3.

PICOP Resources Inc vs Taneca Facts Respondents were regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona fide members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PRI Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (NAMAPRI-SPFL), which is the collective bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of petitioner PRI. PRI has a CBA with NAMAPRI-SPFL. The CBA contained the following union security provisions: Article II- Union Security and Check-Off Section 6. Maintenance of membership. 6.1 All employees within the appropriate bargaining unit who are members of the UNION at the time of the signing of this AGREEMENT shall, as a condition of continued employment by the COMPANY, maintain their membership in the UNION in good standing during the effectivity of this AGREEMENT 6.3 The COMPANY, upon the written request of the UNION and after compliance with the requirements of the New Labor Code, shall give notice of termination of services of any employee who shall fail to fulfill the condition provided in Section 6.1 and 6.2 of this Article Atty. Fuentes sent a letter to the management of PRI demanding the termination of employees who allegedly campaigned for, supported and signed the Petition for Certification Election of the Federation of Free Workers Union (FFW) during the effectivity of the CBA. NAMAPRI-SPFL considered said act of campaigning for and signing the petition for certification election of FFW as an act of disloyalty and a valid basis for termination for a cause in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws, and the terms and conditions of the CBA, specifically Article II, Sections 6.1 and 6.2 on Union Security Clause. On October 16, 2000, PRI served notices of termination for causes to employees whom NAMAPRIL-SPFL sought to be terminated on the ground of acts of disloyalty committed against it when respondents allegedly supported and signed the Petition for Certification Election of FFW before the freedom period during the effectivity of the CBA. A Notice dated October 21, 2000 was also served on the DOLE, Caraga Region.Respondents then accused PRI of ULP. Issue: WON respondents were validly terminated. Held: Union security is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends closed shop, union shop, maintenance of membership, or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting employment. There is union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees, who are union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become members,

must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit, or the agreement is terminated. A closed shop may be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. However, in terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA.

As to the first requisite, there is no question that the CBA between PRI and respondents included a union security clause. Secondly, it is likewise undisputed that NAMAPRI-SPFL, in two (2) occasions demanded from PRI, in their letters dated May 16 and 23, 2000, to terminate the employment of respondents due to their acts of disloyalty to the Union. However, as to the third requisite, we find that there is no sufficient evidence to support the decision of PRI to terminate the employment of the respondents. The mere signing of the authorization in support of the Petition for Certification Election of FFW on March 19, 20 and 21, or before the freedom period, is not sufficient ground to terminate the employment of respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was actually filed during the freedom period. Nothing in the records would show that respondents failed to maintain their membership in good standing in the Union. Respondents did not resign or withdraw their membership from the Union to which they belong. Respondents continued to pay their union dues and never joined the FFW. Petition denied. 5. S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION(SSVLU) AND DIR. HANS LEO CACDAC, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OFLABOR RELATIONS (BLR), RESPONDENTS. Workers Right to Self Organization Basis of Right FACTS: SS Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the SS Ventures Labor Union's certificate of registration invokingthe grounds set forth in Article 239(a) of the Labor Code alleging the following:(1) The Union included the names and forged the signatures of more or less 82 former employees nolonger connected with Ventures in its list of members who attended the organizational meeting and in theadoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws(2) The Union twice entered the signatures of three persons;(3) No organizational meeting and ratification actually took place; and(4) The Union's

application for registration was not supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-fileemployees of Ventures, or 418 of the total 2,197- employee complement. Since more or less 82 of the500

signatures were forged or invalid, then the remaining valid signatures would only be 418, which isvery much short of the 439 minimum (2197 total employees x 20% = 439.4) required by the Labor Code.The Union denied committing the imputed acts of fraud or forgery. Regional Director decision: ifo Ventures.Union appealed to Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). BLR decision ifo Union.Ventures sought reconsideration. Denied by the BLR.Ventures appealed to the CA: Dismissed, Hence SC Petition. RULING : Petition lacks merit. The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII,Section 3 of the Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimatelabor organization endowed with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization. While acertificate of registration confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or askfor certification election in a bargaining unit, the registration may be canceled or the union may bedecertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization. Among the grounds for cancellation is the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art.239(a)of the Labor Code, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification of the union's constitution and like documents. The Court, has in previous cases, said that todecertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible employees in its membership.It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection with theapplication for registration and the supporting documents, such as the adoption or ratification of theconstitution and by-laws or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws, among other documents. 6. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION vs. MARLYN NAZARENO et al.
G.R. No. 164156 September 26, 2006 Facts: Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is engaged in the broadcasting business and owns a network of television and radio stations, whose operations revolve around the broadcast, transmission, and relay of telecommunication signals. It sells and deals in or otherwise utilizes the airtime it generates from its radio and television operations. It has a franchise as a broadcasting company, and was likewise issued a license and authority to operate by the National Telecommunications Commission. Petitioner employed respondents Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as production assistants (PAs) on different dates. They were assigned at the news and public affairs, for various radio programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station. On December 19, 1996, petitioner and the ABSCBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to be effective

during the period from December 11, 1996 to December 11, 1999. However, since petitioner refused to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not included to the CBA. On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, and declared that they were regular employees of petitioner as such, they were awarded monetary benefits. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but CA dismissed it. Issue: Whether or not the respondents were considered regular employees of ABS-CBN. Ruling: The respondents are regular employees of ABS-CBN. It was held that where a person has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of the nature of the activity performed, or where the work is continuous or intermittent, the employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists, the reason being that a customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally declared as having attained regular status. In Universal Robina Corporation v. Catapang, the Court states that the primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. Additionally, respondents cannot be considered as project or program employees because no evidence was presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of their engagement. In the case at bar, however, the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents has been proven. In the selection and engagement of respondents, no peculiar or unique skill, talent or celebrity status was required from them because they were merely hired through petitioners personnel department just like any ordinary employee. Respondents did not have the power to bargain for huge talent fees, a circumstance negating independent contractual relationship. Respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner for continued work. The degree of control and supervision exercised by petitioner over respondents through its supervisors negates the allegation that respondents are independent contractors. The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor. As regular employees, respondents are entitled to the benefits granted to all other regular employees of petitioner under the CBA . Besides, only talent-artists were excluded

from the CBA and not production assistants who are regular employees of the respondents. Moreover, under Article 1702 of the New Civil Code: In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.

17. BILFLEX PHIL. INC. LABOR UNION et al. v. FILFLEX INDUSTRIAL ANDMANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND BILFLEX (PHILS.), INC.511 SCRA 247 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Biflex Philippines Inc. Labor Union and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Labor Union are the respectivecollective bargaining agents of the employees of the sister companies Biflex and Filflex which are engaged inthe garment business. They are situated in one big compound and they have a common entrance.On October 24,1990, the labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest against oil price hike; the unionsstaged a work stoppage which lasted for several days, prompting the companies to file a petition to declarethe work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with procedural requirements. The Labor Arbiter held that the strike is illegal and declared the officers of the union to have lost theiremployment status. ISSUE: Whether or not the staged strike is illegal and a ground for the lost of employment status of the unionofficers HELD: Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code states that any union officer who kno wingly participates in an illegal strikeand any worker or union who kno wingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may bedeclared to have lost his employment status. Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in anillegal strike and in this case, the strike is declared illegal by the court because the means employed by theunion are illegal.Here, the unions blocked the egress and ingress of the company premises thus, a violation of Article 264 (e)of the Labor Code which would affect the strike as illegal even if assuming arguendo that the unions hadcomplied with legal formalities and thus, the termination of the employees was valid. The court said that the legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its legal formalities butalso by means by which it is carried out. 9. TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION
G.R No. 163419. February 13, 2008 FACTS: TSPI Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the corporation Union for the increase of salary for the latters members for the year 2000 to 2002 starting from

January 2000. thus, the increased in salary was materialized on January 1, 2000. However, on October 6, 2000, the Regional Tripartite Wage and production Board raised daily minimum wage from P 223.50 to P 250.00 starting November 1, 2000. Conformably, the wages of the 17 probationary employees were increased to P250.00 and became regular employees therefore receiving another 10% increase in salary. In January 2001, TSPIC implemented the new wage rates as mandated by the CBA. As a result, the nine employees who were senior to the 17 recently regularized employees, received less wages. On January 19, 2001, TSPICs HRD notified the 24 employees who are private respondents, that due to an error in the automated payroll system, they were overpaid and the overpayment would be deducted from their salaries starting February 2001. The Union on the other hand, asserted that there was no error and the deduction of the alleged overpayment constituted diminution of pay. ISSUE: Whether the alleged overpayment constitutes diminution of pay as alleged by the Union. RULING: Yes, because it is considered that Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by unions and their employers are binding upon the parties and be acted in strict compliance therewith. Thus, the CBA in this case is the law between the employers and their employees. Therefore, there was no overpayment when there was an increase of salary for the members of the union simultaneous with the increasing of minimum wage for workers in the National Capital Region. The CBA should be followed thus, the senior employees who were first promoted as regular employees shall be entitled for the increase in their salaries and the same with lower rank workers.