CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 2, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
ALLIANCE OF NATIONALIST (ANGLO)
V. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA
G.R. No. 118562, July 5, 1996
In December 1993, SAMANA BAY (Samahan
Ng Mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay
Spinning Mills and J.P. Coats) decided to disaffiliate
from ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine
Labor Organization) due to the latter’s dereliction of
duty to promote the welfare of SAMANA BAY and
the alleged case of corruption. ANGLO overthrew all
officers of the respondent, and appointed new set of
officers, for non-remittance of federation dues.
ANGLO contended that the disaffiliation was void
since the freedom period has not yet set in.
MED ARBITER: Declared the disaffiliation void but
maintained that the dismissal of officers was illegal;
ON APPEAL TO DOLE: Disaffiliation was VALID,
Directed the Company (Manila Bay Spinning Mills) to
remit the dues directly to SAMANA; MR of ANGLO
was DENIED. SC: Dismissed the petition.
Whether or not the disaffiliation of SAMANA was
valid. Yes. As a rule, a labor union may disaffiliate
from the mother union only within the freedom
period. (PD 1391 – “No petition for certification
election, for intervention and disaffiliation shall
be entertained or given due course except within
the 60-day freedom period…”) However, under
ARTICLE 239-A, disaffiliation may be carried out by
a vote of 2/3 of its general membership in a
meeting duly called for that purpose to dissolve
the organization. In addition, with respect to the
removal of the officers, a local union does not owe
its existence to the federation with which it is
affiliated. Having its own personality, the mother
federation has no license to act independently of the
local union. Any act performed by ANGLO affecting
the interest and affairs of SAMANA, including the
ouster of herein individual private respondent, is
rendered without force and effect.
PAPER INDUSTRIES V. LAGUESMA
G. R. No.101738, April 12, 2000
On August 9, 1989, PBSTSEU [PICOP-Bislig
Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union]
instituted a Petition for Certification Election to
determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
the supervisory and technical staff employees of
PICOP [Paper Industries Corporation of the
Philippines]. The initial hearing of the petition was
reset as per request of PICOP (15 days) in order to
file its comment, but it failed to do so. Meanwhile,
FFW and ALU intervened and as a result, the
holding of the certification election was granted by
the med-arbiter. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor
upheld the med-arbiter with modifications, allowing
the supervising staff in Cebu, Davao and Iligan to
participate. During the pre-election conference,
PICOP questioned the inclusion of some supervisors
in the list of voters and averred that they were
classified as managerial employees.
MED ARBITER: Held the supervisors and
section heads of the petitioner are managerial
employees and therefore excluded from the list of
voters for purposes of certification election; On
appeal, the SECRETARY of Labor: declared them
as supervisory employees eligible to vote in the
certification election.
Whether or not the employees are managerial
employees. No. Under ARTICLE 212 (m)
Managerial Employees, is one who is vested with
the powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to Hire, Transfer,
Suspend, Layoff, Recall, Discharge, Assign or
Discipline employees. The job description of the
employees show that they are not actually
managerial but only supervisory employees since
they do not lay down company policies. The
authority of the subject employees is not supreme
but merely advisory in character. “Thus, the mere
fact that an employee is designated "manager" does
not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be
reconciled with the actual job description of the
employee, for it is the job description that
determines the nature of employment.” (United
Pepsi-Cola Supevisory Union vs Laguesma)
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK V.
LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 116194, February 2, 2000
Sugbuanon Rural Bank employed 5 supervisory
employees. APSOLTEU-TUCP, a legitimate labor
organization, then filed a petition for certification
election of the said supervisory employees. The
bank opposed the petition on the ground that the
supervisory employees were actually
managerial/confidential employees. In addition, the
union was represented in the petition by ALU-TUCP,
and since according to the Bank the latter also
sought to represent the rank and file members,
granting the petition would violate the principle of
separation of unions.
Whether or not the members of the union are
managerial or confidential employees, hence
prohibited by law from joining labor organizations
and engaging in union activities. No. As held in the
case, while the nature of the employees’ work
(evaluating borrowers’ capacity to pay, approving
loans, scheduling terms of repayment of the latter,
and endorsing delinquent accounts to legal counsel
for collection) indeed constituted the core of the
bank’s business, their functions did not fall within
the definition of either a managerial employee or
1 of 4
CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 2, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
a confidential employee (they did not act in a
confidential capacity to persons who formulate and
execute management policies related to labor
relations) As to the second issue whether the Med-
Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification
election despite the petitioner’s appeal pending
before the DOLE Secretary against the issuance of
the union’s registration. ARTICLE 257 mandates
that a certification election shall automatically be
conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a
petition by a legitimate labor organization. Nothing is
said therein that prohibits such automatic conduct of
the certification election if the management appeals
on the issue of the validity of the union's registration.
SMC V. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 110399, August 15, 1997
Petitioner union filed a Petition for District
Certification or Certification Election among the
supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC
Magnolia Poultry Products Plants which was granted
by med-arbiter. SMC filed a notice of appeal
contesting that the MA allowed 3 separate plants
into 1 bargaining unit and including supervisory
levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential
in nature. Undersecretary Laguesma granted the
appeal. Upon motion of the petitioner, Laguesma
directed to conduct separate certification elections of
the 3 plants among the supervisors (ranked S1 to S4
levels) and exempt employees. SMC filed a MR and
Motion to Suspend Proceedings and was granted.
Whether or not S3 and S4 employees are
confidential employees, hence ineligible from joining
a union; and Whether the 3 plants constitutes an
appropriate single bargaining unit. (1) No. The
employees are not covered by ARTICLE 212 (m).
Under ARTICLE 245, they are not allowed
membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-
file employees but may join, assist or form separate
labor organizations of their own. Confidential
employees are those who (1) assist or act in a
confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate,
determine, and effectuate management policies
in the field of labor relations. An employee has
access to confidential labor relations information but
such is merely incidental to his duties and
knowledge thereof is not necessary in the
performance of such duties, said access does not
render the employee a confidential employee. (2) An
appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as “a
group of employees of a given employer, comprised
of all or less than all of the entire body of employees,
which the collective interest of all the employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be
best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties
of the parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of the law.” The Solicitor General has
opined that separate bargaining units in the three
different plants of the division will divide the
employees of the said division, thus greatly
diminishing their bargaining leverage. The fact that
the three plants are located in three different places,
is immaterial. Geographical location can be
completely disregarded if the communal or mutual
interests of the employees are not sacrificed as
demonstrated in UP v. Calleja-Ferrer where all non-
academic rank and file employees of the University
of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, Padre
Faura, Manila, Los Baños, Laguna and the Visayas
were allowed to participate in a certification election.
MERALCO V. SEC. OF LABOR
G.R. No. 91902, May 20, 1991
On November 22, 1988, the Staff and Technical
Employees Association of MERALCO (hereafter
"STEAM-PCWF") filed a petition for certification
election to represent MERALCO non-managerial
employees disqualified to join in the MEWA
(MERALCO Employees and Worker's Association –
Salary grade of employees here are I-VI).
MERLACO moved to dismiss the petition contending
that employees from pay grade VII are classified as
managerial, the creation of union would violate
Article 232, and Sec. 2 Rule V, Book V excludes
security guards to join a bargaining unit. A year after,
FLAMES (First Line Association of Meralco
Supervisory Employees) filed a similar petition to
represent employees with salary grade VII to XIV for
the supervisory union.
MED ARBITER: Ordered a certification election;
SECRETARY: Affirmed and also included FLAMES
among the choices in the certification election. SC:
Dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of
the SEC.
Whether or not security guards are prohibited from
joining a labor union and whether said employees
with salary grade VII up are managerial employees.
No. On Dec 24, 1986, EO 111 eliminated the
disqualification of Security Guards and thus,
they may now freely join a labor organization of
the rank and file or that of the supervisory union,
depending on their rank. RA 6715 Sec. 18, which
amended Article 245 of the LC, “…Supervisory
employees shall not be eligible for membership in a
labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but
may join, assist, or form separate labor
organizations of their own.”
BENGUET ELECTRIC V. FERRER-
CALLEJA
G.R. No. 79025, December 29, 1989
BWLU-ADLO (Beneco Worker's Labor Union-
Association of Democratic Labor Organizations) filed
a petition for direct certification as sole bargaining
2 of 4
CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 2, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
representative of all the rank and file employee of
BENECO (Benguet Electric Cooperative) Thereafter,
BELU (Beneco Employees Labor Union) opposed
contending it was certified as sole bargaining
representative of BENECO. On the other hand, the
cooperative filed a motion to dismiss claiming that it
is a non-profit electric coop. and the employees
sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are
members and joint owners of the cooperative.
MA: Issued an order allowing the certification
election; Respondent Director Ferrer-Calleja
affirmed the med-arbiter's order and certified BELU
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
rank and file employees of BENECO.
Whether or not member-consumers who are
employees of BENECO could form, assist or join a
labor union. No. The right to collective bargaining is
not available to an employee of a cooperative who at
the same time is a member and co-owner thereof.
"Certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or
his co-owners." It is the fact of ownership of the
cooperative, and not involvement in the
management thereof, which disqualifies a member
from joining any labor organization within the
cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their
participation in the actual management of the
cooperative, all members thereof cannot form, assist
or join a labor organization for the purpose of
collective bargaining. (Cooperative Rural Bank of
Davao City, Inc. vs. Ferrer Calleja)
KAPATIRAN V. FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R. No. 82914, June 20, 1988
The petitioner, Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning
Division, (TUPAS) has been the sole collective
bargaining representative of Universal Robina Corp.
for 3 years. Thereafter, NEW ULO, composed
mostly of Iglesia Ni Cristo members, registered as a
labor union. The new union,claiming that it has "the
majority of the daily wage rank and file employees,
filed a petition for a certification election at the BLR.
MA: Ordered the holding of the CE; On appeal to the
BLR: Dismissed the appeal; SC: Denied the same.
Whether or not the right to members of the INC not
to join a labor union, for being contrary to their
religious beliefs, does not bar the members from
forming their own union. Yes. As held in the case of
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59
SCRA 54, upholding the right of members of the
IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect not to join a labor union for
being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar
the members of that sect from forming their own
union. At the same time, NEW ULO was able to file
a timely petition for CE within the 60 day freedom
period and was able to ascertain the majority of the
workers who prefer their union.
BLISS V. FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R. No. 80887, September 30, 1994
BDC (Bliss Devt. Corp.) filed a petition for CE
but was dismissed by MED ARBITER; claiming that
it is covered by the Civil Service Law for being a
GOCC since HSDC (Human Settlement
Development Corporation), a wholly owned
government corporation, is the owner of the majority
of its stocks. On appeal, the BLR dismissed the
same.
Whether or not BDC is a GOCC and therefore not
allowed to file a petition for CE and is covered by
Executive Order No. 180 and must register under
Section 7 as a condition for filing a petition for
certification election. No. BDC is a GOCC created
under the Corporation Law (through incorporation
under the general law). The Civil Service does not
include GOCC which are organized as
subsidiaries of GOCC under the general
corporation law. The BDC is without a CHARTER,
hence it is governed by the Labor Code and not the
Civil Service Law. [1973 versus 1987
CONSTITUTION, In the 1973 (Article II-B, Sec. 1):
The civil service embraces every branch, agency,
subdivision, and instrumentality of the Government,
including every government-owned or controlled
corporation; In the 1987 (Art. IX-B, Sec. 2): The civil
service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charter.]
JACINTO V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 124540, November 14, 1997
On September 1990, DECS Secretary issued a
return to work order against Petitioners, who were
public school teachers from different schools in
Metro Manila, who incurred unauthorized absences,
in connection with the strike against the government
to grant their demands. [P680M Secondary
Education Fund (SEF); Clothing Allowance;
Increase in Minimum Wage and DMB Circular 904]
The directive was ignored by petitioners hence, they
were administratively charged and were all
dismissed except for Jacinto and Agustin who were
suspended for 6 months. On appeal, the MSPB
(Merit Systems Protection Board) dismissed the
same.
CSC found the petitioners (except Merlinda
Jacinto) guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service; Penalty (6) months
suspension w/o pay; and reinstatement w/o back
salaries; [CSC found them guilty for having absented
3 of 4
CASE DIGEST IN LABREL • AUGUST 2, 2010 • BUTOY™ TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
themselves without proper authority and violated the
CSC Circular: prohibition against strikes by
government workers causing disruption of public
service]
In the case of Merlinda Jacinto, she was found
guilty of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and
Regulations; Penalty of reprimand; and
reinstatement w/o back salaries. [She claimed that
she left the school premises on the day in question,
because she "was emotionally and mentally
depressed but failed to observe the rules regarding
the permission needed from the school authorities
and did not file an application for sick leave]
Whether or not the decision of CSC, in charging and
suspending the petitioners, is convincing. Yes.
However, with respect to Jacinto, she is granted with
back wages by the SC from the time she was
suspended until her actual reinstatement. RATIO:
There was no proof that she joined the mass actions
which caused prejudice to the school system. On the
other hand, petitioners' demand for back wages
cannot be granted, for they had given cause for their
suspension — their unjustified abandonment of
classes to the prejudice of their students.
ICMC V. FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R. No. 85750, September 28, 1990
This is a case of an organization operating in the
Philippines subjected to an attempt to organize a
labor union among its employees. ICMC
(International Catholic Immigration Commission) was
one of those accredited by the government to
operate the refugee processing center in Morong,
Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at
the request of the Holy See, as a non-profit agency
involved in international humanitarian and voluntary
work. The Trade Union of the Philippines (TUPAS)
made initial actions, a process called certification
election, for recognition of a labor union. The ICMC
claims that it is an international organization
registered with the United Nations and hence enjoys
diplomatic privilege and immunity.
MA: Dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction; BLR:
Ordered the immediate conduct of a certification
election.
Whether or not the ICMC is subject to the Labor
Laws of the Phils and therefore, can be compelled to
recognize labor unions and proceed with the
certification election. No. Similar with the case of
IRRI, (The International Rice Research Institute)
there can be no question that diplomatic immunity
has, in fact, been granted ICMC and IRRI. Both
enjoy immunities accorded to international
organizations, hence, courts may not so exercise
their jurisdiction as to avoid embarrassing the
executive arm of the government in conducting
foreign relations. [ARTICLE III SEC 4 and 5 of
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UN
General Assembly on 21 November 1947 and
concurred in by the Philippine Senate through
Resolution No. 19 on 17 May 1949]
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS V. TAGAYTAY
EMPLOYEES UNION
G.R. No. 142000, January 22, 2003
Respondent (THEU-Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union) labor organization filed a petition
for CE to represent majority of the rank-and-file
employees of THIGCI (Tagaytay Highlands
International Golf Club Incorporated). The petitioner
opposed, claiming that only 71 of 192 were actual
rank and file employees the rest were supervisors,
resigned, awol etc.
MA: Ordered the holding of the CE; DOLE
Secretary: Dismissed the CE due to clear absence
of community or mutuality of interests; Motion for
Reconsideration to DOLE Undersecretary by Union:
Remanded the case to MA for the conduct of CE
and simply removed the disqualified employees
rather than disregard the legitimate status of the
union. SC: Denied petition.
Whether or not the disqualified employees could
simply be removed from the roster instead of
resolving the legitimacy of the union’s status. Yes.
Under ARTICLE 239, the inclusion in a union of
disqualified employees is not among the
grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is
due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
under the circumstances enumerated therein.
Moreover, the legitimacy of herein union cannot be
questioned since after a certificate of registration is
issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be
subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned
only in an independent petition for cancellation
(BOOK V, Rule IV, Section 8)
“There is no delight in owning
anything unshared.”
4 of 4