Cirtek employees vs Cirtek FACTS: In 2005, a CBA dispute arose between Cirtek Electronics and Cirtek Employees Labor

Union (CELU ! "#e dispute re$ol$ed around t#e pro$isions on t#e yearly wa%e increase! A deadlock ensued as well as a strike! "#e &ecretary o' Labor took o$er t#e case! (#ile t#e case was pendin%, Cirtek and CELU entered into a )emorandum o' A%reement ()*A w#ereby Cirtek a%reed to increase t#e wa%e by +,!00 per day! Later, &ecretary o' Labor 'inally came up wit# a decision orderin% Cirtek to increase t#e employees- wa%es by a minimum o' +.0!00 to a ma/imum o' +.5!00 per day (dependin% on seniority0 ! Cirtek assailed t#e order o' t#e &ecretary on t#e %round t#at it $iolates t#e )*A! CELU on t#e ot#er #and a%reed wit# t#e &ecretary in$okin% t#at Cirtek a%reed t#at s#ould t#e &ecretary order 'or a #i%#er wa%e increase, t#e same s#ould be 'ollowed and not t#e )*A! "#is a%reement was #owe$er not included in t#e )*A but was embodied in t#e minutes o' t#e meetin% w#en t#e )*A was done! ISSUE: (#et#er or not t#e &ecretary o' Labor may issue an order supersedin% t#e said )*A! HELD: 1es! "#e order was issued in resolution o' t#e CBA dispute o$er w#ic# t#e &ecretary assumed 2urisdiction! "#e order is an arbitral award w#ic# can be considered an appro/imation o' a collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement w#ic# would ot#erwise #a$e been entered into by t#e parties, #ence, it #as t#e 'orce and e''ect o' a $alid contract obli%ation! "#e &upreme Court, #owe$er, clari'ied t#at t#e &ecretary-s order s#ould be complied not merely because it is #i%#er t#an w#at t#e )*A pro$ides! "#e order was based on e$identiary documents presented by bot# parties particularly on t#e 'inancial outlook o' Cirtek! But was it proper for the Secretary to decide the case despite the submission of the MOA? 1es, in t#e 'irst place, CELU mani'ested t#at t#e )*A was entered into sub2ect to a more 'a$orable decision by t#e &ecretary! 3urt#er, it bears notin% t#at since t#e 'ilin% and submission o' t#e )*A did not #a$e t#e e''ect o' di$estin% t#e &ecretary o' #is 2urisdiction, or o' automatically disposin% t#e contro$ersy, t#en neit#er s#ould t#e pro$isions o' t#e )*A restrict t#e &ecretary-s leeway in decidin% t#e matters be'ore #im! The agreement that the MOA provision may be superseded by a more favorable order by the Secretary was not contained in the MOA itself, does this bind Cirte ? 1es! In labor cases pendin% be'ore t#e Commission or t#e Labor Arbiter 4in t#is case, t#e &ecretary o' Labor5, t#e rules o' e$idence pre$ailin% in courts o' law or e6uity are not controllin%! 7ules o' procedure and e$idence are not applied in a $ery ri%id and tec#nical sense

in labor cases! 8ence, t#e Labor Arbiter is not precluded 'rom acceptin% and e$aluatin% e$idence ot#er t#an, and e$en contrary to, w#at is stated in t#e CBA! "#ere'ore, t#e a%reement binds Cirtek and can be pro$en by mere presentation o' t#e minutes! In s#ort, t#e parol e$idence rule is not applicable to labor cases! Philippine Skylanders vs NL C ! "#$%$& Fa'ts: In 9o$ember .,,: t#e +#ilippine &kylanders Employees Association (+&EA , a local labor union a''iliated wit# t#e +#ilippine Association o' 3ree Labor Unions (+A3LU , won in t#e certi'ication election conducted amon% t#e rank and 'ile employees o' +#ilippine &kylanders, Inc! (+&I ! Its ri$al union, +#ilippine &kylanders Employees Association;(A"U (+&EA;(A"U immediately protested t#e result o' t#e election be'ore t#e &ecretary o' Labor! &e$eral mont#s later, +&EA sent +A3LU a notice o' disa''iliation! +&EA subse6uently a''iliated itsel' wit# t#e 9ational Con%ress o' (orkers (9C( , c#an%ed its name to +#ilippine &kylanders Employees Association < 9ational Con%ress o' (orkers (+&EA; 9C( , and to maintain continuity wit#in t#e or%ani=ation, allowed t#e 'ormer o''icers o' +&EA; +A3LU to continue occupyin% t#eir positions as elected o''icers in t#e newly;'ormed +&EA; 9C(! *n .> )arc# .,,? +&EA;9C( entered into a collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement wit# +&I w#ic# was immediately re%istered wit# t#e @epartment o' Labor and Employment! )eanw#ile, apparently obli$ious to +&EA-s s#i't o' alle%iance, +A3LU &ecretary Aeneral &era'in Ayroso wrote )ariles C! 7omulo re6uestin% a copy o' +&I-s audited 'inancial statement! *n :0 Buly .,,? +&I t#rou%# its personnel mana%er 3rancisco @akila denied t#e re6uest citin% as reason +&EA-s disa''iliation 'rom +A3LU and its subse6uent a''iliation wit# 9C(! Iss(eC (*9 +&EA-s disa''iliation is le%itimate! HeldC At t#e outset, let it be noted t#at t#e issue o' disa''iliation is an inter;union con'lict t#e 2urisdiction o' w#ic# properly lies wit# t#e Bureau o' Labor 7elations (BL7 and not wit# t#e Labor Arbiter! (e up#eld t#e ri%#t o' local unions to separate 'rom t#eir mot#er 'ederation on t#e %round t#at as separate and $oluntary associations, local unions do not owe t#eir creation and e/istence to t#e national 'ederation to w#ic# t#ey are a''iliated but, instead, to t#e will o' t#eir members! 1et t#e local unions remain t#e basic units o' association, 'ree to ser$e t#eir own interests sub2ect to t#e restraints imposed by t#e constitution and by;laws o' t#e national 'ederation, and 'ree also to

renounce t#e a''iliation upon t#e terms laid down in t#e a%reement w#ic# brou%#t suc# a''iliation into e/istence! "#ere is not#in% s#own in t#e records nor is it claimed by +A3LU t#at t#e local union was e/pressly 'orbidden to disa''iliate 'rom t#e 'ederation nor were t#ere any conditions imposed 'or a $alid breakaway! As suc#, t#e pendency o' an election protest in$ol$in% bot# t#e mot#er 'ederation and t#e local union did not constitute a bar to a $alid disa''iliation! It was entirely reasonable t#en 'or +&I to enter into a collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement wit# +&EA;9C(! As +&EA #ad $alidly se$ered itsel' 'rom +A3LU, t#ere would be no restrictions w#ic# could $alidly #inder it 'rom subse6uently a''iliatin% wit# 9C( and enterin% into a collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement in be#al' o' its members! +olicy considerations dictate t#at in wei%#in% t#e claims o' a local union as a%ainst t#ose o' a national 'ederation, t#ose o' t#e 'ormer must be pre'erred! +arent#etically t#ou%#, t#e desires o' t#e mot#er 'ederation to protect its locals are not alto%et#er to be s#unned! It will #owe$er be to err %reatly a%ainst t#e Constitution i' t#e desires o' t#e 'ederation would be 'a$ored o$er t#ose o' its members! "#at, at any rate, is t#e policy o' t#e law! 3or i' it were ot#erwise, instead o' protection, t#ere would be disre%ard and ne%lect o' t#e lowly workin%men! T )PICAL HUT E*PL)+EES, UNI)N -. T )PICALHUT F))D *A /ET INC."0" SC A "$%*EDIALDEA1 2an #34 "553 FACTS ; 7ank and 'ile workers o' "ropical 8ut or%ani=ed a Union ("8EU and sou%#t a''iliation wit# 9A"U! 7e%istration certi'icate was issued by @epto' Labor! But 9A"U itsel' was not re%istered as a 'ederation!; CBA was concluded bet t#e 2 parties!; @ila%, +resident o' Union, was appointed )ana%er! 8e resi%ned as +resident o' "8EU;9A"U! D+ Encinas assumed presidency!; "8EU wrote 9A"U sayin% t#ey want to disa''iliate 'rom t#e 'ederation!"8EU a''iliated wit# CA(!; "8EU;CA( conducted elections and Encinas won! 9A"U re6uested"ropical 8ut to dismiss Encinas because o' #is E$iolationsF!; "ropical 8ut suspended Encinas pendin% application 'or clearance wit#@ept o' Labor to dismiss #im! "8EU; CA( members protested!; Upon re6uest o' 9A"U, "ropical 8ut also suspended and applied 'or clearance to dismiss members and o''icers o' "8EU;CA(!; A petition was made to cancel t#e word 9A"U a'ter t#e word "8EU int#e re%istration!; 9L7C directed certi'ication election between "8EU;9A"U and "8EU;CA(! 7einstatements o' complainants were also ordered! ISSUE6S .! (*9 petitioners 'ailed to e/#aust administrati$e remedies w#en t#eyimmediately ele$ated t#e case to t#is Court wit#out an appeal #a$in% been made to t#e *''ice o' t#e +resident 2! (*9 disa''iliation o' local union 'rom t#e national 'ederation was $alid :! (*9 dismissal o' petitioner employees resultin% 'rom t#eir unions disa''iliation 'or t#e mot#er 'ederation was ille%al and constituted un'air labor practice

HELD .! 9* ; 7 e m e d y o ' a p p e a l ' r o m t # e & e c r e t a r y o ' L a b o r t o t # e * ' ' i c e o ' t # e +resident is not a mandatory re6uirement be'ore resort to courts can be#ad, but an optional relie' pro$ided by law to parties seekin% e/peditiousdisposition o' t#eir labor disputes! 2! 1E&; "#e ri%#t o' a local union to disa''iliate 'rom its mot#er 'ederation is well;settled! A local union, bein% a separate and $oluntary association, is 'reeto ser$e t#e interest o' all its members includin% t#e 'reedom to disa''iliatew # e n c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a r r a n t ! " # i s r i % # t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t # t # e constitutional %uarantee o' 'reedom o' association!; "#e inclusion o' t#e word 9A"U a'ter t#e name o' t#e local union "8EUin t#e re%istration wit# t#e @epartment o' Labor is merely to stress t#at t#e"8EU is 9A"UGs a''iliate at t#e time o' t#e re%istration! It does not meant#at t#e said local union cannot stand on its own!; In t#e absence o' en'orceable pro$isions in t#e 'ederationGs constitutionpre$entin% disa''iliation o' a local union a local may se$er its relations#ipwit# its parent! "#ere is not#in% in t#e constitution o' t#e 9A"U or in t#econstitution o' t#e "8EU;9A"U t#at t#e "8EU was e/pressly 'orbidden todisa''iliate 'rom t#e 'ederation! 3irstly, 9A"U was not e$en a le%itimatelabor or%ani=ation, it appearin% t#at it was not re%istered! &econdly, t#eact o' non;compliance wit# t#e procedure on wit#drawal is premised onpurely tec#nical %rounds w#ic# cannot rise abo$e t#e 'undamental ri%#t o' sel'; or%ani=ation!; "#ere is no merit in t#e contention o' t#e respondents t#at t#e act o' disa''iliation $iolated t#e union security clause o' t#e CBA and t#at t#eir dismissal as a conse6uence t#ereo' is $alid! A perusal o' t#e collecti$ebar%ainin% a%reements s#ows t#at t#e "8EU;9A"U, and not t#e 9A"U'ederation, was reco%ni=ed as t#e sole and e/clusi$e collecti$e bar%ainin%a%ent! Alt#ou%# 9A"U was desi%nated as t#e sole bar%ainin% a%ent int#e c#eck;o'' aut#ori=ation 'orm attac#ed to t#e CBA, t#is simply means itwas actin% only 'or and in be#al' o' its a''iliate! 9A"U possessed t#estatus o' an a%ent w#ile t#e local union remained t#e basic principalunion! :! 1E&; "#e union security clause embodied in t#e a%reements cannot beused to 2usti'y t#e dismissals! CBA imposes dismissal only in casean employee is e/pelled 'rom t#e union 'or 2oinin% anot#er 'ederationor 'or 'ormin% anot#er union or w#o 'ails or re'uses to maintainm e m b e r s # i p t # e r e i n ! " # e c a s e a t b a r d o e s n o t i n $ o l $ e t # e wit#drawal o' merely some employees 'rom t#e union but o' t#e w#ole "8EU itsel' 'rom its 'ederation!; (it# re%ard to t#e process by w#ic# t#e workers were suspendedor dismissed, t#is Court 'inds t#at it was #astily and summarily donewit#out t#e necessary due process Elis'o7Elirol La8or Union 9NAFLU: vs Noriel Fa'ts: Elisco;Elirol Labor Union (9A3LU ne%otiated and e/ecuted a CBA wit# Eli=alde &teel Consolidated Inc! 8owe$er, Elisco;Elirol t#en was not yet a re%istered union! In order to be able to e/ecute t#e CBA, t#ey #ad t#e union re%istered, w#ic# was %ranted! "#ey likewise mo$ed to disa''iliate t#emsel$es wit# 9A3LU! Eli=alde, #owe$er, re'used to reco%ni=ed t#em as t#e

&EBA and it dismissed t#e o''icers o' t#e union because o' t#e union security clause in t#e CBA! Elisco;Elirol 'iled a complaint 'or un'air labor practice wit# t#e BL7! "#e BL7 dismissed! Iss(e: (#et#er or not Elisco;Elirol is t#e &EBA Held: 1E&! "#e error o' BL7 is not percei$in% t#at t#e employees and members o' t#e local union did not 'orm a new union but merely re%istered t#e local union as was t#eir ri%#t! +etitioner Elisco; Elirol Labor Union;9A3LU, consistin% o' employees and members o' t#e local union was t#e principal party to t#e a%reement! 9A3LU as t#e mot#er unionH in participatin% in t#e e/ecution o' t#e bar%ainin% a%reement wit# respondent company acted merely as a%ent o' t#e local union, w#ic# remained t#e basic unit o' t#e association e/istin% principally and 'reely to ser$e t#e common interest o' all its members, includin% t#e 'reedom to disa''iliate w#en t#e circumstances so warranted as in t#e present case! H(" #e locals are separate and distinct units primarily desi%ned to secure and maintain an e6uality o' bar%ainin% power between t#e employer and t#eir employee;members in t#e economic stru%%le 'or t#e 'ruits o' t#e 2oint producti$e e''ort o' labor and capitalI and t#e association o' t#e locals into t#e national union (as +A3LU was in 'urt#erance o' t#e same end! "#ese associations are consensual entities capable o' enterin% into suc# le%al relations wit# t#eir members! "#e essential purpose was t#e a''iliation o' t#e local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collecti$e action t#e common bar%ainin% power in respect o' t#e terms and conditions o' labor! 1et t#e locals remained t#e basic units o' association, 'ree to ser$e t#eir own and t#e common interest o' all, sub2ect to t#e restraints imposed by t#e Constitution and By; Laws o' t#e Association, and 'ree also to renounce t#e a''iliation 'or mutual wel'are upon t#e terms laid down in t#e a%reement w#ic# brou%#t it into e/istence!H (Liberty Cotton )ills (orkers Union $s! Liberty Cotton )ills Inc! &uc# maintenance o' t#e members#ip clause could not be so distorted!! (#at is paramount is t#e security o' tenure o' t#e workers and not t#e security o' t#e union!

S.S. -ENTU ES INTE NATI)NAL4 INC.4 PETITI)NE 4 -S. S.S. -ENTU ES LA;) UNI)N 9SS-LU: AND DI . HANS LE) CACDAC4 IN HIS CAPACIT+ AS DI ECT) )F THE ;U EAU )F LA;) ELATI)NS 9;L :4 ESP)NDENTS. !. . No. "<"<534 2(ly #%4 #330 FACTSC +etitioner &!&! Dentures International, Inc! (Dentures , a +EJA; re%istered e/port 'irm wit# principal place o' business at +#ase I;+EJA; Bataan E/port Jone, )ari$eles, Bataan, is in t#e business o' manu'acturin% sports s#oes! 7espondent &!&! Dentures Labor Union (Union is a labor or%ani=ation re%istered wit# t#e @*LE!

)arc# 2., 2000, t#e Union 'iled wit# @*LE;7e%ion III a petition 'or certi'ication election in be#al' o' t#e rank;and;'ile employees Au%ust 2., 2000, Dentures 'iled a +etition to cancel t#e Union-s certi'icate o' re%istration alle%in% t#at t#e Union deliberately and maliciously included t#e names o' more or less K2 'ormer employees no lon%er connected wit# Dentures in its list o' members w#o attended t#e or%ani=ational meetin% and in t#e adoptionLrati'ication o' its constitution and by;lawsI t#at 9o or%ani=ational meetin% and rati'ication actually took placeI and t#e Union-s application 'or re%istration was not supported by at least 20M o' t#e rank;and;'ile employees o' Dentures! 7e%ional @irector o' @*LE; 7e%ion III 'a$ored Dentures and resol$ed to Cancel t#e Certi'icate o' t#e union! *n appeal, t#e BL7 @irector %ranted t#e Union-s appeal and re$ersin% t#e decision o' 7@! Dentures went to t#e CA! "#e CA dismissed Dentures- petition as well as t#e )7! 8ence, t#is petition 'or re$iew ISSUEC (#et#er t#e re%istration o' t#e Union must be cancelled! ULIN!C 9*! "#e ri%#t to 'orm, 2oin, or assist a union is speci'ically protected by Art! NIII, &ection : o' t#e Constitution and suc# ri%#t, accordin% to Art! III, &ec! K o' t#e Constitution and Art! 2?O o' t#e Labor Code, s#all not be abrid%ed! *nce re%istered wit# t#e @*LE, a union is considered a le%itimate labor or%ani=ation endowed wit# t#e ri%#t and pri$ile%es %ranted by law to suc# or%ani=ation! (#ile a certi'icate o' re%istration con'ers a union wit# le%itimacy wit# t#e concomitant ri%#t to participate in or ask 'or certi'ication election in a bar%ainin% unit, t#e re%istration may be canceled or t#e union may be decerti'ied as t#e bar%ainin% unit, in w#ic# case t#e union is di$ested o' t#e status o' a le%itimate labor or%ani=ation! Amon% t#e %rounds 'or cancellation is t#e commission o' any o' t#e acts enumerated in Art! 2:,(a o' t#e Labor Code, suc# as 'raud and misrepresentation in connection wit# t#e adoption or rati'ication o' t#e union-s constitution and like documents! "#e Court, #as in pre$ious cases, said t#at to decerti'y a union, it is not enou%# to s#ow t#at t#e union includes ineli%ible employees in its members#ip! It must also be s#own t#at t#ere was misrepresentation, 'alse statement, or 'raud in connection wit# t#e application 'or re%istration and t#e supportin% documents, suc# as t#e adoption or rati'ication o' t#e constitution and by;laws or amendments t#ereto and t#e minutes o' rati'ication o' t#e constitution or by;laws, amon% ot#er documents! "#e e$idence presented by Dentures consist mostly o' separate #and;written statements o' K2 employees w#o alle%ed t#at t#ey were unwillin% or #arassed si%natories to t#e attendance s#eet o' t#e or%ani=ational meetin%! 8owe$er t#ese e$idence was presented se$en mont#s a'ter t#e union 'iled its petition 'or cancellation o' re%istration! 8ence t#ese statements partake o' t#e nature o' wit#drawal o' union members#ip e/ecuted a'ter t#e Union-s 'ilin% o' a petition 'or certi'ication election on )arc# 2., 2000! (e #a$e said t#at t#e employees- wit#drawal 'rom a labor union made be'ore t#e 'ilin% o' t#e petition 'or certi'ication election is presumed $oluntary, w#ile wit#drawal a'ter t#e 'ilin% o' suc# petition is considered to be in$oluntary and does not a''ect t#e same! 9ow t#en, i' a wit#drawal 'rom union members#ip done a'ter a petition 'or

certi'ication election #as been 'iled does not $itiate suc# petition, it is but lo%ical to assume t#at suc# wit#drawal cannot work to nulli'y t#e re%istration o' t#e union! "#e Court is inclined to a%ree wit# t#e CA t#at t#e BL7 did not abuse its discretion nor %ra$ely err w#en it concluded t#at t#e a''ida$its o' retraction o' t#e K2 members #ad no e$identiary wei%#t! "#e re%istration or t#e reco%nition o' a labor union a'ter it #as submitted t#e correspondin% papers is not ministerial on t#e part o' t#e BL7! It becomes mandatory 'or t#e BL7 to c#eck i' t#e re6uirements under Art! 2:? o' t#e Labor Code #a$e been sedulously complied wit#! I' t#e union-s application is in'ected by 'alsi'ication and like serious irre%ularities, especially t#ose appearin% on t#e 'ace o' t#e application and its attac#ments, a union s#ould be denied reco%nition as a le%itimate labor or%ani=ation! "#e issuance to t#e Union o' Certi'icate o' 7e%istration, in t#e case at bar, necessarily implies t#at its application 'or re%istration and t#e supportin% documents t#ereo' are prima 'acie 'ree 'rom any $itiatin% irre%ularities! "#e rele$ance o' t#e K2 indi$iduals- acti$e participation in t#e Union-s or%ani=ational meetin% and t#e si%nin% ceremonies t#erea'ter comes in only 'or purposes o' determinin% w#et#er or not t#e Union, e$en wit#out t#e K2, would still meet w#at Art! 2:?(c o' t#e Labor Code re6uires to be submitted, re6uirin% t#at t#e union applicant must 'ile t#e names o' all its members comprisin% at least twenty percent (20M o' all t#e employees in t#e bar%ainin% unit w#ere it seeks to operate! In its union records on 'ile wit# t#is Bureau, respondent union submitted t#e names o' 5?2 members! "#is number easily complied wit# t#e 20M re6uirement, be it .,,2K or 2,202 employees in t#e establis#ment! E$en subtractin% t#e K2 employees 'rom 5?2 lea$es ?O0 union members, still wit#in ??0 or 20M o' t#e ma/imum total o' 2,202 rank;and;'ile employees o' t#e employer Denture! (#ate$er mis%i$in%s t#e petitioner may #a$e wit# re%ard to t#e K2 dismissed employees is better addressed in t#e inclusion;e/clusion proceedin%s durin% a pre;election con'erence! "#e issue surroundin% t#e in$ol$ement o' t#e K2 employees is a matter o' members#ip or $oter eli%ibility! It is not a %round to cancel union re%istration! 3or 'raud and misrepresentation to be %rounds 'or cancellation o' union re%istration under Article 2:,, t#e nature o' t#e 'raud and misrepresentation must be %ra$e and compellin% enou%# to $itiate t#e consent o' a ma2ority o' union members! /iok Loy v. NL C "&" SC A "$5 9"50<: P P Fa'ts: "#e +ambansan% Qilusan% +a%%awa, a le%itimate late labor 'ederation, won and was subse6uently certi'ied in a resolution by t#e Bureau o' Labor 7elations as t#e sole and e/clusi$e bar%ainin% a%ent o' t#e rank;and;'ile employees o' &weden Ice Cream +lant! "#e Union 'urnis#ed t#e Company wit# two copies o' its proposed collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement! At t#e same time, it re6uested t#e Company 'or its counter proposals! Bot# re6uests were i%nored and remained unacted upon by t#e Company!

P P P

"#erea'ter, t#e Union 'iled a H9otice o' &trikeH, wit# t#e Bureau o' Labor 7elations (BL7 on %round o' unresol$ed economic issues in collecti$e bar%ainin%! Conciliation proceedin%s t#en 'ollowed durin% t#e t#irty;day statutory coolin%;o'' period! But all attempts towards an amicable settlement 'ailed! "#e case was brou%#t to t#e 9ational Labor 7elations Commission (9L7C 'or compulsory arbitration pursuant to +residential @ecree 9o! K2:, as amended! But t#e Company re6uested 'or a lot o' postponements! 9L7C ruled t#at respondent &weden Ice Cream is %uilty o' un2usti'ied re'usal to bar%ain, in $iolation o' &ection (% Article 2?K (now Article 2?, , o' +!@! ??2, as amended! Iss(e: (#et#er t#e Company is %uilty o' un'air labor practice 'or re'usal to bar%ain

P o o o

Held: 1es! +etition dismissed 'or lack o' merit! Collecti$e bar%ainin% is one o' t#e democratic 'rameworks under t#e 9ew Labor Code, desi%ned to sta8ili=e the relation between la8or and mana>ement and to 'reate a 'limate o? so(nd and sta8le ind(strial pea'e! It is a mutual responsibility o' t#e employer and t#e Union and is c#aracteri=ed as a le%al obli%ation! Arti'le #&54 par. 9>: o? the La8or Code makes it an (n?air la8or pra'ti'e 'or an employer to re?(se Hto meet and 'onvene promptly and e/peditiously in >ood ?aith 'or t#e purpose o' ne%otiatin% an a%reement wit# respect to wa%es, #ours o' work, and all ot#er terms and conditions o' employment includin% proposals 'or ad2ustin% any %rie$ance or 6uestion arisin% under suc# an a%reement and e/ecutin% a contract incorporatin% suc# a%reement, i' re6uested by eit#er party! "#e mec#anics o' collecti$e bar%ainin% are set in motion only w#en t#e 'ollowin% 2urisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (. possession o' t#e status o' ma2ority representation o' t#e employeesG representati$e in accordance wit# any o' t#e means o' selection or desi%nation pro$ided 'or by t#e Labor CodeI (2 proo' o' ma2ority representationI and (: a demand to bar%ain under Article 25., par! (a o' t#e 9ew Labor Code! P A CompanyGs re'usal to make counter proposal i' considered in relation to t#e entire bar%ainin% process, may indicate bad 'ait# since t#e UnionGs re6uest 'or a counter proposal is le't unanswered! Besides, petitioner CompanyGs approac# and attitude;stallin% t#e ne%otiation by a series o' postponements, non;appearance at t#e #earin% conducted, and undue delay in submittin% its 'inancial statements, lead to no ot#er conclusion e/cept t#at it is unwillin% to ne%otiate and reac# an a%reement wit# t#e Union!

!ENE AL *ILLIN! C) P) ATI)N -S. H)N. C)U T )F APPEALS !. . No. "&<$#0. Fe8r(ary ""4 #33& Fa'ts: Aeneral )illin% Corporation employed .,0 workers! All t#e employees were members o' a union w#ic# is a duly certi'ied bar%ainin% a%ent! "#e A)C and t#e union entered into a collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement w#ic# included t#e issue o' representation t#at is e''ecti$e 'or a

term o' t#ree years w#ic# will e/pire on 9o$ember :0, .,,.! *n 9o$ember 2,, .,,., a day be'ore t#e e/piration o' t#e CBA, t#e union sent A)C a proposed CBA, wit# a re6uest t#at a counter proposal be submitted wit#in ten days! on *ctober .,,., A)C recei$ed collecti$e and indi$idual letters 'rom t#e union members statin% t#at t#ey #a$e wit#drawn 'rom t#eir union members#ip! *n @ecember .,, .,,., t#e union disclaimed any massi$e disa''iliation o' its union members! *n Banuary .:, .,,2, A)C dismissed an employee w#o is a union member! "#e union protected t#e employee and re6uested A)C to submit to t#e %rie$ance procedure pro$ided by t#e CBA, but A)C ar%ued t#at t#ere was no basis to ne%otiate wit# a union w#ic# is no lon%er e/istin%! "#e union t#en 'iled a case wit# t#e Labor Arbiter but t#e latter ruled t#at t#ere must 'irst be a certi'ication election to determine i' t#e union still en2oys t#e support o' t#e workers! Iss(e: (#et#er or not A)C is %uilty o' un'air labor practice 'or $iolatin% its duty to bar%ain collecti$ely andLor 'or inter'erin% wit# t#e ri%#t o' its employees to sel';or%ani=ation! Held: A)C is %uilty o' un'air labor practice w#en it re'used to ne%otiate wit# t#e union upon its re6uest 'or t#e rene%otiation o' t#e economic terms o' t#e CBA on 9o$ember 2,, .,,.! t#e union-s proposal was submitted wit#in t#e prescribed :;year period 'rom t#e date o' e''ecti$ity o' t#e CBA! It was ob$ious t#at A)C #ad no $alid reason to re'use to ne%otiate in %ood 'ait# wit# t#e union! "#e re'usal to send counter proposal to t#e union and to bar%ain anew on t#e economic terms o' t#e CBA is tantamount to an un'air labor practice under Article 2?K o' t#e Labor Code! Under Article 252 o' t#e Labor Code, bot# parties are re6uired to per'orm t#eir mutual obli%ation to meet and con$ene promptly and e/peditiously in %ood 'ait# 'or t#e purpose o' ne%otiatin% an a%reement! "#e union li$ed up to t#is obli%ation w#en it presented proposals 'or a new CBA to A)C wit#in : years 'rom t#e e''ecti$ity o' t#e ori%inal CBA! But A)C 'ailed in its duty under Article 252! (#at it did was to de$ise a 'limsy e/cuse, by 6uestionin% t#e e/istence o' t#e union and t#e status o' its members#ip to pre$ent any ne%otiation! It bears stressin% t#at t#e procedure in collecti$e bar%ainin% prescribed by t#e Code is mandatory because o' t#e basic interest o' t#e state in ensurin% lastin% industrial peace! "#e Court o' Appeals 'ound t#at t#e letters between 3ebruary to Bune, .,,: by .: union members si%ni'yin% t#eir resi%nation 'rom t#e union clearly indicated t#at A)C e/erted pressure on t#e employees! (e a%ree wit# t#e Court o' Appeals- conclusion t#at t#e ill;timed letters o' resi%nation 'rom t#e union members indicate t#at A)C inter'ered wit# t#e ri%#t o' its employee to sel';or%ani=ation!

SAN PED ) H)SPITAL )F DI!)S4 INC.4 petitioner, $s! SEC ETA + )F LA;) 4 THE SAN PED ) H)SPITAL E*PL)+EES UNI)N @ NATI)NAL FEDE ATI)N )F LA;) 4 respondents! FACTSC +etitioner #ad a t#ree;year collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement (CBA co$erin% t#e period @ecember .5, .,K> until @ecember .5, .,,0, wit# #erein pri$ate respondent, !ag abiusang Mamumuo sa San "edro #ospital of $igos % !ational &ederation of 'abor (9A)A&A+;93L , t#e e/clusi$e bar%ainin% a%ent o' t#e #ospital-s rank;and;'ile workers! A'ter t#e parties 'ailed to reac# a%reement on t#e issues o' raisin% wa%es, t#e union durin% t#e meetin% o' 3ebruary .,, .,,. declared a deadlock! *n 3ebruary 20, .,,., respondent union saturated petitioner-s premises wit# streamers and picketed t#e #ospital! "#e operations o' t#e #ospital #a$in% come to a %rindin% #alt, t#e #ospital mana%ement considered t#e union actions as tantamount to a strike! *n )ay 2K, .,,., respondent union struck! @espite t#e 9C)B-s call 'or a conciliation con'erence, nurses and nurse aides w#o were members o' t#e union abandoned t#eir respecti$e department and 2oined t#e picket line a week later! @octors be%an lea$in% t#e #ospital and t#e number o' patients dwindled! "#e last patient was disc#ar%ed on Bune .0, .,,.! *n Bune .2, .,,., a E9otice o' "emporary &uspension o' *perationF was issued by petitioner #ospital and submitted to t#e local o''ice o' t#e 9C)B on Bune .?, .,,.! "#en &ecretary o' Labor 9ie$es Con'essor assumed 2urisdiction o$er t#e labor dispute and issued an order directin% all workers to return to work! 8owe$er, t#is order was recei$ed by petitioner only on Bune 20, .,,.! In t#e meantime, it #ad already noti'ied t#e @*LE $ia its letter dated Bune .:, .,,., w#ic# was recei$ed by t#e @*LE on Bune .?, .,,., t#at it would temporarily suspend operations 'or si/ (O mont#s e''ecti$e Bune .5, .,,., or up to @ecember .5, .,,.! +etitioner t#us re'used t#e return o' its strikin% workers on account o' suc# suspension o' operations! ISSUEC (*9 t#e &ecretary can $alidly compel t#e employer to enter into a new CBA e$en durin% temporary suspension o' operations (w#at i' in permanent closure0 ULIN!: Temporary s(spension o? operations is re'o>ni=ed as a valid eAer'ise o? mana>ement prero>ative provided it is not 'arried o(t in order to 'ir'(mvent the provisions o? the La8or Code or to de?eat the ri>hts o? the employees under t#e Code! "#e determination to cease or suspend operations is a prero%ati$e o' mana%ement t#at t#e &tate usually does not inter'ere wit#, as no business can be re6uired to continue operatin% at a loss simply to maintain t#e workers in employment! &uc# an act would be tantamount to a takin% o' property wit#out due process o' law, w#ic# t#e employer #as a ri%#t to resist! But w#ere it is s#own t#at t#e closure is moti$ated not by a desire to pre$ent 'urt#er losses, but to discoura%e t#e workers 'rom

or%ani=in% t#emsel$es into a union 'or more e''ecti$e ne%otiation wit# mana%ement, t#e &tate is bound to inter$ene! "#e burden o' pro$in% t#at suc# a temporary suspension is bona fide 'alls upon t#e employer! In t#is instance, petitioner #ad to establis# t#e 'act o' its precarious 'inancial #ealt#, t#at its cessation o' operation was really necessitated by its 'inancial condition, and t#at said condition would probably be alle$iated or impro$ed, or its losses abated, by undertakin% suc# suspension o' operation! "#e 'act t#at t#e conciliator ne$er asked 'or t#em is no su''icient e/cuse 'or not presentin% t#e same, as suc# was petitioner-s duty! 9eit#er is it acceptable 'or petitioner to alle%e t#at latest 'inancial statement ('or t#e year .,,. were still bein% prepared by its accountants and not yet ready 'or submission, since t#e 'inancial statement 'or t#e prior years .,K, and .,,0 would #a$e su''iced! It is a horn8ook r(le t#at employers w#o contemplate terminatin% t#e ser$ices o' t#eir workers must base t#eir decisions on more t#an 2ust 'limsy e/cuses, considerin% t#at t#e dismissal o' an employee 'rom work in$ol$es not only t#e loss o' #is position but, w#at is more important, #is means o' li$eli#ood! "#e same principle applies in temporary suspension o' operations, as in t#is case, considerin% t#at it in$ol$es layin% o'' employees 'or a period o' si/ mont#s! +etitioner, #a$in% wretc#edly 'ailed to 2usti'y by e$en t#e most rudimentary proo' its temporary suspension o' operations, must bear t#e conse6uences t#ereo'! (e t#us #old t#at t#e &ecretary o' Labor and Employment did not act wit# %ra$e abuse o' discretion in 'indin% t#e temporary suspension un2usti'ied and ille%al! The order o? the se'retary in orderin> the hospital to enter into a neB C;A Bas valid. &ecretary was o' t#e impression t#at petitioner would operate a%ain a'ter t#e lapse o' t#e si/; mont# suspension o' operations on @ecember .O, .,,., and so ordered t#e parties to enter into and 'ormali=e a new CBA to %o$ern t#eir relations upon resumption o' operations! *n t#e ot#er #and, t#e a'ore6uoted portion o' t#e *rder must be understood in t#e conte/t o' t#e &ecretary-s 'indin% t#at t#e temporary suspension was only 'or circum$entin% t#e return;to;work order, but in spite o' w#ic# #e #eld t#at #e could not order petitioner to continue operations as Et#is would in'rin%e on its in#erent ri%#t to mana%e and conduct its own business a''airsFI #e t#us ordered instead t#e payment o' backwa%es to t#e returnin% workers w#o were re'used admittance by petitioner on Bune 2., .,,.! And as abo$e ad$erted to, he also ordered the parties to eAe'(te a neB C;A to >overn their relations (pon the eApiry o? the period o? s(spension and the res(mption o? normal operations. Did the Se'retary a't in eA'ess o? C(risdi'tion in imposin> the Ba>e in'rease and (nion shop provision on the petitionerD Ee hold that he did not. (#ile petitioner cannot be 'orced to abandon its suspension o' operations e$en i' said suspension be declared un2usti'ied, ille%al and in$alid, neit#er can petitioner e$ade its obli%ation to bar%ain wit# t#e union, usin% t#e cessation o' its business as reason t#ere'or! 3or, as already indicated abo$e, t#e employer; employee relations#ip was merely suspended (and not terminated 'or t#e duration o' t#e temporary suspension! Usin% t#e suspension as an e/cuse to e$ade t#e duty to bar%ain is 'urt#er proo' o' its ille%ality! It s#ows abuse o' t#is option and bad 'ait# on t#e part o' petitioner! And since it re'used to bar%ain, wit#out $alid and su''icient cause, t#e &ecretary in t#e e/ercise o' #is

powers under Article 2O:(i o' t#e Labor Code to decide and resol$e labor disputes, properly %ranted t#e wa%e increase and imposed t#e union s#op pro$ision! NotBithstandin> that respondent Se'retary did not a't Bith >rave a8(se o? dis'retion in iss(in> the 'hallen>ed )rders4 Be 'annot i>nore the s(pervenin> event Bhi'h o''(rred a?ter De'em8er "F4 "55"4 i.e.4 the s(8seG(ent permanent 'essation o? petition o? petitioner on a''o(nt o? losses. "#us, despite t#e absence o' %ra$e abuse o' discretion on t#e part o' t#e respondent &ecretary, this Co(rt 'annot impose (pon petitioner the dire'tive to enter into a neB C;A Bith the (nion ?or the very simple reason that to do so Bo(ld 8e to 'ompel petitioner to 'ontin(e its 8(siness Bhen it had already de'ided to 'lose shop4 and that Bo(ld 8e C(di'ial tyranny on o(r part. ivera vs Espirit( ! No. "%FF&$ 2an(ary #%4 #33# FACTS *n &eptember .>, .,,K, +AL in'ormed t#e Inter;A%ency "ask 3orce created to address t#e problems o' t#e ailin% 'la% carrier, t#at it was s#uttin% down its operations e''ecti$e &eptember 2:, .,KK, claimin% t#at %i$en its labor problems, re#abilitation was no lon%er 'easible! "#e ne/t day, t#e +AL Employees Association (+ALEA sou%#t t#e inter$ention o' t#e *''ice o' t#e +resident to pre$ent t#e imminent closure o' +AL! *n &eptember 2:, +AL ceased its operations and sent notices o' termination to its employees! "wo days later, +A(LA o''ered a .0;year moratorium on strikes and similar actions and a wai$er o' some o' t#e economic bene'its in t#e e/istin% CBA! *n &eptember 2>, 2,KK, t#e +A(LA board a%ain wrote t#e +resident proposin% terms and conditions, sub2ect to rati'ication by t#e %eneral members#ip! "#ese include t#e suspension o' t#e +AL;+ALEA CBA 'or a period o' ten years, +AL-s continuin% reco%nition o' +ALEA as t#e certi'ied bar%ainin% a%ent o' t#e re%ular rank and 'ile %round employees o' t#e company, respect 'or t#e E union s#opLmaintenance o' membersipF pro$ision under t#e +AL;+ALEA CBA and no salary deduction wit# 'ull medical bene'its! "#e +AL mana%ement accepted t#e +ALEA proposal and t#e necessary re'erendum was sc#eduled! *' t#e $otes cast, O.M o' 'a$ored t#e +AL;+ALEA a%reement! *n *ctober >, .,,K, +AL resumed operations! *n t#e same date, se$en o''icers and members o' +ALEA 'iled a petition to annul t#e a%reement on t#e 'ollowin% %roundsC . Ara$e abuse o' discretion by public respondents in acti$ely pursuin% t#e +AL;+ALEA a%reement on t#e constitutional ri%#t to sel';or%ani=ation and collecti$e bar%ainin% cannot be wai$ed nor t#e wai$er rati'ied 2 +ublic respondents %ra$ely abused t#eir discretion and e/ceeded t#eir 2urisdiction in presidin% o$er t#e conclusion o' +AL;+ALEA a%reement under t#reat o' abusi$e e/ercise o' +AL-s mana%ement prero%ati$e to close business used as subter'u%e 'or union;bustin%!

ISSUES . (*9 t#e or%inal action 'or certiorari and pro#ibition is t#e proper remedy to annul t#e +AL; +ALEA a%reement 2 (*9 t#e a%reement is unconstitutional and contrary to public policy HELD . 9o! "#e assailed a%reement does not meet t#e essential re6uirements 'or certiorari under 7ule O5! (#at e/ists is a contract between a pri$ate 'irm and one o' its labor unions, albeit entered into wit# t#e assistance o' t#e "ask 3orce! "#e ob2ect o' t#e action is actually t#e nulli'ication o' t#e +AL;+ALEA a%reement! As suc#, t#e proper remedy is an ordinary ci$il action 'or annulment o' contract, an action w#ic# properly belon%s to t#e 2urisdiction o' t#e 7"C! 2 9o! CBA under Article 25:;A o' t#e Labor Code #as a two;'old purpose! *ne is to promote industrial stability and predictability! Inasmuc# as t#e a%reement sou%#t to promote industrial peace, at t#e +AL durin% its re#abilitation, said a%reement satis'ied t#e 'irst purpose o' said article! "#e ot#er purpose is to assi%n speci'ic timetable, w#erein ne%otiations become a matter o' ri%#t and re6uirement! 9ot#in% in Article 25:;A pro#ibits t#e parties 'rom wai$in% or suspendin% t#e mandatory timetable and a%reein% on t#e remedies to en'orce t#e same! SAN *I!UEL C) P) ATI)N E*PL)+EES UNI)N7PT!E)4 represented 8y its President A+*UND) HIP)LIT)4 2 . $s! H)N. *A. NIE-ES D. C)NFES) 4 Se'retary o? La8or4 Dept. o? La8or H Employment4 SAN *I!UEL C) P) ATI)N4 *A!N)LIA C) P) ATI)N 9Formerly4 *a>nolia Plant: and SAN *I!UEL F))DS4 INC. 9Formerly4 ;7*e> Plant: FACTS: *n Bune 2K, .,,0, petitioner;union &an )i%uel Corporation Employees Union R +"A(* entered into a CBA wit# pri$ate respondent &an )i%uel Corporation (&)C to take e''ect upon t#e e/piration o' t#e pre$ious CBA or on Bune :0, .,K,! "#is CBA pro$ided, amon% ot#ers, t#atC A7"ICLE NID $()AT*O! O& A+),,M,!T &ec! .! This Agreement which shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors-in-interest, shall become effective and shall remain in force and effect until .une /0, 1223! &ec! 2! *n accordance with Article 34/-A of the 'abor Code as amended, the term of this Agreement insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, shall be for five 546 years from .uly 1, 1272 to .une /0, 1228! #ence, the freedom period for purposes of such representation shall be si9ty 5:06 days prior to .une /0, 1228! &ec! :! Si9ty 5:06 days prior to .une /0, 1223 either party may initiate negotiations of all provisions of this Agreement, e9cept insofar as the representation aspect is concerned! *f no

agreement is reached in such negotiations, this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in force up to the time a subse;uent agreement is reached by the parties! )eanw#ile, e''ecti$e *ctober ., .,,., )a%nolia and 3eeds and Li$estock @i$ision were spun; o'' and became two separate and distinct corporationsC )a%nolia Corporation ()a%nolia and &an )i%uel 3oods, Inc! (&)3I ! 9otwit#standin% t#e spin;o''s, t#e CBA remained in 'orce and e''ect! A'ter Bune :0, .,,2, t#e CBA was rene%otiated in accordance wit# t#e terms o' t#e CBA and Article 25:;A o' t#e Labor Code! 9e%otiations started sometime in Buly, .,,2 wit# t#e two parties submittin% t#eir respecti$e proposals and counterproposals! @urin% t#e ne%otiations, t#e petitioner;union insisted t#at t#e bar%ainin% unit o' &)C s#ould still include t#e employees o' t#e spun;o'' corporationsC )a%nolia and &)3II and t#at t#e rene%otiated terms o' t#e CBA s#all be e''ecti$e only 'or t#e remainin% period o' two years or until Bune :0, .,,?! &)C, on t#e ot#er #and, contended t#at t#e membersLemployees w#o #ad mo$ed to )a%nolia and &)3I, automatically ceased to be part o' t#e bar%ainin% unit at t#e &)C! 3urt#ermore, t#e CBA s#ould be e''ecti$e 'or t#ree years in accordance wit# Art! 25:;A o' t#e Labor Code! Unable to a%ree on t#ese issues wit# respect to t#e bar%ainin% unit and duration o' t#e CBA, petitioner;union declared a deadlock on &eptember 2,, .,,0! (9otice o' strikeS&ecretary assumed 2urisdiction &ecretary-s decisionC t#e CBA s#all be e''ecti$e 'or t#e period o' : years 'rom Bune :0, .,,2I and t#at suc# CBA s#all co$er only t#e employees o' &)C and not o' )a%nolia and &)3I! ISSUES: . (#et#er or not t#e duration o' t#e rene%otiated terms o' t#e CBA is to be e''ecti$e 'or t#ree years o' 'or only two yearsI and 2 (#et#er or not t#e bar%ainin% unit o' &)C includes also t#e employees o' t#e )a%nolia and &)3I! ULIN!: (e a%ree wit# t#e &ecretary o' Labor! +ertinent to t#e 'irst issue is Art! 25:;A o' t#e Labor Code as amended w#ic# readsC Art! 25:;A! Terms of a CBA! R Any CBA that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of 4 years! 9o petition 6uestionin% t#e ma2ority status o' t#e incumbent bar%ainin% a%ent s#all be entertained and no certi'ication election s#all be conducted by t#e @epartment o' Labor and Employment outside o' t#e si/ty;day period immediately be'ore t#e date o' e/piry o' suc# 'i$e year term o' t#e CBA! All other provisions of the CBA shall be renegotiated not later than / years after its e9ecution! Any a%reement on suc# ot#er pro$isions o' t#e CBA entered into wit#in O mont#s 'rom t#e date o' e/piry o' t#e term o' suc# ot#er pro$isions as 'i/ed in suc# CBA, s#all retroact to t#e day immediately 'ollowin% suc# date! I' any suc# a%reement is entered into beyond si/ mont#s, t#e parties s#all a%ree on t#e

duration o' retroacti$ity t#ereo'! In case o' a deadlock in t#e rene%otiation o' t#e CBA, t#e parties may e/ercise t#eir ri%#ts under t#is Code! (Emp#asis supplied! "#e Erepresentation aspectF re'ers to t#e identity and ma2ority status o' t#e union t#at ne%otiated t#e CBA as t#e e/clusi$e bar%ainin% representati$e o' t#e appropriate bar%ainin% unit concerned! EAll ot#er pro$isionsF simply re'ers to t#e rest o' t#e CBA, economic as well as non;economic pro$isions, e/cept representation! "#e law is clear and de'inite on t#e duration o' t#e CBA inso'ar as t#e representation aspect is concerned, but is 6uite ambi%uous wit# t#e terms o' t#e ot#er pro$isions o' t#e CBA! It is a cardinal principle o' statutory construction t#at t#e Court must ascertain t#e le%islati$e intent 'or t#e purpose o' %i$in% e''ect to any statute! (as usual ma#aban% con$ersation n% m%a 'ramers *b$iously, t#e 'ramers o' t#e law wanted to maintain industrial peace and stability by #a$in% bot# mana%ement and labor work #armoniously to%et#er wit#out any disturbance! "#us, no outside union can enter t#e establis#ment wit#in 5 years and c#allen%e t#e status o' t#e incumbent union as t#e e/clusi$e bar%ainin% a%ent! Likewise, t#e terms and conditions o' employment (economic and non;economic can not be 6uestioned by t#e employers or employees durin% t#e period o' e''ecti$ity o' t#e CBA! "#e CBA is a contract between t#e parties and t#e parties must respect t#e terms and conditions o' t#e a%reement! Nota8ly4 the ?ramers o? the laB did not >ive a ?iAed term as to the e??e'tivity o? the terms and 'onditions o? employment. It 'an 8e >leaned ?rom their dis'(ssions that it Bas le?t to the parties to ?iA the period. "#e issue as to t#e term o' t#e non;representation pro$isions o' t#e CBA need not belaboured. The parties4 8y m(t(al a>reement4 enter into a rene>otiated 'ontra't Bith a term o? three 9%: years or one Bhi'h does not 'oin'ide Bith the said F7year term4 and said a>reement is rati?ied 8y maCority o? the mem8ers in the 8ar>ainin> (nit4 the s(8Ce't 'ontra't is valid and le>al and there?ore4 8inds the 'ontra'tin> parties. "#us, we do not 'ind any %ra$e abuse o' discretion on t#e part o' t#e &ecretary o' Labor in rulin% t#at t#e e''ecti$ity o' t#e rene%otiated terms o' t#e CBA s#all be 'or : years! II! Undeniably, t#e trans'ormation o' t#e companies was a mana%ement prero%ati$e and business 2ud%ment w#ic# t#e courts can not look into unless it is contrary to law, public policy or morals! 9eit#er can we impute any bad 'ait# on t#e part o' &)C so as to 2usti'y t#e application o' t#e doctrine o' piercin% t#e corporate $eil!"0 E$er mind'ul o' t#e employees- interests, mana%ement #as assured t#e concerned employees t#at t#ey will be absorbed by t#e new corporations wit#out loss o' tenure and retainin% t#eir present pay and bene'its accordin% to t#e e/istin% CBAs! "5 They Bere advised that (pon the eApiration o? the C;As4 neB a>reements Bill 8e ne>otiated 8etBeen the mana>ement o? the neB 'orporations and the 8ar>ainin> representatives o? the employees 'on'erned.

Indubitably, t#ere'ore, )a%nolia and &)3I became distinct entities wit# separate 2uridical personalities! "#us, t#ey can not belon% to a sin%le bar%ainin% unit! )oreo$er, in determinin% an appropriate bar%ainin% unit, t#e test o' %roupin% is mutuality or commonality o' interests! "#e employees sou%#t to be represented by t#e collecti$e bar%ainin% a%ent must #a$e substantial mutual interests in terms o' employment and workin% conditions as e$inced by t#e type o' work t#ey per'ormed! ## Considerin% t#e spin;o''s, t#e companies would conse6uently #a$e t#eir respecti$e and distincti$e concerns in terms o' t#e nature o' work, wa%es, #ours o' work and ot#er conditions o' employment! Interests o? employees in the di??erent 'ompanies per?or'e di??er. "#e nature o' t#eir products and scales o' business may re6uire di''erent skills w#ic# must necessarily be commensurated by di''erent compensation packa%es! "#e di''erent companies may #a$e di''erent $olumes o' work and di''erent workin% conditions! 3or suc# reason, t#e employees o' t#e di''erent companies see t#e need to %roup t#emsel$es to%et#er and or%ani=e t#emsel$es into distincti$e and di''erent %roups! It would t#en be best to #a$e separate bar%ainin% units 'or t#e di''erent companies w#ere t#e employees can bar%ain separately accordin% to t#eir needs and accordin% to t#eir own workin% conditions! L*! CHE*ICALS C) P4 L*! CHE*ICALS C) P $s!THE SEC ETA + )F THE DEPA T*ENT )F LA;) AND E*PL)+*ENT4 THE H)N. LE)NA D) A. IUISU*;IN!4 and CHE*ICAL E) /E ,S UNI)N !. . No. "#$&## April "$4 #33"

FACTS: L)A C#emicals Corp, (petitioner is a domestic corp en%a%ed in t#e manu'acture and sale o' $arious kinds o' c#emical substances, includin% aluminum sul'ate w#ic# is essential in puri'yin% water, and tec#nical %rade sul'uric acid used in t#ermal power plants! +etitioner #as t#ree di$isions, namelyC t#e *r%anic @i$ision, Inor%anic @i$ision and t#e +inamucan Bulk Carriers! "#ere are two unions wit#in petitioner-s Inor%anic @i$ision! *ne union represents t#e daily paid employees and t#e ot#er union represents t#e mont#ly paid employees! C#emical (orkers Union, respondent, is a duly re%istered labor or%ani=ation actin% as t#e collecti$e bar%ainin% a%ent o' all t#e daily paid employees o' petitioner-s Inor%anic @i$ision! &ometime in @ecember .,,5, t#e petitioner and t#e respondent started ne%otiation 'or a new CBA as t#eir old CBA was about to e/pire! "#ey were able to a%ree on t#e political pro$isions o' t#e new CBA, but no a%reement was reac#ed on t#e issue o' wa%e increase! "#e economic issues were not also settled! (it# t#e CBA ne%otiations at a deadlock (&trikeS&ecretary assumed 2urisdiction &ecretary o' Labor and Employment %ranted an increase o' +.?0 (#i%#er t#an t#e o''er o' petitioner;company o' +.:5 ! Also, as to t#e e''ecti$ity o' t#e new CBAS&ec #eldC 3. Effectivity of the new CBA

Article 253-A of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that when no new CBA is si ned d!rin a period of si" months from the e"piry date of the old CBA, the retroactivity period shall be accordin to the parties# a reement, $nasm!ch as the parties co!ld not a ree on this iss!e and since this %ffice has ass!med &!risdiction, then this matter now lies at the discretion of the 'ecretary of labor and Employment. (h!s the new Collective Bar ainin A reement which the parties will si n p!rs!ant to this %rder shall retroact to )an!ary *, *++,. petitioner contends t#at public respondent committed %ra$e abuse o' discretion w#en #e ordered t#at t#e new CBA w#ic# t#e parties will si%n s#all retroact to Banuary ., .,,O ISSUE: (#et#er or not t#e new CBA s#all retroact0 HELD: +etitioner insists t#at public respondent-s discretion on t#e issue o' t#e date o' t#e e''ecti$ity o' t#e new CBA is limited to eit#erC (. lea$in% t#e matter o' t#e date o' e''ecti$ity o' t#e new CBA is limited to eit#erC (. lea$in% t#e matter o' t#e date o' e''ecti$ity o' t#e new CBA to t#e a%reement o' t#e parties or (2 orderin% t#at t#e terms o' t#e new CBA be prospecti$ely applied! It must be emp#asi=ed t#at respondent &ecretary assumed 2urisdiction o$er t#e dispute because it is impressed wit# national interest! As noted by t#e &ecretary, Et#e petitioner corp was t#en supplyin% t#e sul'ate re6uirements o' )(&& as well as t#e sul'uric acid o' 9A+*C*7, and conse6uently, t#e continuation o' t#e strike would seriously a''ect t#e water supply o' )etro )anila and t#e power supply o' t#e Lu=on Arid!F &uc# aut#ority o' t#e &ecretary to assume 2urisdiction carries wit# it t#e power to determine t#e retroacti$ity o' t#e parties- CBA! It is Bell settled in o(r C(rispr(den'e that the a(thority o? the Se'retary o? La8or to ass(me C(risdi'tion over a la8or disp(te 'a(sin> or likely to 'a(se a strike or lo'ko(t in an ind(stry indispensa8le to national interest in'l(des and eAtends to all G(estions and 'ontroversies arisin> there?rom. The poBer is plenary and dis'retionary in nat(re to ena8le him to e??e'tively and e??i'iently dispose o? the primary disp(te. "#is Court #eld in &t! Luke-s )edical Center, Inc! $s! "orresC There?ore in the a8sen'e o? the spe'i?i' provision o? laB prohi8itin> retroa'tivity o? the e??e'tivity o? the ar8itral aBards iss(ed 8y the Se'retary o? La8or p(rs(ant to Arti'le #<%9>: o? the La8or Code4 s('h as herein involved4 p(8li' respondent is deemed vested Bith plenary poBers to determine the e??e'tivity thereo?.J *E ALC) vs. H)N. IUISU*;IN! 9"555: FACTS: A petition for certification election was 'iled by t#e labor or%ani=ation o' sta'' and tec#nical employees o' )E7ALC* seekin% to represent re%ular employees o' )E7ALC*! )E7ALC* contended t#at t#ose in t#e +atrol @i$ision and "reasury &ecurity &er$ice &ection, since t#ese employees are tasked wit# pro$idin% security to t#e company, t#ey are not eli%ible to 2oin t#e

rank and 'ile bar%ainin% unit! "#e )ed;Arbiter ruled t#at #a$in% been e/cluded 'rom t#e e/istin% Collecti$e Bar%ainin% A%reement 'or rank and 'ile employees, t#ese employees #a$e t#e ri%#t to 'orm a union o' t#eir own, e/cept t#ose employees per'ormin% mana%erial 'unctions! "#e &ecretary o' Labor a''irmed said *rder! Iss(e: <hether security guards may =oin ran -and-file or supervisors union Held: Under t#e old rules, security %uards were barred 'rom 2oinin% a labor or%ani=ation o' t#e rank and 'ile, under 7A O>.5, t#ey may now 'reely 2oin a labor or%ani=ation o' t#e rank and 'ile or t#at o' t#e super$isory union, dependin% on t#eir rank! By accommodatin% super$isory employees, t#e &ecretary o' Labor must likewise apply t#e pro$isions o' 7A O>.5 to security %uards by 'a$orably allowin% t#em 'ree access to a labor or%ani=ation, w#et#er rank and 'ile or super$isory, in reco%nition o' t#eir constitutional ri%#t to sel';or%ani=ation!