employees composing the other local union which is also affiliated with the FFW. This fact
employees save only managerial ones…is subject to the limitation that they cannot join an
differentiates the case from Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma,[20] in which, in
organization of rank-and-file employees. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
addition to the fact that the petition for certification election had been filed by the national
membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or
federation, it was shown that the rank-and-file employees were directly under the
form separate labor organizations of their own.
supervisors organized by the same federation.
The reason for the segregation of supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company
E. LOCAL UNION DISAFFILIATION
with respect to the exercise of the right to self-organization is the difference in their
interests. Supervisory employees are more closely identified with the employer than with
F. NATURE RIGHT DISAFFILIATION
the rank-and-file employees. If supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a company
are allowed to form a single union, the conflicting interests of these groups impair their
VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION, et al. vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,
relationship and adversely affect discipline, collective bargaining, and strikes. These
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION FOR METAL, WORKERS, DMG, INC., PEOPLE'S CAR,
consequences can obtain not only in cases where supervisory and rank-and-file employees
INC., KARBAYAN INC., and RTC TRADING, INC. G.R. No. L-45824 June 19, 1985
in the same company belong to a single union but also where unions formed
independently by supervisory and rank-and–file employees of a company are allowed to
FACTS: Petitioner was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers
affiliate with the same national federation.
(ALUMETAL for short). Both unions, using the name Volkschel Labor Union Associated
…The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of
Labor Union for Metal Workers, jointly entered into a CBA with respondent companies.
bargaining power between the employer and their employee members in the economic struggle for the One of the subjects dealt with is the payment of union dues.
Section 3. CHECK-OFF. — The COMPANY agrees to make payroll deductions not softener than twice a month
fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the association of locals into the national
of UNION membership dues and such special assessments fees or fines as may be duly authorized by the
union…was in furtherance of the same end. These associations are consensual entities capable of UNION, provided that the same is covered by the individual check-off authorization of the UNION members.

59
 All said deductions shall be promptly transmitted within five (5) days by the COMPANY to the UNION
Treasurer. The COMPANY shall prepare two (2) checks. One (1) check will be under the name of the local
union as their local fund including local special assessment funds and the other check will be for the ALU *that respondent federation is not entitled to union dues payments from petitioner's
Regional Office regarding the remittance of the UNION dues deduction. members. "A local union which has validly withdrawn from its affiliation with the parent
A majority of petitioner's members decided to disaffiliate from respondent federation association and which continues to represent the employees of an employer is entitled to
in order to operate on its own as an independent labor group.. pursuant to LC the check-off dues under a collective bargaining contract."
(Incumbent affiliates of existing federations or national unions may disaffiliate only for the
purpose of joining a federation or national union in the industry or region in which it
properly belongs or for the purpose of operating as an independent labor group) MALAYANG SAMAHAN ETC. VS. RAMOS; 326 SCRA 162
Accordingly, a resolution was adopted and signed by petitioner's members revoking their
check-off authorization in favor of ALUMETAL and notices thereof were served on FACTS: Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc., (B) (MSMG),
ALUMETAL and respondent companies. ...Med-Arbiter found the disaffiliation legal but at the hereinafter referred to as the "local union", is an affiliate of the private respondent,
same time gave the opinion that, petitioner's members should continue paying their dues to ALUMETAL United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP), referred to as the
in the concept of agency fees. Acting Director Bureau REVERSED the Med-Arbiter's Resolution., and "federation".
declared that the Bureau recognized "the continued affiliation of Volkschel Labor Union with the
A local union election was held under the auspices of the ULGWP. The federation
Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers." 2
conducted an audit of the local union funds. The investigation did not yield any
unfavorable result and the local union officers were cleared of the charges of anomaly in
ISSUES: Is petitioner union's disaffiliation from respondent federation valid?
the custody, handling and disposition of the union funds. The local union held a general
(YES.)
membership meeting and those who will not attend will pay fines as provided in the CBA.
HELD: The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. In
Meanwhile, several local filed a Petition for Audit and Examination of the federation and
previous cases, it has been repeatedly held that a local union, being a separate and
education funds of ULGWP which was granted by Med-Arbiter. ULGWP called a Special
voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom
National Executive Board Meeting… Petitioner union questioned the validity of the alleged
to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. 4 This right is consistent with the Constitutional
National Executive Board Resolution placing their union under trusteeship; advised that
guarantee of freedom of association (Article IV, Section 7, Philippine Constitution).
their union did not commit any act of disloyalty as it has remained an affiliate of
ULGWP…later, the officers were expelled from the ULGWP….Federation filed a Notice of
Petitioner contends that the disaffiliation was not due to any opportunists motives on its
Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board to compel the company to effect
part. Rather it was prompted by the federation's deliberate and habitual dereliction of
the immediate termination of the expelled union officers…. under the pressure of a
duties as mother federation towards petitioner union. Employees' grievances were
threatened strike, respondent company terminated the 30 union officers from
allegedly left unattended to by respondent federation to the detriment of the employees'
employment.
rights and interests.
…Later… the petitioners filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB, DOLE, Manila, docketed as
…to restructure the labor movement to the end that the workers will unite themselves
Case No. NCMB-NCR-NS-03-216-89, alleging the following grounds for the strike:
along industry lines. Carried to its complete fruition, only one union for every industry will
Discrimination; Interference in union activities; Mass dismissal of union officers and shop
remain to bargain collectively for the workers. The clear policy therefore even now is to
stewards; Threats, coercion and intimidation; and Union busting.
conjoin workers and worker groups, not to dismember them. 5 This policy is
commendable. However, we must not lose sight of the constitutional mandate of
…Later… petitioners filed a verified complaint charging private respondents of ULP….
protecting labor and the workers' right to self-organization. In the implementation and
………
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing regulations, the
ISSUE: WON the termination of several employees by respondent company upon
workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. In the case
the demand of the labor federation pursuant to the union security clause
at bar, it would go against the spirit of the labor law to restrict petitioner's right to self-
embodied in their CBA is VALID?
organization due to the existence of the CBA. We agree with the Med-Arbiter's opinion
that "A disaffiliation does not disturb the enforceability and administration of a
HELD: Although this Court has ruled that union security clauses embodied in the CBA may be validly
collective agreement; it does not occasion a change of administrators of the enforced and that dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise be valid, this does not erode the
contract nor even an amendment of the provisions thereof." But nowhere in the fundamental requirement of due process. The reason behind the enforcement of union security clauses
record does it appear that the contract entered into by the petitioner and which is the sanctity and inviolability of contracts cannot override one’s right to due process.
ALUMETAL prohibits the withdrawal of the former from the latter. "The power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer. However, this is not
without limitation. The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services
*The obligation of an employee to pay union dues is coterminous with his affiliation or of his employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union
pursuant to the CBA, xxx. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due process
membership. "The employees' check-off authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is
must be observed in dismissing an employee because it affects not only his position but
good only as long as they remain members of the union concerned." 7 A contract between also his means of livelihood. Employers should respect and protect the rights of their
an employer and the parent organization as bargaining agent for the employees is employees, which include the right to labor."
terminated by the disaffiliation of the local of which the employees are In the case under scrutiny, petitioner union officers were expelled by the federation for allegedly
members. 8Respondent companies therefore were wrong in continuing the check-off in commiting acts of disloyalty and/or inimical to the interest of ULGWP and in violation of its Constitution
favor of respondent federation since they were duly notified of the disaffiliation and of and By-laws. Upon demand of the federation, the company terminated the petitioners without
petitioner's members having already rescinded their check-off authorization. conducting a separate and independent investigation. Respondent company did not inquire into the

60
cause of the expulsion and whether or not the federation had sufficient grounds to effect the same.
Relying merely upon the federation’s allegations, respondent company terminated petitioners from FACTS: …there was a renewal of the CBA with a union shop clause between petitioner
employment when a separate inquiry could have revealed if the federation had acted arbitrarily and
union and respondent company to last for another period of three (3) years incorporating
capriciously in expelling the union officers. Respondent company’s allegation that petitioners were
accorded due process is belied by the termination letters received by the petitioners which state that
therein new economic. The claim was that at that time it was the only bargaining agent of
the dismissal shall beimmediately effective. the respondent company unchallenged by any labor organization and at the time of such
certification, there was no pending request for union recognition by any other labor
…the Labor Arbiter declared that the act of disaffiliation and declaration of autonomy by organization with management.
the local union was part of its "plan to take over the respondent federation." This is purely
conjecture and speculation on the part of public respondent, totally unsupported by the Thereafter, respondent Federation of Free Workers, setting forth that its members
evidence. represent more than 60% out of 1,500 members, more or less, rank-and-file employees
of respondent company, sought a certification election- DISMISSED.
A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or declare its autonomy. A
local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interests of all Respondent Federation, filed a complaint with the BLR, attached to the complaint
its members including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare its autonomy from the disaffiliated from petitioner union and affiliated with it, characterizing the certified
federation to which it belongs when circumstances warrant, in accordance with the agreement as having been entered into allegedly to thwart such disaffiliation and seeking
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.[22] a declaration of the nullity thereof… BLR issued an order setting aside the certification of
the CBA and ordering a certification election within 20 days from receipt of the order,
The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a mother union or a federation upon the following declaration: "In the instant case, it is not disputed that the CBA
"xxx is to increase by collective action the bargaining power in respect of the certified by the National Labor Relations Commission was not ratified by the majority of
terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of the employees within the bargaining unit. This is defective. It is blatant non- observance
association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the of the basic requirement necessary to certification. ... With respect to the complaint of the
restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and free confirmation of disaffiliation of the members of respondent Philippine Labor Alliance
also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in Council, the same should be resolved in the most expedient and simple method of
the agreement which brought it into existence."[23] determining the exclusive bargaining representative—the holding of a certification
election."
Thus, a local union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such
affiliation anytime and such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty. In the absence *Once the fact of disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, as in this case, a
of specific provisions in the federation’s constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the certification election is the most expeditious way of determining which labor organization
declaration of autonomy of a local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union.[24] is to be the exclusive bargaining representative.
The evidence on hand does not show that there is such a provision in ULGWP’s
constitution. "In the instant case, it is not disputed that the CBA certified by the NLRC was not ratified
by the majority of the employees within the bargaining unit. This is defective. It is blatant
Labor Arbiter gave weight to the fact that on February 26, 1989, the petitioners declared as vacant all non-observance of the basic requirement necessary to certification. To allow it to remain
the responsible positions of ULGWP, filled these vacancies through an election and filed a petition for uncorrected would allow circumvention of what the law specifically ordained. We cannot
the registration of UWP as a national federation. It should be pointed out, however, that these occurred countenance irregularities of the highest order to exist in our very own eyes to be
after the federation had already expelled the union officers. The expulsion was effective November 21, perpetuated. With respect to the complaint of the confirmation of disaffiliation of the
1988. Therefore, the act of establishing a different federation, entirely separate from the federation
members of respondent Philippine Labor Alliance counsel the same should be resolved in
which expelled them, is but a normal retaliatory reaction to their expulsion.
the most expedient and simple method of determining the exclusive bargaining
representative — the holding of a certification election."
PHILIPPINES LABOR ALLIANCE COUNCIL (PLAC), vs. BLR, FEDERATION OF FREE
FFW and 848 Orion employees filed with the Bureau a petition for the annulment of the
WORKERS-ORION CHAPTER, GERARDO ROSANA and ORION MANILA, INC.; G.R.
1974 CBA and for the confirmation of the disaffiliation of the 848 employees from PLAC
No. L-41288 January 31, 1977
It would be to frustrate the hopes that inspired the present Labor Code 1 to minimize judicial participation in the solution and their affiliation with FFW. The petition alleged among others, that the new agreement
of employer- employee disputes resort to the courts would remain unabated. Nevertheless, in view of the certiorari was concluded about ten months before the expiry date of the old purposely to defeat the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal, 2 a grave abuse of discretion may be alleged as a grievance thus calling for remedial action. right of the covered employees to choose their bargaining representative at the proper
So petitioner Philippine Labor Alliance Council did hope to achieve in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding against
respondent BLR. 3 It would indict an order 4 for a certification election by respondent Bureau as tainted by a time appointed by law. It appears, indeed, that there was no urgency. for the premature
jurisdictional infirmity in view of what is contended to be an existing duly certified collective bargaining contract between renegotiations considering that the new agreement provides for a 50-centavo salary
it and private respondent Orion Manila, Inc., the employer. It would thus ignore the withdrawal in the same order of increase effective yet on January 1, 1976." 31 Then, there was further clarification of the
such certification based on a finding that there was a failure on the part of the majority of the employees in the
bargaining unit to ratify the collective contract, renewed nine months before the termination of the previous agreement. decision reached as to the holding of a certification election being the appropriate mode of
Apparently, the difficulty confronting it was due to the disaffiliation of many of its members. The order complained of solving the dispute: "With the decertification of the collective agreement, the
recognized that there was such a sentiment on the part of sizable number of employees in the collective bargaining unit, representation issue comes back to the fore. Petitioner wants this resolved by ruling on
thus making patent the desirability of conducting a certification election. That was the method to determine the
exclusive bargaining representative followed even under the previous labor legislation .5 It would thus appear rather the affiliation and disaffiliation of the union, The Bureau holds, however, that certification
obvious that the attempt to impute arbitrariness to respondent Bureau cannot be attended with success. The petition election can better resolve the issue. parenthetically, it should be stated that a
must be dismissed.

61
certification election can still be held even if the collective agreement were certified, federation when circumstances so warrant. This right, they averred, was consistent with
considering the peculiar facts of the case. Good policy and equity demand that when an the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. PSI, Romulo and Dakila alleged
agreement is renegotiated before the appointed 60-day period, its certification must still that their decision to bargain collectively with PSEA-NCW was actuated, to a large extent,
give way to any representation issue that may be raised within 60-day period so that the by PAFLU's behavior. Having heard no objections or protestations from PAFLU relative to
right of employees to choose a bargaining unit agent and the right, of unions to be chosen PSEA's disaffiliation, they reckoned that PSEA's subsequent association with NSW was
shall be preserved." 32 done bona fide.[13]

G. RULE – LEGALITY ACT – DISAFFILIATION ISSUE: legitimacy of PSEA's disaffiliation: may PSEA, which is an independent
and separate local union, validly disaffiliate from PAFLU pending the settlement
Philippine Skylanders, Inc. v. NLRC, 375 SCRA 369 (02) of an election protest questioning its status as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of PSI's rank and file employees? (NO. The pendency of an election protest
involving both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute a bar to a valid
FACTS: Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA), a local labor union affiliated disaffiliation.)
with the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). PAFLU won in the
certification election conducted among the rank and file employees of Philippine HELD: At the outset, let it be noted that the issue of disaffiliation is an inter-union conflict
Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees Association- the jurisdiction of which properly lies with the BLR (BLR)…. The right of a local union to
WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested the result of the election before the Secretary disaffiliate from its mother federation is not a novel thesis unillumined by case law…. the
of Labor. Later, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation citing as reason PAFLU's right of local unions to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as
supposed deliberate and habitual dereliction of duty toward its members. PSEA separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and existence
subsequently affiliated itself with the National Congress of Workers (NCW), to the national federation to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their
changed its name to Philippine Skylanders Employees Association - National Congress of members. The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by collective action, the common
Workers (PSEA-NCW), and to maintain continuity within the organization, allowed the bargaining power of local unions for the effective enhancement and protection of their
former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected interests. Admittedly, there are times when without succor and support local unions may
officers in the newly-forged PSEA-NCW. find it hard, unaided by other support groups, to secure justice for themselves.

PSEA-NCW entered into a CBA with PSI which was immediately registered with the Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own interests
DOLE…. Agitated by PSI's recognition of PSEA-NCW, PAFLU filed a complaint for ULP subject to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the national
against PSI. PAFLU alleged that aside from PSI’s refusal to bargain collectively with its federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the
workers, the company was also liable for interfering with its employees' union activities. agreement which brought such affiliation into existence.

PSI moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the issue of disaffiliation …The mere act of disaffiliation did not divest PSEA of its own personality; neither did it
was an inter-union conflict which lay beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. On the give PAFLU the license to act independently of the local union. Recreant to its mission,
other hand, PSEA-NCW took the cudgels for its officers who were being sued in their PAFLU cannot simply ignore the demands of the local chapter and decide for its
capacities as former officers of PSEA-PAFLU and asserted that since PSEA was no longer welfare. PAFLU might have forgotten that as an agent it could only act in representation
affiliated with PAFLU, Ayroso or PAFLU for that matter had no personality to file the instant of and in accordance with the interests of the local union. The complaint then for ULP
complaint. lodged by PAFLU against PSI, PSEA and their respective officers, having been filed by a
party which has no legal personality to institute the complaint, should have been
…Labor Arbiter declared PSEA's disaffiliation from PAFLU invalid and held PSI, dismissed at the first instance for failure to state a cause of action.
PSEA-PAFLU and their respective officers guilty of ULP. The Decision explained that Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against
despite PSEA-PAFLU's status as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank and those of a national federation, those of the former must be preferred. Parenthetically
file employees, the company knowingly sanctioned and confederated with Dakila in though, the desires of the mother federation to protect its locals are not altogether to be
actively assisting a rival union. This, according to the Labor Arbiter, was a classic case of shunned. It will however be to err greatly against the Constitution if the desires of the
interference for which PSI could be held responsible. As PSEA-NCW's personality was not federation would be favored over those of its members. That, at any rate, is the policy of
accorded recognition, its CBA with PSI was struck down for being invalid. Ayroso's legal the law. For if it were otherwise, instead of protection, there would be disregard and
personality to file the complaint was sustained on the ratiocination that under the Labor neglect of the lowly workingmen.
Code no petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall
be entertained outside of the sixty (60)-day period immediately before the expiry date of
such five (5)-year term of the CBA that the parties may enter into. Alex Ferrer v. NLRC, 224 SCRA 410 (93)
Facts:
In these petitions, petitioner PSEA together with its officers argued that by virtue of their  Petitioners are piece workers employed in Occidental Foundry Corporation (OFC).
disaffiliation PAFLU as a mere agent had no authority to represent them before any They were also members of Samahang Manggagawa ng Occidental Foundry
proceedings. They further asserted that being an independent labor union PSEA may Corporation – FFW (SAMAHAN).
freely serve the interest of all its members and readily disaffiliate from its mother

62
 SAMAHAN and OFC entered into a CBA which provided for a union security clause that
requires employees of OFC to remain as members of SAMAHAN for the duration of
their employment with OFC. Failure to do so will be a ground for termination. Villar v. Inciong, 121 SCRA 444 (83)
 Alex Ferrer and SAMAHAN filed with the DOLE a complaint for expulsion of Genaro Facts: Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, a duly registered
Capitle, then President of SAMAHAN and other officers thereof on the ground of the labor organization which was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private
alleged inattentiveness of the said officers to the economic demands of the workers. respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. They then signed a joint resolution which stated
 Petitioners then conducted a special election of SAMAHAN’s officers. Such special that they were disaffiliating themselves as members of the PAFLU, and were not further
election was opposed by FFW. Petitioners also tried to organize a strike but were authorizing PAFLU to represent them in any CBA. During a special meeting of the Union, a
disowned by the members of SAMAHAN. Resolution was approved which called for the investigation of all the petitioners for
 On September 11, 1989, a union resolution was issued by Capitle and other officers "continuously maligning, libelling and slandering not only the incumbent officers but even
of SAMAHAN expelling petitioners from the union. The following day, they wrote OFC, the union itself and the federation" and for causing divisiveness.
through its management, requesting for the dismissal of the petitioners. The union security clause was reincorporated in the new CBA: “any member who shall
 On the date OFC received the letter, the petitioners were dismissed from OFC. resign, be expelled, or shall in any manner cease to be a member of the UNION, shall be
 As such, they volunteered to be admitted as members of FEDLU and sought its dismissed from his employment upon written request of the UNION to the Company.”
representation before the DOLE questioning their illegal dismissal. Petitioners contend that their acts do not constitute disloyalty as these are in the exercise
 The Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaint ruling that their dismissal was validly of their constitutional right to self-organization. PAFLU President then rendered a decision
done pursuant to the closed shop provision in the CBA. The NLRC affirmed. finding them guilty of the charges and expelling them from the Union and as a
Issues: consequence the Management of the employer is hereby requested to terminate them
1. Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioners pursuant to the closed shop provision from their employment in conformity with the security clause.
of the CBA was valid. Issues: WON PAFLU had the authority to investigate the petitioners and, thereafter, expel
2. Whether or not the petitioners’ act of seeking assistance from FEDLU is an act of them from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
disloyalty against the union. SC: YES. That PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners on the charges filed by
Held: their co-employees in the local union and after finding them guilty as charged, to expel
1st Issue: NO them from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under the
 A CBA is the law between the company and the union and compliance therewith is constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated. And pursuant to the
mandated by the express policy to give protection to labor. security clause of the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old CBA, PAFLU was
 A CBA provision for a closed shop is a valid form of union security and is not a justified in applying said security clause.
restriction on the right or freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for that matter, is the right of self-
However, in implementation of the provisions of the CBA, both parties should see to it preservation. When members of a labor union, therefore, sow the seeds of dissension and
that no right is violated or impaired. strife within the union; when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very
 While the CBA between OFC and SAMAHAN provided for a right to dismiss an union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the
employee pursuant to a closed shop provision, such right must be subjected to the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity, as well as the dictates of law and
demands of procedural due process. justice, therefore, compelling mandate the adoption by the labor union of such corrective
 In the Constitution and By-laws of the SAMAHAN, a procedure for temporary or and remedial measures in keeping with its laws and regulations, for its preservation and
permanent expulsion was provided. In the said procedure, the conduct of a hearing continued existence; lest by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.
was necessary for expulsion to be effective. No hearing was conducted by it when it Issue: WON the petitioners were entitled to disaffiliate from the Union.
caused the expulsion of Capitle and his supporters. SC: Yes. Although they are entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new
 The need for a company investigation is founded on the consistent ruling of the SC of organization of their own, they must, however, suffer the consequences of their
the twin requirements of notice and hearing which are the essential elements of due separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA. Disaffiliation from a labor
process in termination cases. union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association ordained by
2nd issue: NO the Constitution. But this Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form
 While petitioners’ act of holding a special election to oust Capitle et al. may be of union security, and such provision in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of
considered as an act of sowing disunity among the SAMAHAN members and perhaps association guaranteed by the Constitution.
to its officers which may be the subject of a disciplinary matter, it cannot be
construed as an act of disloyalty against the union. Faced with a SAMAHAN leadership
which they tried to remove as officials, it was but a natural act of self-preservation to
seek the assistance of FEDLU.
 Neither may it be inferred that the petitioners sought disaffiliation for petitioners had
not formed a union distinct from SAMAHAN.
 In any case, the right of a local union to disaffiliate from a federation in the absence
of any provision in the federation’s constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local
union is legal. Such right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
association.

63