Labor Law 2 - Jurisprudence

1. SanJose Electric Cooperative Inc. vs. Ministry of Labor, 1 May 1!"!

2. #E$-%icanor &eyes vs. 'ra(ano, 1 July 1!")
. *ictoriano vs. Eli+alde, 12 Septe,ber 1!)-
-. .apatiran sa Meat and Cannin/ 0ivision, 21 June 1!""
2. 3ri+ala vs. Court of 3ppeals, 1- Septe,ber 1!!1
4. $nited 5epsi Cola vs. La/ues,a, 22 Marc6 1!!"
). %3'$-&epublic 5lanters 7an8 vs. 'orres, 2! 0ece,ber 1!!-
". Metrolab vs. %ieves Confesor, 2" #ebruary 1!!4
!. San Mi/uel Corp. Supervisors and E9e,pt $nion vs. La/ues,a, 12 3u/ust
1!!)
11. 53#L$ vs. S:L, 2) #ebruary 1!4!
11. 'ropical ;ut E,ployees $nion-C<= vs. 'ropical ;ut #ood Mar8et, 21
January 1!!1
12. Ito/on-Suyoc Mines Inc. vs. Sa>/ilo-Ito/on =or8ers? $nion, 1!4"
1. $S' #aculty $nion vs. 7itonio, 14 %ove,ber 1!!!
1-. Litton-Mills E,ployees 3ssociation-.apatiran vs. #errer-Calle(a, 2-
%ove,ber 1!""
12. #errer vs. %L&C, 2 July 1!!
14. *erceles vs. 7L&, 12 #ebruary 2112 1). 5alacol vs. 5ura-Calle(a, 24
#ebruary 1!!1
1". 56ilippine 0ia,ond ;otel vs. Manila 0ia,ond ;otel E,ployees $nion, 1
June 2114
1!. <eneral &ubber and #ootwear Corp. vs. 0rilon, 1!"!
1
# 1 G.R. No. 77231 May 31, 1989
SAN JOSE CITY ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE, INC.
(SAJELCO), petitioner, vs. MINISTRY O LA!OR AN"
EMPLOYMENT(MLE) a#$ MAG%AISA&A"LO, respondents.
'6is is a petition for certiorari under &ule 42 of t6e &ules of Court. 5etitioner
S3JELC:, see8s t6e reversal of t6e :rder of 5ura #errer-Calle(a, 0irector of
7ureau of Labor &elations w6ic6 a@r,ed t6e :rder of Med-3rbiter 3ntonio &.
Corte+ to conduct a certiAcation election a,on/ t6e ran8-and-Ale e,ployees
of S3JELC:.
ACTS'
July 2!, 1!"4, private respondent M3<.3IS3-30L: Aled a petition for direct
certiAcation election wit6 t6e 0:LE in San #ernando, 5a,pan/a. '6e petition
alle/ed t6at M3<.3IS3-30L: is a le/iti,ate labor or/ani+ation duly
re/istered wit6 t6e MLE.
S3JELC: opposed t6e petition for direct certiAcation election
contendin/, inter alia, t6at t6e e,ployees w6o sou/6t to be represented by
private respondent are ()(*)+,&-o#,.()+, o/ 01) Coo2)+a034) itself
and at t6e sa,e ti,e co,posed t6e <eneral 3sse,bly w6ic6, pursuant to
t6e 7y-laws is also t6e Anal arbiter of any dispute arisin/ in t6e Cooperative.
O# S)20)(*)+ 5, 1986, t6e Med-3rbiter /rantin/ t6e petition for direct
certiAcation election on t6e basis of t6e pleadin/s Aled. '6e :rder said t6at
w6ile so,e of t6e ,e,bers of petitioner union are ,e,bers of t6e
cooperative, it cannot be denied t6at t6ey are also e,ployees wit6in t6e
conte,plation of t6e Labor Code and are t6erefore entitled to en(oy all t6e
beneAts of e,ployees, includin/ t6e ri/6t to self-or/ani+ation. '6is :rder was
appealed by S3JELC: to t6e 7ureau of Labor &elations B7L&C. &espondent
0irector of 7L& $3,(3,,)$ t6e appeal and sustained t6e rulin/ of t6e Med-
3rbiter in an order dated Ja#.a+y 5, 1987.
;ence, t6is petition.
ISS7E'
=6et6er or not t6e e,ployees-,e,bers of an electric cooperative can
or/ani+e t6e,selves for purposes of collective bar/ainin/.
R7LING'
In t6is petition, S3JELC: clai,s t6at its e,ployees are also ,e,bers of t6e
cooperative. '6e 7D L3=S provision, ,entions 08o 0y2), o/ )(29oy)),,
na,elyE t6e ()(*)+,&-o#,.()+, and t6e ()(*)+, o/ 01)3+ 3(()$3a0)
/a(393),. 3s re/ards e,ployees of S3JELC: w6o are ,e,bers-consu,ers,
t6e rule is settled t6at t6ey are #o0 :.a93;)$ 0o /o+(, <o3# o+ a,,3,0 9a*o+
o+=a#3>a03o#, /o+ 2.+2o,), o/ -o99)-034) *a+=a3#3#=.
2
&easonE an owner cannot bar/ain wit6 6i,self. ;owever, e,ployees w6o are
not ,e,bers-consu,ers ,ay for,, (oin or assist labor or/ani+ations for
purposes of collective bar/ainin/ notwit6standin/ t6e fact t6at e,ployees of
S3JELC: w6o are not ,e,bers-consu,ers were e,ployed :%LD because
t6ey are ,e,bers of t6e i,,ediate fa,ily of ,e,bers-consu,ers. '6e fact
re,ains t6at t6ey are not t6e,selves ,e,bers-consu,ers, and as suc6,
t6ey are entitled to e9ercise t6e ri/6ts of all wor8ers to or/ani+ation,
collective bar/ainin/, ne/otiations and ot6ers as are ens6rined in Section ",
3rticle III and Section , 3rticle FIII of t6e 1!") Constitution, Labor Code of
t6e 56ilippines and ot6er related laws.
3CC:&0I%<LD, t6e petition is GRANTE". '6e assailed :rder of respondent
5ura#errer-Calle(a, 0irector of t6e 7ureau of Labor &elations is 6ereby
MO"IIE" to t6e eGect t6at only t6e ran8-and-Ale e,ployees of petitioner
w6o are not its ,e,bers-consu,ers are entitled to self-or/ani+ation,
collective bar/ainin/, and ne/otiations, w6ile ot6er e,ployees w6o are
,e,bers-consu,ers t6ereof cannot en(oy suc6 ri/6t. '6e direct certiAcation
election conducted on A2+39 13, 1987 3, 1)+)*y ,)0 a,3$).

#E$-%icanor &eyes vs. 'ra(ano, 1 July 1!")

#3C'SE
:n 1!"), '6e #ar Eastern $niversity-0r. %icanor &eyes Me,orial #oundation,
Inc., 6as a wor8 force of about 21 ran8 and Ale e,ployees. :n 1!"4,
respondent Aled a petition for Consent andHor CertiAcation Election wit6 t6e
Ministry of Labor and E,ploy,ent. 5etitioner ,edical foundation opposed
t6e petition contendin/ t6at t6ere is already a pendin/ resolution before t6e
Supre,e Court.
&espondent ad,itted t6at as early as 1!)4, respondent Aled a si,ilar
petition for certiAcation election but t6e petition was denied by t6e Med
3rbiter and t6e Secretary of Labor on appeal, on t6e /round t6at t6e
petitioner was a non-stoc8, non-proAt ,edical institution, t6erefore, its
e,ployees ,ay not for,, (oin, or or/ani+e a union pursuant to 3rticle 2-- of
t6e Labor Code. 3nd t6at a petition was ,ade to t6e Supre,e court but
pendin/ resolution of t6e aforesaid petition, or on May 1, 1!"1, 7atas
5a,bansa 7ilan/ )1 was enacted a,endin/ 3rticle 2-- of t6e Labor Code,
t6us /rantin/ even e,ployees of non-stoc8, non-proAt institutions t6e ri/6t
to for,, (oin and or/ani+e labor unions of t6eir c6oiceI and t6at in t6e
e9ercise of suc6 ri/6t, private respondent Aled anot6er petition for
certiAcation election wit6 t6e Ministry of Labor and E,ploy,ent.
'6erefore, t6e Med 3rbiter /ranted t6e petition declarin/ t6at a CertiAcation
Election be conducted to deter,ine t6e e9clusive bar/ainin/ representative
of all t6e ran8 and Ale e,ployees of t6e petitioner. &espondent 0irector
'ra(ano a@r,ed t6e said order on appeal.
;ence t6is petition.
ISS$EE
=6et6er or %ot a CertiAcation Election s6ould be allowed to t6e respondents
after t6e a,end,ent of 3rt. 22- of t6e Labor Code by 7atas 5a,bansa
7ilan/ )1.
;EL0E
5etition is devoid of ,erit.
3t t6e ti,e private respondent Aled its petition for certiAcation election on
#ebruary 1, 1!"4, 3rticle 2-- of t6e Labor Code was already a,ended by
7atas 5a,bansa 7ilan/ )1, to witE
3rt. 2--. Covera/e and e,ployees? ri/6t to self-or/ani+ation. J 3ll persons
e,ployed in co,,ercial, industrial and c6aritable, ,edical or educational
institutions whether operating for proft or not, s6all 6ave t6e ri/6t to self-
or/ani+ations of t6eir own c6oosin/ for purposes of collective bar/ainin/.
3,bulant inter,ittent and itinerant wor8ers, self-e,ployed people, rural
wor8ers and t6ose wit6out any deAnite e,ployers ,ay for, labor
-
or/ani+ations for t6e purpose of en6ancin/ and defendin/ t6eir interests and
for t6eir ,utual aid and protection.
$nder t6e aforeKuoted provision, t6ere is no doubt t6at ran8 and Ale
e,ployees of non-proAt ,edical institutions Bas 6erein petitionerC are now
per,itted to for,, or/ani+e or (oin labor unions of t6eir c6oice for purposes
of collective bar/ainin/.
2
VICTORIANO V. ELI?AL"E G.R. No. L&252@6 S)20)(*)+ 12, 197@
?AL"IVAR, J.'
#3C'SE *ictoriano, an I/lesia ni Cristo ,e,ber, 6as been an e,ployee of t6e
Eli+alde &ope #actory since 1!2". ;e was also a ,e,ber of t6e E5=$. $nder
t6e C73 between E&# and E5=$, a close s6op a/ree,ent is bein/ enforced
w6ic6 ,eans t6at e,ploy,ent in t6e factory relies on t6e ,e,bers6ip in t6e
E5=$I t6at in order to retain e,ploy,ent in t6e said factory one ,ust be a
,e,ber of t6e said $nion. In 1!42, *ictoriano tendered 6is resi/nation fro,
E5=$ clai,in/ t6at as per &3 21 6e is an e9e,ption to t6e close s6op
a/ree,ent by virtue of 6is bein/ a ,e,ber of t6e I%C because apparently in
t6e I%C, one is forbidden fro, bein/ a ,e,ber of any labor union. It was
only in 1!)- t6at 6is resi/nation fro, t6e $nion was acted upon by E5=$
w6ic6 notiAed E&# about it. E&# t6en ,oved to ter,inate *ictoriano due to
6is non-,e,bers6ip fro, t6e E5=$. E5=$ and E&# reiterated t6at 6e is not
e9e,pt fro, t6e close s6op a/ree,ent because &3 21 is unconstitutional
and t6at said law violates t6e E5=$Ls and E&#Ls le/alHcontractual ri/6ts.
ISS$EE =6et6er 3ppellee 6as t6e freedo, of c6oice in (oinin/ t6e union or
not.
&$LI%<E DES.
'6e ri/6t to reli/ion prevails over contractual or le/al ri/6ts. 3s suc6, an I%C
,e,ber ,ay refuse to (oin a labor union and despite t6e fact t6at t6ere is a
close s6op a/ree,ent in t6e factory w6ere 6e was e,ployed, 6is
e,ploy,ent could not be validly ter,inated for 6is non-,e,bers6ip in t6e
,a(ority t6erein. #urt6er, t6e ri/6t to (oin a union includes t6e ri/6t not to
(oin a union. '6e law is not unconstitutional. It reco/ni+es bot6 t6e ri/6ts of
unions and e,ployers to enforce ter,s of contracts and at t6e sa,e ti,e it
reco/ni+es t6e wor8ersL ri/6t to (oin or not to (oin union. 7ut t6e &3
reco/ni+es as well t6e pri,acy of a constitutional ri/6t over a contractual
ri/6t.
'6e Constitution and &3 ")2 reco/ni+e freedo, of association. Sec 1 B4C of
3rt III of t6e Constitution of 1!2, as well as Sec ) of 3rt I* of t6e
Constitution of 1!), provide t6at t6e ri/6t to for, associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law s6all not be abrid/ed. Section of &3 ")2
provides t6at e,ployees s6all 6ave t6e ri/6t to self-or/ani+ation and to for,,
(oin of assist labor or/ani+ations of t6eir own c6oosin/ for t6e purpose of
collective bar/ainin/ and to en/a/e in concerted activities for t6e purpose of
collective bar/ainin/ and ot6er ,utual aid or protection. =6at t6e
Constitution and t6e Industrial 5eace 3ct reco/ni+e and /uarantee is t6e
Mri/6tN to for, or (oin associations. 3 ri/6t co,pre6ends at least two broad
notions, na,elyE Arst, liberty or freedo,, i.e., t6e absence of le/al restraint,
4
w6ereby an e,ployee ,ay act for 6i,self wit6out bein/ prevented by lawI
and second, power, w6ereby an e,ployee ,ay, as 6e pleases, (oin or refrain
fro, (oinin/ an association. It is, t6erefore, t6e e,ployee w6o s6ould decide
for 6i,self w6et6er 6e s6ould (oin or not an associationI and s6ould 6e
c6oose to (oin, 6e 6i,self ,a8es up 6is ,ind as to w6ic6 association 6e
would (oinI and even after 6e 6as (oined, 6e still retains t6e liberty and t6e
power to leave and cancel 6is ,e,bers6ip wit6 said or/ani+ation at any
ti,e. '6e ri/6t to (oin a union includes t6e ri/6t to abstain fro, (oinin/ any
union. '6e law does not en(oin an e,ployee to si/n up wit6 any association.
'6e ri/6t to refrain fro, (oinin/ labor or/ani+ations reco/ni+ed by Section
of t6e Industrial 5eace 3ct is, 6owever, li,ited. '6e le/al protection /ranted
to suc6 ri/6t to refrain fro, (oinin/ is wit6drawn by operation of law, w6ere a
labor union and an e,ployer 6ave a/reed on a closed s6op, by virtue of
w6ic6 t6e e,ployer ,ay e,ploy only ,e,bers of t6e collective bar/ainin/
union, and t6e e,ployees ,ust continue to be ,e,bers of t6e union for t6e
duration of t6e contract in order to 8eep t6eir (obs. 7y virtue of a closed s6op
a/ree,ent, before t6e enact,ent of &3 21, if any person, re/ardless of 6is
reli/ious beliefs, wis6es to be e,ployed or to 8eep 6is e,ploy,ent 6e ,ust
beco,e a ,e,ber of t6e collective bar/ainin/ union. ;ence, t6e ri/6t of said
e,ployee not to (oin t6e labor union is curtailed and wit6drawn.
'o t6at all-e,bracin/ covera/e of t6e closed s6op arran/e,ent, &3 %o.21
introduced an e9ception, w6en it added to Section - BaC B-C of t6e Industrial
5eace 3ct t6e followin/ provisoE Mbut suc6 a/ree,ent s6all not cover
,e,bers of any reli/ious sects w6ic6 pro6ibit a@liation of t6eir ,e,bers in
any suc6 labor or/ani+ationN. &epublic 3ct %o. 21 ,erely e9cludes ipso
(ure fro, t6e application and covera/e of t6e closed s6op a/ree,ent t6e
e,ployees belon/in/ to any reli/ious sects w6ic6 pro6ibit a@liation of t6eir
,e,bers wit6 any labor or/ani+ation. =6at t6e e9ception provides is t6at
,e,bers of said reli/ious sects cannot be co,pelled or coerced to (oin labor
unions even w6en said unions 6ave closed s6op a/ree,ents wit6 t6e
e,ployersI t6at in spite of any closed s6op a/ree,ent, ,e,bers of said
reli/ious sects cannot be refused e,ploy,ent or dis,issed fro, t6eir (obs
on t6e sole /round t6at t6ey are not ,e,bers of t6e collective bar/ainin/
union. It does not pro6ibit t6e ,e,bers of said reli/ious sects fro, a@liatin/
wit6 labor unions. It still leaves to said ,e,bers t6e liberty and t6e power to
a@liate, or not to a@liate, wit6 labor unions. If, notwit6standin/ t6eir
reli/ious beliefs, t6e ,e,bers of said reli/ious wets prefer to si/n up wit6
t6e labor union, t6ey can do so. If in deference and fealty to t6eir reli/ious
fait6, t6ey refuse to si/n up, t6ey can do soI t6e law does not coerce t6e, to
(oinI neit6er does t6e law pro6ibit t6e, fro, (oinin/, and neit6er ,ay t6e
e,ployer or labor union co,pel t6e, to (oin.
'6e Co,pany was partly absolved by law fro, t6e contractual obli/ation it
6ad wit6 t6e $nion of e,ployin/ only $nion ,e,bers in per,anent
)
positions. It cannot be denied, t6erefore, t6at t6ere was indeed an
i,pair,ent of said union security clause.
'6e pro6ibition to i,pair t6e obli/ation of contracts is not absolute and
unKualiAed. '6e pro6ibition is /eneral. '6e pro6ibition is not to be read wit6
literal e9actness, for it pro6ibits unreasonable i,pair,ent only. In spite of t6e
constitutional pro6ibition, t6e State continues to possess aut6ority to
safe/uard t6e vital interests of its people. Le/islation appropriate to
safe/uardin/ said interests ,ay ,odify or abro/ate contracts already in
eGect. #or not only are e9istin/ laws read into contracts in order to A9 t6e
obli/ations as between t6e parties, but t6e reservation of essential attributes
of soverei/n power is also read into contracts as a postulate of t6e le/al
order. '6e contract clause of t6e Constitution. ,ust be not only in 6ar,ony
wit6, but also in subordination to, in appropriate instances, t6e reserved
power of t6e state to safe/uard t6e vital interests of t6e people. '6is 6as
special application to contracts re/ulatin/ relations between capital and
labor w6ic6 are not ,erely contractual, and said labor contracts, for bein/
i,pressed wit6 public interest, ,ust yield to t6e co,,on /ood.
'6e purpose to be ac6ieved by &3 21 is to insure freedo, of belief and
reli/ion, and to pro,ote t6e /eneral welfare by preventin/ discri,ination
a/ainst t6ose ,e,bers of reli/ious sects w6ic6 pro6ibit t6eir ,e,bers fro,
(oinin/ labor unions, conAr,in/ t6ereby t6eir natural, statutory and
constitutional ri/6t to wor8, t6e fruits of w6ic6 wor8 are usually t6e only
,eans w6ereby t6ey can ,aintain t6eir own life and t6e life of t6eir
dependents.
'6e individual e,ployee, at various ti,es in 6is wor8in/ life, is confronted by
two a//re/ates of power collective labor, directed by a union, and collective
capital, directed by ,ana/e,ent. '6e union, an institution developed to
or/ani+e labor into a collective force and t6us protect t6e individual
e,ployee fro, t6e power of collective capital, is, parado9ically, bot6 t6e
c6a,pion of e,ployee ri/6ts, and a new source of t6eir frustration.
Moreover, w6en t6e $nion interacts wit6 ,ana/e,ent, it produces yet a
t6ird a//re/ate of /roup stren/t6 fro, w6ic6 t6e individual also needs
protection O t6e collective bar/ainin/ relations6ip.
'6e free e9ercise of reli/ious profession or belief is superior to contract
ri/6ts. In case of conPict, t6e latter ,ust yield to t6e for,er.
'6e purpose of &3 21 is to serve t6e secular purpose of advancin/ t6e
constitutional ri/6t to t6e free e9ercise of reli/ion, by avertin/ t6at certain
persons be refused wor8, or be dis,issed fro, wor8, or be dispossessed of
t6eir ri/6t to wor8 and of bein/ i,peded to pursue a ,odest ,eans of
liveli6ood, by reason of union security a/ree,ents. 'o 6elp its citi+ens to And
/ainful e,ploy,ent w6ereby t6ey can ,a8e a livin/ to support t6e,selves
and t6eir fa,ilies is a valid ob(ective of t6e state. '6e Constitution even
"
,andated t6at Mt6e State s6all aGord protection to labor, pro,ote full
e,ploy,ent and eKuality in e,ploy,ent, ensure eKual wor8 opportunities
re/ardless of se9, race or creed and re/ulate t6e relation between wor8ers
and e,ployers.N
'6e pri,ary eGects of t6e e9e,ption fro, closed s6op a/ree,ents in favor
of ,e,bers of reli/ious sects t6at pro6ibit t6eir ,e,bers fro, a@liatin/
wit6 a labor or/ani+ation, is t6e protection of said e,ployees a/ainst t6e
a//re/ate force of t6e collective bar/ainin/ a/ree,ent, and relievin/ certain
citi+ens of a burden on t6eir reli/ious beliefsI and by eli,inatin/ to a certain
e9tent econo,ic insecurity due to une,ploy,ent, w6ic6 is a serious ,enace
to t6e 6ealt6, ,orals, and welfare of t6e people of t6e State, t6e 3ct also
pro,otes t6e well-bein/ of society. It is our view t6at t6e e9e,ption fro, t6e
eGects of closed s6op a/ree,ent does not directly advance, or di,inis6, t6e
interests of any particular reli/ion. 3lt6ou/6 t6e e9e,ption ,ay beneAt
t6ose w6o are ,e,bers of reli/ious sects t6at pro6ibit t6eir ,e,bers fro,
(oinin/ labor unions, t6e beneAt upon t6e reli/ious sects is ,erely incidental
and indirect.
'6e purpose of &3 21 was not to /rant ri/6ts to labor unions. '6e ri/6ts of
labor unions are a,ply provided for in &epublic 3ct %o. ")2 and t6e new
Labor Code.
'6e 3ct does not reKuire as a KualiAcation, or condition, for (oinin/ any lawful
association ,e,bers6ip in any particular reli/ion or in any reli/ious sectI
neit6er does t6e 3ct reKuire a@liation wit6 a reli/ious sect t6at pro6ibits its
,e,bers fro, (oinin/ a labor union as a condition or KualiAcation for
wit6drawin/ fro, a labor union. Joinin/ or wit6drawin/ fro, a labor union
reKuires a positive act &epublic 3ct %o. 21 only e9e,pts ,e,bers wit6
suc6 reli/ious a@liation fro, t6e covera/e of closed s6op a/ree,ents. So,
under t6is 3ct, a reli/ious ob(ector is not reKuired to do a positive act-to
e9ercise t6e ri/6t to (oin or to resi/n fro, t6e union. ;e is e9e,pted ipso
(ure wit6out need of any positive act on 6is part.
=;E&E#:&E, t6e instant appeal is dis,issed.
!
<.&. %o. "2!1- June 21, 1!""
.353'I&3% S3 ME3' 3%0 C3%%I%< 0I*ISI:% B'$53S Local C6apter %o.
112)C,petitioner, vs. ';E ;:%:&37LE 7L& 0I&EC':& 5$&3 #E&&E& C3LLEJ3,
ME3' 3%0 C3%%I%< 0I*ISI:% $%I*E&S3L &:7I%3 C:&5:&3'I:% and ME3'
3%0 C3%%I%< 0I*ISI:% %E= EM5L:DEES 3%0 =:&.E&S $%I'E0 L37:&
:&<3%IQ3'I:%
#3C'SE #ro, 1!"- to 1!") '$53S was t6e sole and e9clusive collective
bar/ainin/ representative of t6e wor8ers in t6e Meat and Cannin/ 0ivision of
t6e $niversal &obina Corporation, wit6 a -year collective bar/ainin/
a/ree,ent BC73C w6ic6 was to e9pire on %ove,ber 12, 1!").
=it6in t6e freedo, period of 41 days prior to t6e e9piration of its C73,
'$53S Aled an a,ended notice ofstri8e on Septe,ber 2", 1!") as a ,eans
of pressurin/ t6e co,pany to e9tend, renew, or ne/otiate a new C73 wit6 it.
:n :ctober ", 1!"), t6e %E= $L:, co,posed ,ostly of wor8ers belon/in/ to
t6e I<LESI3 %I .&IS': sect, re/istered as a labor union. :n :ctober 12,
1!"), t6e '$53S sta/ed a stri8e.
&:7I%3 obtained an in(unction a/ainst t6e stri8e, resultin/ in an a/ree,ent
to return to wor8 and for t6e parties to ne/otiate a new C73. '6e ne9t day,
:ctober 1, 1!"), %E= $L:, clai,in/ t6at it 6as Mt6e ,a(ority of t6e daily
wa/e ran8 and Ale e,ployees nu,berin/ 1!1,N Aled a petition for a
certiAcation election at t6e 7ureau of Labor &elations B3nne9 3C.
'$53S ,oved to dis,iss t6e petition for bein/ defective in for, and t6at t6e
,e,bers of t6e %E= $L: were ,ostly ,e,bers of t6e I/lesia ni .risto sect
w6ic6 t6ree BC years previous refused to a@liate wit6 any labor union. It also
accused t6e co,pany of usin/ t6e %E= $L: to defeat '$53SL bar/ainin/
ri/6ts B3nne9 7C.
:n %ove,ber 1), 1!"), t6e Med-3rbiter ordered t6e 6oldin/ of a certiAcation
election wit6in 21 days B3nne9 CC.
'$53S appealed to t6e 7ureau of Labor &elations 7L&. In t6e ,eanti,e, it
was able to ne/otiate a new -year C73 wit6 &:7I%3, w6ic6 was si/ned on
11
0ece,ber , 1!") and to e9pire on %ove,ber 12, 1!!1. :n January 2),
1!"", respondent 7L& 0irector Calle(a dis,issed t6e appeal B3nne9 0C.
'$53SL ,otion for reconsideration B3nne9 EC was denied on Marc6 1), 1!"".
&$LI%<E up6oldin/ t6e ri/6t of ,e,bers of t6e I<LESI3 %I .&IS': sect not to
(oin a labor union for bein/ contrary to t6eir reli/ious beliefs, does not bar
t6e ,e,bers of t6at sect fro, for,in/ t6eir own union. '6e public
respondent correctly observed t6at t6e Mreco/nition of t6e tenets of t6e sect
R s6ould not infrin/e on t6e basic ri/6t of self-or/ani+ation /ranted by t6e
constitution to wor8ers, re/ardless of reli/ious a@liation.
'6e fact t6at '$53S was able to ne/otiate a new C73 wit6 &:7I%3 wit6in t6e
41-day freedo, period of t6e e9istin/ C73, does not foreclose t6e ri/6t of
t6e rival union, %E=$L:, to c6allen/e '$53SL clai, to ,a(ority status, by
Alin/ a ti,ely petition for certiAcation election on :ctober 1, 1!") before
'$53SL old C73 e9pired on %ove,ber 12, 1!") and before it si/ned a new
C73 wit6 t6e co,pany on 0ece,ber , 1!"). 3s pointed out by Med-3rbiter
3bdulla6, a McertiAcation election is t6e best foru, in ascertainin/ t6e
,a(ority status of t6e contendin/ unions w6erein t6e wor8ers t6e,selves
can freely c6oose t6eir bar/ainin/ representative t6ru secret ballot.N Since it
6as not been s6own t6at t6is order is tainted wit6 unfairness, t6is Court will
not t6wart t6e 6oldin/ of a certiAcation election.
11
A?IRALA VS CA
<.&. %os. -4--, Septe,ber 1-, 1!!1
a-0,'
$nder t6e &3 ")2 Industrial 5eace 3ct,

/overn,ent-owned or
controlled corporations 6ad t6e duty to bar/ain collectively and were
ot6erwise sub(ect to t6e obli/ations and duties of e,ployers in t6e private
sector.

'6e 3ct also pro6ibited supervisors to beco,e, or continue to be,
,e,bers of labor or/ani+ations co,posed of ran8-and-Ale e,ployees, and
prescribed cri,inal sanctions for breac6 of t6e pro6ibition.
$nder t6e re/i,e of said Industrial 5eace 3ct t6at t6e <SIS beca,e
bound by a collective bar/ainin/ a/ree,ent e9ecuted between it and t6e
labor or/ani+ation representin/ t6e ,a(ority of its e,ployees, t6e <SIS
E,ployees 3ssociation. '6e a/ree,ent contained a S,aintenance-of-
,e,bers6ipS clause.
'6e petitioners occupied supervisory positions in t6e <SIS. 5ablo
3ri+ala and Ser/io Maribao were t6e C6ief of t6e 3ccountin/ 0ivision, and t6e
C6ief of t6e 7illin/ Section of said 0ivision, in t6e Central *isayas &e/ional
:@ce of t6e <SIS. Leonardo Joven and #elino 7ulandus were t6e 3ssistant
C6ief of t6e 3ccountin/ 0ivision and t6e 3ssistant C6ief of t6e #ield Service
and %on-Life Insurance 0ivision of t6e sa,e Central *isayas &e/ional :@ce
of t6e <SIS. 0e,ands were ,ade on all four of t6e, to resi/n fro, t6e <SIS
E,ployees 3ssociation, in view of t6eir supervisory positions.
'6ey refused to do so. ConseKuently, two B2C cri,inal cases for
violation of t6e Industrial 5eace 3ct were lod/ed a/ainst t6e, in t6e City
Court of CebuE one involvin/ 3ri+ala and Maribao and t6e ot6er, Joven and
7ulandus. =6ic6 resulted to t6eir conviction.
'6ey ar/ued t6at w6en t6e so called S1!) ConstitutionS too8 eGect
on January 1), 1!) pursuant to 5rocla,ation %o. 111-, t6e case of 3ri+ala
and Maribao was still pendin/ in t6e Court of 3ppeals and t6at of Joven and
7ulandusI t6at since t6e provisions of t6at constitution and of t6e Labor Code
subseKuently pro,ul/ated BeG., %ove,ber 1, 1!)-C, repealin/ t6e Industrial
5eace 3ct-placed e,ployees of all cate/ories in /overn,ent-owned or
controlled corporations wit6out distinction wit6in t6e Civil Service, and
provided t6at t6e ter,s and conditions of t6eir e,ploy,ent were to be
S/overned by t6e Civil Service Law, rules and re/ulationsS and 6ence, no
lon/er sub(ect of collective bar/ainin/, t6e appellants ceased to fall wit6in
t6e covera/e of t6e Industrial 5eace 3ct and s6ould t6us no lon/er continue
to be prosecuted and e9posed to punis6,ent for a violation t6ereof. '6ey
pointed out furt6er t6at t6e cri,inal sanction in t6e Industrial 5eace 3ct no
lon/er appeared in t6e Labor Code
I,,.)'
=6et6er or not t6e petitioners? cri,inal liability for a violation of t6e
Industrial 5eace 3ct ,ay be dee,ed to 6ave been obliterated in virtue of
subseKuent le/islation and t6e provisions of t6e 1!) and 1!")
Constitutions.
12
A)9$'
DES. t6e ri/6t of self-or/ani+ation and collective bar/ainin/ 6ad been
wit6drawn by t6e Labor Code fro, /overn,ent e,ployees includin/ t6ose in
/overn,ent-owned and controlled corporations- c6iePy for t6e reason t6at
t6e ter,s and conditions of /overn,ent e,ploy,ent, all e,braced in civil
service, ,ay not be ,odiAed by collective bar/ainin/ because set by law. It
is t6erefore i,,aterial, t6ey say, w6et6er supervisors are ,e,bers of ran8-
and-Ale unions or notI after all, t6e possibility of t6e e,ployer?s control of t6e
,e,bers of t6e union t6ru supervisors t6us renderin/ collective bar/ainin/
illusory, w6ic6 is t6e ,ain reason for t6e pro6ibition, is no lon/er of any
conseKuence.
'6e disappearance fro, t6e law of t6e pro6ibition on supervisors bein/
,e,bers of labor or/ani+ations co,posed of e,ployees under t6eir
supervision. '6e Labor Code B50 --2C allowed supervisors Bif not ,ana/erialC
to (oin ran8-and-Ale unions. 3nd under t6e I,ple,entin/ &ules of &3 4)12,
supervisors w6o were ,e,bers of e9istin/ labor or/ani+ations on t6e
eGectivity of said &3 4)12 were e9plicitly aut6ori+ed to Sre,ain t6erein.S
'6at t6e ,aintenance by supervisors of ,e,bers6ip in a ran8-and-Ale
labor or/ani+ation even after t6e enact,ent of a statute i,posin/ a
pro6ibition on suc6 ,e,bers6ip, is not only not a cri,e, but is e9plicitly
allowed, under present law.
'6e repeal of a penal law deprives t6e courts of (urisdiction to punis6
persons c6ar/ed wit6 a violation of t6e old penal law prior to its repeal.
1
United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) vs Laguesma &Pepsi Cola
Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. The union filed for a petition for
certification election on ehalf of the route managers ut! it "as denied on the ground
that route managers are managerial employees and therefore! ineligile for union
memership under the Laor Code.
#ssue$ %hether or not the route managers are managerial employees
%hether or not the prohiition for managerial employees to unioni&e is violative
of the Constitution
'eld$ (es! route managers are managerial employees and cannot form or )oin unions.
The term manager generally refers to anyone responsile for suordinates and other
organi&ational resources. *anagers are classified into Top and *iddle managers! "ho
have the authority to devise! implement and control strategic and operational policies
and +irst level managers,supervisors! "ho ensures that the policies are carried out y
the ran- and file employees . To .ualify as managerial employee! there must e clear
sho"ing of the e/ercise of managerial attriutes. 0esignations or titles of positions are
not controlling. The pertinent )o descriptions and documentary evidence sho" that
route managers are managerial employees. 1oute managers are responsile for the
success of the company2s main line of usiness through management of their
respective sales teams. Such management necessarily involves the planning! direction!
operation and evaluation of their individual teams and areas "hich the "or- of
supervisors does not entail. Their "or- goes far eyond the simple direction or
supervision of operating employees to accomplish o)ectives set y those aove them.
They perform operational! human resource! financial and mar-eting functions for the
company! all of "hich involve the laying do"n of operating policies for themselves and
their teams.
3o! the prohiition for managerial employees to unioni&e is not violative of the
Constitution. The constitutional intent "as merely to restore the right of supervisory
employees to organi&e "hich had een denied y the Laor Code. The aim "as merely
for the removal of the statutory an against security guards and supervisory employees
from )oining laor organi&ations. *oreover! the right to organi&e guaranteed in the
Constitution is su)ect to the condition that its e/ercise should e for purposes not
contrary to la". Lastly! those "ho .ualify as top or middle managers are e/ecutives "ho
receive from their employers information that not only is confidential ut also is not
generally availale to the pulic or to their competitors! or to other employees.
1-
%3'$-&epublic 5lanters 7an8 Supervisors C6apter vs. 'orres and &epublic
5lanters 7an8
<.&. %o. !-4" 0ec. 2!, 1!!-
J. 7ellosillo
#3C'S
:n 1) Marc6 1!"!, %ational 3ssociation of 'rade $nions B%3'$C-&epublic
5lanters 7an8 Supervisors C6apter Aled a petition for certiAcation election to
deter,ine t6e e9clusive bar/ainin/ representative of respondent 7an8?s
e,ployees occupyin/ supervisory positions. :n 2- 3pril 1!"!, t6e 7an8
,oved to dis,iss t6e petition on t6e /round t6at t6e supposed supervisory
e,ployees were actually ,ana/erial andHor conAdential e,ployees t6us
ineli/ible to (oin, assist or for, a union, and t6at t6e petition lac8ed t6e 21T
si/natory reKuire,ent under t6e Labor Code.
:n 1) 3u/ust 1!"!, Med-3rbiter Manases '. Cru+ /ranted t6e petition.
&espondent 7an8 appealed t6e order to t6e Secretary of Labor on t6e ,ain
/round t6at several of t6e e,ployees sou/6t to be included in t6e
certiAcation election, particularly t6e 0epart,ent Mana/ers, 7ranc6
Mana/ersH:ICs, Cas6iers and Controllers were ,ana/erial andHor conAdential
e,ployees and t6us ineli/ible to (oin, assist or for, a union.
&espondent Secretary of Labor ;on. &uben 0. 'orres partially /ranted t6e
appeal and declared 0epart,ent Mana/ers, 3ssistant Mana/ers, 7ranc6
Mana/ersH:ICs, Cas6iers and Controllers of respondent 7an8 are ,ana/erial
andHor conAdential e,ployees. 5erforce, t6ey cannot (oin t6e union of
supervisors suc6 as 0ivision C6iefs, 3ccounts :@cers, StaG 3ssistants and
:IC?s BsicC unless t6e latter are re/ular ,ana/erial e,ployees.
'6rou/6 t6e collective action of t6ese t6ree branc6 o@cers operational
transactions are carried out t6rou/6 a triad of ,ana/erial aut6ority a,on/
t6e branc6 ,ana/er, cas6ier and controller. '6is aspect in t6e ban8in/
syste, w6ic6 calls for t6e division of duties and responsibilities is a clear
,anifestation of ,ana/erial power and aut6ority. %o operational transaction
at branc6 level is carried out by t6e sin/ular act of t6e 7ranc6 Mana/er but
rat6er t6rou/6 t6e collective act of t6e 7ranc6 Mana/er, Cas6ierHController.
%3'$ appealed to t6e SC, contendin/ t6atE #irstly, a branc6 does not en(oy
relative autono,y precisely because it is treated as one unit wit6 t6e 6ead
o@ce and 6as to co,ply wit6 unifor, policies and /uidelines set by t6e ban8
itself. Secondly, t6ere is absolutely no evidence s6owin/ t6at ban8 policies
are laid down t6rou/6 t6e collective action of t6e 7ranc6 Mana/er, t6e
Cas6ier and t6e Controller. '6irdly, t6e or/ani+ational setup w6ere t6e
7ranc6 Mana/er e9ercises control over branc6 operations, t6e Controller
12
controls t6e 3ccountin/ 0ivision, and t6e Cas6ier controls t6e Cas6 0ivision,
is not6in/ but a proper delineation of duties and responsibilities. 5etitioner
concludes t6at sub(ect e,ployees are not ,ana/erial e,ployees but
supervisors. Even assu,in/ t6at t6ey are conAdential e,ployees, t6ere is no
le/al pro6ibition a/ainst conAdential e,ployees w6o are not perfor,in/
,ana/erial functions to for, and (oin a union.
ISS$E
=:% 0epart,ent Mana/ers, 3ssistant Mana/ers, 7ranc6 Mana/ersH:ICs,
Cas6iers and Controllers of respondent 7an8 are ,ana/erial andHor
conAdential e,ployees, 6ence ineli/ible to (oin or assist t6e union of
petitioner
&$LI%<
0epart,ent Mana/ers, 3ssistant Mana/ers, 7ranc6 Mana/ersH:ICs, Cas6iers
and Controllers are supervisory e,ployees. ;owever, in t6is particular case,
t6e 7ranc6 Mana/ersH:ICs, Cas6iers and Controllers are considered as
conAdential e,ployees. In eGect, 0epart,ent Mana/ers and 3ssistant
Mana/ers are not disKualiAed, w6ile t6e 7ranc6 Mana/ersH:ICs, Cas6iers and
Controllers are disKualiAed, fro, (oinin/ or assistin/ petitioner $nion, or
(oinin/, assistin/ or for,in/ any ot6er labor or/ani+ation. 7ut t6is rulin/
s6ould be understood to apply only to t6e present case based on t6e
evidence of t6e parties, as well as to t6ose si,ilarly situated. It s6ould not be
understood in any way to apply to ban8s in /eneral.
7ranc6 Mana/ers, Cas6iers and Controllers of respondent 7an8 are not
,ana/erial e,ployees but supervisory e,ployees. '6e Andin/ of public
respondent t6at ban8 policies are laid down andHor e9ecuted t6rou/6 t6e
collective action of t6ese e,ployees is si,ply erroneous. ;is discussion on
t6e division of t6eir duties and responsibilities does not lo/ically lead to t6e
conclusion t6at t6ey are ,ana/erial e,ployees, as t6e ter, is deAned in 3rt.
212, par. B,C.
&.3. 4)12 providesE
3rt. 212 B,C J Managerial employee is one w6o is vested wit6
powers or prero/atives to lay down and e9ecute ,ana/e,ent
policies andHor to 6ire, transfer, suspend, lay-oG, recall,
disc6ar/e, assi/n or discipline e,ployees. Supervisory
e,ployees are t6ose w6o, in t6e interest of t6e e,ployer,
eGectively reco,,end suc6 ,ana/erial actions, if t6e e9ercise
of suc6 ,ana/erial aut6ority is not routinary in nature but
reKuires t6e use of independent (ud/,ent. All employees not
fallin/ wit6in any of t6e above deAnitions are considered ran8-
and-Ale e,ployees.
14
'6e /rave abuse of discretion co,,itted by public respondent BSecretary of
LaborC is at once apparent. 3rt. 212, par. B,C, of t6e Labor Code is e9plicit. 3
,ana/erial e,ployee is BaC one w6o is vested wit6 powers or prero/atives to
lay down and e9ecute ,ana/e,ent policies, or to 6ire, transfer, suspend, lay
oG, recall, disc6ar/e, assi/n or discipline e,ployeesI or BbC one w6o is vested
wit6 bot6 powers or prero/atives. 3 supervisory e,ployee is diGerent fro, a
,ana/erial e,ployee in t6e sense t6at t6e supervisory e,ployee, in t6e
interest of t6e e,ployer, efectively recommends suc6 ,ana/erial actions, if
t6e e9ercise of suc6 ,ana/erial aut6ority is not routinary in nature but
reKuires t6e use of independent (ud/,ent.
Citin/ t6e /eneral duties and responsibilities of a 7ranc6 Mana/erH:IC,
Cas6ier and Controller, it is clear t6at sub(ect e,ployees do not participate in
policy-,a8in/ but are /iven approved and establis6ed policies to e9ecute
and standard practices to observe,

leavin/ little or no discretion at all
w6et6er to i,ple,ent said policies or not. It is t6e nature of t6e e,ployee?s
functions, and not t6e no,enclature or title /iven to 6is (ob, w6ic6
deter,ines w6et6er 6e 6as ran8-and-Ale, supervisory or ,ana/erial status.
%eit6er do t6e 7ranc6 Mana/ers, Cas6iers and Controllers 6ave t6e power to
6ire, transfer, suspend, lay oG, recall, disc6ar/e, assi/n or discipline
e,ployees. Clearly, t6ose o@cials or e,ployees possess only
reco,,endatory powers sub(ect to evaluation, review and Anal action by
6i/6er o@cials.
'6e positions of 0epart,ent Mana/ers and 3ssistant Mana/ers were also
declared by public respondent as ,ana/erial, wit6out providin/ any basis
t6erefor. '6ey are not. Li8e 7ranc6 Mana/ers, Cas6iers and Controllers,
0epart,ent Mana/ers do not possess t6e power to lay down policies nor to
6ire, transfer, suspend, lay oG, recall, disc6ar/e, assi/n or discipline
e,ployees. '6ey occupy supervisory positions, c6ar/ed wit6 t6e duty a,on/
ot6ers to Sreco,,end proposals to i,prove and strea,line operations. =it6
respect to 3ssistant Mana/ers, t6ere is absolutely no evidence sub,itted to
substantiate public respondent?s Andin/ t6at t6ey are ,ana/erial
e,ployeesI understandably so, because t6is position is not included in t6e
appeal of respondent 7an8.
'6e clai, of respondent 7an8 t6at 7ranc6 Mana/ersH:ICs, Ca6iers and
Controllers are conAdential e,ployees is not even disputed by petitioner. 3
conAdential e,ployee is one entrusted wit6 conAdence on delicate ,atters,
or wit6 t6e custody, 6andlin/, or care and protection of t6e e,ployer?s
property. =6ile 3rt. 2-2 of t6e Labor Code sin/les out ,ana/erial e,ployees
as ineli/ible to (oin, assist or for, any labor or/ani+ation, under t6e doctrine
of necessary implication, conAdential e,ployees are si,ilarly disKualiAed.
1)
'6is doctrine states t6at w6at is i,plied in a statute is as ,uc6 a part
t6ereof as t6at w6ic6 is e9pressed.
:ne of t6e rules of statutory construction used to All in t6e /ap is t6e
doctrine of necessary i,plicationE SEvery statute is understood, by
i,plication, to contain all suc6 provisions as ,ay be necessary to eGectuate
its ob(ect and purpose, or to ,a8e eGective ri/6ts, powers, privile/es or
(urisdiction w6ic6 it /rants, includin/ all suc6 collateral and subsidiary
conseKuences as ,ay be fairly and lo/ically inferred fro, its ter,s.S Ex
necessitate legis.
In t6e collective bar/ainin/ process, ,ana/erial e,ployees are supposed to
be on t6e side of t6e e,ployer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it
t6at its interests are well protected. '6e e,ployer is not assured of suc6
protection if t6ese e,ployees t6e,selves are union ,e,bers. Collective
bar/ainin/ in suc6 a situation can beco,e one-sided. It is t6e sa,e reason
t6at i,pelled t6is Court to consider t6e position of conAdential e,ployees as
included in t6e disKualiAcation found in 3rt. 2-2 as if t6e disKualiAcation of
conAdential e,ployees were written in t6e provision. If conAdential
e,ployees could unioni+e in order to bar/ain for advanta/es for t6e,selves,
t6en t6ey could be /overned by t6eir own ,otives rat6er t6an t6e interest of
t6e e,ployers. Moreover, unioni+ation of conAdential e,ployees for t6e
purpose of collective bar/ainin/ would ,ean t6e e9tension of t6e law to
persons or individuals w6o are supposed to act Sin t6e interest ofS t6e
e,ployers. ConAdential e,ployees ,ay beco,e t6e source of undue
advanta/e.
1"
[G.R. No. 108855. February 28, 1996]
METROLAB IN!"TRIE", IN#., petitioner, vs. $ONORABLE MA. NIE%E"
ROLAN&#ONFE"OR, '( )er *a+a*',y a- "e*re,ary o. ,)e e+ar,/e(, o. Labor
a(0 E/+1oy/e(, a(0 METRO R!G #OR2ORATION EM2LO3EE" A""O#IATION&
FEERATION OF FREE 4OR5ER", respondents.
"3LLAB!"
1. LABOR AN "O#IAL LEGI"LATION6 TERMINATION OF EM2LO3MENT6
E7ER#I"E OF MANAGEMENT 2REROGATI%E"6 NOT AB"OL!TE6
"!B8E#T TO E7#E2TION" IM2O"E B3 LA4. & This Court recogni&es the
e/ercise of management prerogatives and often declines to interfere "ith the
legitimate usiness decisions of the employer. 'o"ever! this privilege is not
asolute ut su)ect to limitations imposed y la". #n PAL vs. NLRC, (225 SC14
567 87995:)! "e issued this reminder$ ... the e/ercise of management
prerogatives "as never considered oundless. Thus! in Cruz vs. Medina (7;;
SC14 565 879<9:)! it "as held that management2s prerogatives must e "ithout
ause of discretion ...All this points to the conclusion that the exercise o
!ana"erial prero"atives is not unli!ited. #t is circu!scri$ed $% li!itations ound
in la&, a collective $ar"ainin" a"ree!ent, or the "eneral principles o air pla%
and 'ustice ((niversit% o )to. *o!as v. NLRC, 796 SC14 ;=< 87996:).
2. I.6 I.6 I.6 I.6 I.6 #A"E AT BAR AN E7#E2TION. & The case at ench
constitutes one of the e/ceptions. The Secretary of Laor is e/pressly given the
po"er under the Laor Code to assume )urisdiction and resolve laor disputes
involving industries indispensale to national interest. The disputed in)unction is
susumed under this special grant of authority. 4rt. >?5 (g) of the Laor Code
specifically provides that$ / / / (g) %hen! in his opinion! there e/ists a laor
dispute causing or li-ely to cause a stri-e or loc-out in an industry indispensale
to the national interest! the Secretary of Laor and @mployment may assume
)urisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission
for compulsory aritration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect
of automatically en)oining the intended or impending stri-e or loc-out as specified
in the assumption or certification order. #f one has already ta-en place at the
time of assumption or certification! all stri-ing or loc-ed out employees shall
immediately return to "or- and the employer shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all "or-ers under the same terms and conditions
prevailing efore the stri-e or loc-out. The Secretary of Laor and @mployment
or the Commission may see- the assistance of la" enforcement agencies to
ensure compliance "ith this provision as &ell as &ith such orders as he !a%
issue to enorce the sa!e. . . . That *etrola2s usiness is of national interest is
not disputed. *etrola is one of the leading manufacturers and suppliers of
medical and pharmaceutical products to the country. *etrola2s management
prerogatives! therefore! are not eing un)ustly curtailed ut duly alanced "ith
1!
and tempered y the limitations set y la"! ta-ing into account its special
character and the particular circumstances in the case at ench.
3. I.6 LABOR RELATION"6 INELIGIBILIT3 OF MANAGERIAL EM2LO3EE" TO
8OIN, FORM AN A""I"T AN3 LABOR ORGANI9ATION6 2RO$IBITION
E7TENE TO #ONFIENTIAL EM2LO3EE". & 4lthough 4rticle >A= of the
Laor Code limits the ineligiility to )oin! form and assist any laor organi&ation to
managerial employees! )urisprudence has e/tended this prohiition to
confidential employees or those "ho y reason of their positions or nature of
"or- are re.uired to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees
and hence! are li-e"ise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.
4. I.6 I.6 E7#L!"ION OF #ONFIENTIAL EM2LO3EE" FROM T$E RAN5
AN FILE BARGAINING !NIT6 NOT TANTAMO!NT TO I"#RIMINATION.
& Confidential employees cannot e classified as ran- and file. 4s previously
discussed! the nature of employment of confidential employees is .uite distinct
from the ran- and file! thus! "arranting a separate category. @/cluding
confidential employees from the ran- and file argaining unit! therefore! is not
tantamount to discrimination.
NAT7RE' 5etition for Certiorari under &ule 42 for t6e annul,ent of t6e &esolution
and :,nibus &esolution of t6e Secretary of Labor U E,ploy,ent
ACTS'
Private respondent *etro 0rug Corporation @mployees 4ssociation-+ederation of +ree %or-ers
(hereinafter referred to as the Union) is a laor organi&ation representing the ran- and file
employees of petitioner *etrola #ndustries! #nc. (hereinafter referred to as *etrola,*##) and
also of *etro 0rug! #nc.
Bn 57 0ecemer 7996! the Collective Cargaining 4greement (CC4) et"een *etrola and the
Union e/pired. The negotiations for a ne" CC4! ho"ever! ended in a deadloc-.
Conse.uently! on >5 4ugust 7997! the Union filed a notice of stri-e against *etrola and *etro
0rug #nc. The parties failed to settle their dispute despite the conciliation efforts of the 3ational
Conciliation and *ediation Coard.
To contain the escalating dispute! the then Secretary of Laor and @mployment! 1uen 0.
Torres! issued an assumption order dated >6 Septemer 7997 assuming )urisdiction over the
entire laor dispute at *etrola! and accordingly! strictly en)oining any stri-e or loc-out.
+urthermore! directing the Union to cease and desist from committing any and all acts that
might e/acerate the situation.
Bn 0ecemer >;! 7997! the Laor Secretary issued an order resolving all the disputed items in
the CC4 and ordered the parties involved to e/ecute a ne" CC4. 'o"ever! the Union filed a
motion for reconsideration. %hile the motion "as still pending! *etrola laid off 9A of its ran-
21
and file employees. Bn the same date! the Union filed a motion for a cease and desist order to
en)oin *etrola from implementing the mass layoff! alleging that such act violated the
prohiition against committing acts that "ould e/acerate the dispute as specifically stated in
the assumption order.
Bn the other hand! *etrola contended that the layoff "as temporary and in the e/ercise of its
management prerogative. #t maintained that the company "ould suffer a yearly gross revenue
loss of appro/imately ??* due to "ithdra"als of its principals.
Bn 4pril 7A! 799>! 4cting Laor Secretary Confesor issued a 1esolution declaring the layoff of
*etrola2s 9A ran- and file "or-ers illegal and ordered their reinstatement "ith full ac-"ages.
*etrola filed a Partial *otion for 1econsideration alleging that the layoff did not aggravate the
dispute since no unto"ard incident occurred as a result thereof.
4fter e/haustive negotiations! the parties entered into a ne" CC4. The e/ecution! ho"ever! "as
"ithout pre)udice to the outcome of the issues raised in the motions filed y *etrola.
Pending the resolution of the aforesaid motions! *etrola laid off ;5 of its employees on
grounds of redundancy due to lac- of "or- "hich the Union promptly opposed. The Laor
Secretary again issued a cease and desist order "hich *etrola moved for a reconsideration.
#n Danuary 7995! the Laor Secretary issued the assailed Bmnius 1esolution denying the
partial motion for reconsideration for the first mass layoff of 9A employees! and the motion for
reconsideration for the second "ave of layoff affecting the ;5 employees! a(0 .'(a11y ru1e0 ,)a,
e:e*u,';e -e*re,ar'e- are e:*1u0e0 .ro/ ,)e *1o-e0&-)o+ +ro;'-'o( o. ,)e #BA, (o, .ro/
,)e bar<a'('(< u(',.
The Union filed a motion for e/ecution! "hich the *etrola opposed. 'ence! the present petition
for certiorari "ith application for issuance of T1B.
I""!E o( LABOR RELATION" =T)ere '- (o -+e*'.'* .a*,- .or ,)e e:*1u-'o(- e:*e+, .or ,)e
"#>- 0'-*u--'o( o( #BA? @
%B3 e/ecutive secretaries are confidential employees "ho should not only e e/empted from
the closed-shop provision ut should e e/cluded from the memership in the argaining unit of
the ran- and file employees.
R!LING@
3E". 4lthough 4rticle >A= of the Laor Code limits the ineligiility to )oin! form and assist any
laor organi&ation to managerial employees! )urisprudence has e/tended this prohiition to
confidential employees or those "ho y reason of their positions or nature of "or- are re.uired
21
to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence! are li-e"ise privy to
sensitive and highly confidential records.
The rationale ehind the e/clusion of confidential employees from the argaining unit of the
ran- and file employees and their dis.ualification to )oin any laor organi&ation "as succinctly
discussed in Philips #ndustrial +evelop!ent v. NLRC! "here the Court ruled that confidential
employees! y the very nature of their functions! assist and act in a confidential capacity to! or
have access to confidential matters of! persons "ho e/ercise managerial functions in the field of
laor relations. 4s such! the rationale ehind the ineligiility of managerial employees to form!
assist or )oin a laor union e.ually applies to them.
+inally! confidential employees cannot e classified as ran- and file. 4s previously discussed!
the nature of employment of confidential employees is .uite distinct from the ran- and file! thus!
"arranting a separate category. @/cluding confidential employees from the ran- and file
argaining unit! therefore! is not tantamount to discrimination.
4$EREFORE! premises considered! the petition is partially E143T@0. The resolutions of
pulic respondent Secretary of Laor dated 7A 4pril 799> and >= Danuary 7995 are herey
*B0#+#@0 to the e/tent that e/ecutive secretaries of petitioner *etrolaFs Eeneral *anager
and the e/ecutive secretaries of the memers of its *anagement Committee are e/cluded from
the argaining unit of petitionerFs ran- and file employees.
22
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), vs. THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR
G.R. No. L-22228 Febr!r" 2#, $%&%
FACTS'
PAFLU pray for writs of certiorari and prohibition to restrain the Secretary of Labor, the Director of Labor
Relations and the Registrar of Labor Organizations, from enforcing an order of cancellation of the
registration certificate of the Social Secrity System !mployees Association "SSS!A# which is affiliated to
the PAFLU as well as to annl all proceedings in connection with said cancellation and to prohibit
respondents from enforcing Section $% of Repblic Act &o' ()*' PAFLU, li+ewise, filed a writ of
preliminary in,nction pending the final determination of this case'
On September $*, -./%, the Registration of Labor Organizations "Registrar# issed a notice of hearing, on
October -), -./%, of the matter of cancellation of the registration of the SSS!A, becase of0
-' Failre to frnish the 1rea of Labor Relations with copies of the reports on the finances of that nion
dly 2erified by affida2its which its treasrer or treasrers rendered to said nion and its members
co2ering the periods from September $3, -./4 to September $%, -./- and September $3, -./- to
September $%, -./$, inclsi2e, within si5ty days of the $ respecti2e latter dates, which are the end of its
fiscal year6 and
$' Failre to sbmit to this office the names, postal addresses and non7sb2ersi2e affida2its of the officers
of that nion within si5ty days of their election in October "-st Snday#, -./- and -./%, in conformity with
Article 89 "-# of its constittion and by7laws'
in 2iolation of Section $% of Repblic Act &o' ()*' :onsel for the SSS!A mo2ed to postpone the hearing
to October $-, -./%, and to sbmit then a memorandm, as well as the docments specified in the notice'
;he motion was granted, bt, nobody appeared for the SSS!A on the date last mentioned' ;he ne5t day,
October $$, -./%, <anel 9illagracia, Assistant Secretary of the SSS!A filed with the Office of the
Registrar, a letter dated October $-, -./%, enclosing the following0
-' =oint non7sb2ersi2e affida2it of the officers of the SSS !mployees> Association7PAFLU6
$' List of newly7elected officers of the Association in its general elections held on April $., -./%6 and
%' :opy of the amended constittion and by7laws of the Association'
?olding
-' ;hat the ,oint non7sb2ersi2e affida2it and the list of officers mentioned in the letter of <r' <anel
9illagracia were not the docments referred to in the notice of hearing and made the sb,ect matter of the
present proceeding6 and
$' ;hat there is no iota of e2idence on records to show and@or warrant the dismissal of the present
proceeding'
On October $%, -./%, the Registrar rendered a decision cancelling the SSS!A>s Registration :ertificate &o'
-78P-/., issed on September %4, -./4' On October $(, -./%, Alfredo Fa,ardo, president of the SSS!A
mo2ed for a reconsideration of said decision and prayed for time, p to &o2ember -*, within which to
sbmit the reAisite papers and data' An opposition thereto ha2ing been filed by one Palino !sceta, a
member of the SSS!A, pon the grond that the latter had ne2er sbmitted any financial statement to its
members, said motion was heard on &o2ember $), -./%' SbseAently, or on December 3, -./%, the
Registrar issed an order declaring that the SSS!A had Bfailed to sbmit the following reAirements to
wit0
-' &on7sb2ersi2e affida2its of <essrs' ;eodoro Sison, Alfonso Atienza, Rodolfo Calameda, Raymndo
Sabino and &apoleon Pefianco who were elected along with others on =anary %4, -./$'
$' &ames, postal addresses and non7sb2ersi2e affida2its of all the officers who were spposedly elected
on October "-st Snday#, of its constittion and by7laws'
and granting the SSS!A -* days from notice to comply with said reAirements, as well as meanwhile
holding in abeyance the resoltion of its motion for reconsideration'
2
ISSUES'
($.)DO& section $% of RA &o'()* 2iolates their freedom of assembly and association and is inconsistent
with the UD?R6
(2.)DO& Secretary of Labor ha2e acted withot or in e5cess of ,risdiction and with gra2e abse of
discretion in promlgating, on &o2ember -., -./%, its decision dated October $$, -./%, beyond the %47
day period pro2ided in Section $%"c# of Repblic Act &o' ()*6
((.)DO& the cancellation of the SSS!A>s certificate of registration wold case irreparable in,ry'
RULING'
($.)Section $% does not impinge pon the right of organization garanteed in the Declaration of ?man
Rights, or rn conter to Articles $, 3, ) and Section $ of Article ( of the 8LO7:on2ention &o' (), which
pro2ide that Bwor+ers and employers, ''' shall ha2e the right to establish and ''' ,oin organizations of their
own choosing, withot pre2ios athorizationB6 that Bwor+ers and employers organizations shall not be
liable to be dissol2ed or sspended by administrati2e athorityB6 that Bthe acAisition of legal personality
by wor+ers> and employers> organizations, ''' shall not be made sb,ect to conditions of sch a character as
to restrict the application of the pro2isionsB abo2e mentioned6 and that Bthe garantees pro2ided for inB
said :on2ention shall not be impaired by the law of the land'
8n B.S.P. v. Araos,

it is held that there is no incompatibility between Repblic Act &o' ()* and the
Uni2ersal Declaration of ?man Rights'
(2.)8t is tre that the e5ercise of the Secretary>s power nder the Act necessarily in2ol2es
the determination of some Aestion of fact, sch as the e5istence of the stream and its pre2ios na2igable
character6 bt these fnctions, whether ,dicial or Aasi7,dicial, are merely incidental to the e5ercise of
the power granted by law to clear na2igable streams of nathorized obstrctions or encroachments,
and athorities are clear that they are 2alidly conferable pon e5ecti2e officials pro2ided the party
affected is gi2en opportnity to be heard, as is e5pressly reAired by Repblic Act &o' $4*/, section $'
8t shold be noted also, that, admittedly, the SSS!A had not filed the non7sb2ersi2e affida2its of some of
its officers E B<essrs' Sison, ;olentino, Atienza, Calameda, Sabino and PefiancaB E althogh said
organization a2ers that these persons Bwere either resigned or ot on lea2e as directors or officers of the
nionB, withot specifying who had resigned and who were on lea2e' ;his a2erment is, moreo2er,
contro2erted by respondents herein'
;he %47day period in2o+ed by the petitioners is inapplicable to the decision complained of' Said period is
prescribed in paragraph "c#

of Section $%, which refers to the proceedings for the BregistrationB of labor
organizations, associations or nions not to the BcancellationB of said registration'
Legal pro2isions prescribing the period within which a decision shold be rendered are directory, not
mandatory in natre E in the sense that, a ,dgment promlgated after the e5piration of said period is not
nll and 2oid, althogh the officer who failed to comply with law may be dealt with administrati2ely, in
conseAence of his delay

E nless the intention to the contrary is manifest' Sch, howe2er, is not the
import of said paragraph "c#' 8n the langage of 1lac+0 Dhen a statte specifies the time at or within
which an act is to be done by a pblic officer or body, it is generally held to be directory only as to the
time, and not mandatory, nless time is of the essence of the thing to be done, or the langage of the
statte contains negati2e words, or shows that the designation of the time was intended as a limitation of
power, athority or right'
;here is no law reAiring the appro2al, by the Secretary of Labor, of the decision of the Registrar
decreeing the cancellation of a registration certificate' 8n fact, the langage of paragraph "d# of Section $%,
sggests that, once the conditions therein specified are present, the office concerned BshallB ha2e no
choice bt to isse the order of cancellation' <oreo2er, in the case at bar, there is nothing, as yet, for the
Secretary of Labor to appro2e or disappro2e, since petitioners, motion for reconsideration of the
Registrar>s decision of October $%, -./%, is still pending resoltion' 8n fact, this circmstance shows, not
only that the present action is prematre, bt, also, that petitioners ha2e failed to e5hast the
administrati2e remedies a2ailable to them'
-$
8ndeed, they cold as+ the Secretary of Labor to disappro2e
the Registrar>s decision or ob,ect to its e5ection or enforcement, in the absence of appro2al of the former,
if the same were necessary, on which we need not and do not e5press any opinion'
2-
((.);he cancellation of the SSS!A>s registration certificate wold not entail a dissoltion of said
association or its sspension' ;he e5istence of the SSS!A wold not be affected by said cancellation,
althogh its ,ridical personality and its stattory rights and pri2ileges E as distingished from those
conferred by the :onstittion E wold be sspended thereby'
22
G.R. %o.L---!2-!! January 20, 1990
TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES UNION-CGW vs. TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC.
FACTS: January 2, 1968, the rank and fle workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market
Incorporated, referred to herein as respondent company, organized a local union called the
Tropical Hut Employees Union, known for short as the THEU, elected their ofcers, adopted
their constitution and by-laws and immediately sought afliation with the National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU). On January 3, 1968, the NATU accepted the THEU
application for afliation. Following such afliation with NATU, Registration Certifcate No.
5544-IP was issued by the Department of Labor in the name of the Tropical Hut Employees
Union NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was not
registered with the Department of Labor.
Collective Bargaining Agreement was concluded between the parties on April 1, 1968, the
term of which expired on March 31, 1971.
Sec. 1. The COMPANY recognizes the UNION as the sole and exclusive collective
bargaining agent for all its workers and employees in all matters concerning wages, hours of
work, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Sec. 1 . . . Employees who are already members of the UNION at the time of the signing
of this Agreement or who become so thereafter shall be required to maintain their
membership therein as a conditionof continued employment. xxx
Sec. 3Any employee who is expelled from the UNION for joining another federation or
forming another union, or who fails or refuses to maintain his membership therein as
required, . . . shall, upon written request of the UNION be discharged by the COMPANY.
May 21, 1971, respondent company and THEU-NATU entered into a new Collective
Bargaining Agreement which ended on March 31, 1974. This new CBA incorporated the
previous union-shop security clause and the attached checkof authorization form.
NATU received a letter dated December 15, 1973, jointly signed by the incumbent ofcers of
the local union informing the NATU that THEU was disafliating 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 latters disafliation from the NATU and its
afliation with the Confederation of General Workers (CGW). The letter was passed around
among the members of the THEU-NATU, to which around one hundred and thirtyseven
24
(137) signatures appeared as having given their consent to and acknowledgment of the
decision to disafliate the THEU from the NATU.
so-called THEU-CGW held its annual election of ofcers, with Jose Encinas elected as
President. On January 3, 1974, Encinas, in his capacity as THEU-CGW President, informed
the respondent company of the result of the elections. On January 9, 1974, Pacifco Rosal,
President of the Confederation of General Workers (CGW), wrote a letter in behalf of
complainant THEU-CGWto the respondent company demanding the remittance of the union
dues collected by the Tropical Hut Food Mart, Incorporated to the THEU-CGW, but this was
refused by the respondent company.
request made by the NATU federation to the respondent company to dismiss him (Encinas)
in view of his violation of Section 3 of Article III of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
request of NATU, respondent company applied for clearance with the Secretary of Labor to
dismiss the other ofcers and members of THEU-CGW. The company also suspended them
efective that day. NLRC Case No. LR-2521 was fled by THEU-CGW and individual
complainants against private respondents for unfair labor practices.
acting as temporary chairman, presided over the election of ofcers of the remaining THEU-
NATU in an emergency meeting pending the holding of a special election to be called at a
later date.
THEU-CGW asked the employees to afrm their membership. Some did not abidenso
theybwere informed that they will be dismissed under the CBA.
President/General Manager of respondent company, upon Dilags request, suspended
twenty four (24) workers on March 5, 1974,another thirty seven (37) on March 8, 1974 and
two (2) more on March 11, 1974, pending approval by the Secretary of Labor of the
application for their dismissal.
Labor Arbiter, Arbitrator Daniel Lucas issued an orderdated March 21, 1974, holding that the
issues raised by the parties became moot and academic with the issuance of NLRC Order
dated February 25, 1974 in NLRC Case No. LR-2670, which directed the holding of a
certifcation election among the rank and fle workers of the respondent company between
the THEU-NATU and THEUCGW. He also ordered: a) the reinstatement of all complainants;
b) for the respondent company to cease and desist from committing further acts of
dismissals without previous order from the NLRC and for the complainant Tropical Hut
Employees UNION-CGW to fle representation cases on a case to case basis during the
freedom period provided for by the existing CBA between the parties.
NLRC reversed the decision. Secretary of Labor rendered a decision afrming the fndings
of the Commission.
2)
ISSUE: 1) whether or not the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies when
they immediately elevated the case to this Court without an appeal having been made to the
Ofce of the President;
2) whether or not the disafliation of the local union from the national federation was valid;
and
3) whether or not the dismissal of petitioner employees resulting from their unions
disafliation for the mother federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor practice on the
part of respondent company and federation
RULING: 1) remedy of appeal from the Secretary of Labor to the Ofce of the President is
not a mandatory requirement before resort to courts can be had, but an optional relief
provided by law to parties seeking expeditious disposition of their labor disputes. Failure to
avail of such relief shall not in any way served as an impediment to judicial intervention. And
where the issue is lack of power or arbitrary or improvident exercise thereof, decisions of the
Secretary of Labor may be questioned in acertiorariproceeding without prior appeal to the
President.
2) local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all
its members including the freedom to disafliate when circumstances warrant. This right is
consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. All employees enjoy
the right to self organization and to form and join labor organizations of their own choosing
for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual
aid or protection. This is a fundamental right of labor that derives its existence from the
Constitution.
The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration
with the Department of Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATUs afliate at the
time of the registration. It does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its own.
Neither can it be interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue its own interests independently of
the federation. A local union owes its creation and continued existence to the will of its
members and not to the federation to which it belongs. When the local union withdrew from
the old federation to join a new federation, it was merely exercising its primary right to labor
organization for the efective enhancement and protection of common interests. In the
absence of enforceable provisions in the federations constitution preventing disafliation of
a local union a local may sever its relationship with its parent. Nothing in the constitution and
by laws of THEU NATU, prohibits the disafliation from NATU. Besides NATU is not even
recognized as a national federation.
2"
3) When the THEU disafliated from its mother federation, the former did not lose its legal
personality as the bargaining union under the CBA. Moreover, the union security clause
embodied in the agreements cannot be used to justify thedismissals meted to petitioners
since it is not applicable to the circumstances obtaining in this case. The CBA imposes
dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union for joining another federation
or for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain membership therein. The
case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of merely some employees from the union but of
the whole THEU itself from its federation. Clearly, since there is no violation of the union
security provision in theCBA, there was no sufcient ground to terminate the employment of
petitioners.
2!
I':<:%-S$D:C MI%ES, I%C.,
vs.
S3%<IL:-I':<:% =:&.E&S? $%I:%
#acts
Ito/on-Suyoc Mines t6rou/6 Claude #erti/, t6e /eneral superintendent, 6ave
been dis,issin/ e,ployees w6o are ,e,bers of t6e $nion BSan/ilo-Ito/on
$nionC. 7ecause of t6is, t6e $nion, sta/ed a stri8e acco,panied by pic8etin/,
carried out at or near t6e ,ine pre,ises. :@cers of t6e Mine and o@cers of
Ito/on Labor $nion Banot6er labor union in t6e co,panyC conferred and t6ey
6a,,ered an a/ree,ent w6ereby all stri8ers are /iven 12 days to return to
wor8 ot6erwise t6ey will be considered 3=:L Babsence wit6out leaveC, and
will be dropped fro, t6e roll.
San/ilo Aled for an unfair labor practice a/ainst t6e Co,pany, Claude #erti/,
and Ito/on Labor $nion for t6e dis,issal of 11) e,ployees due to t6eir
,e,bers6ip andHor a@liation to San/ilo and for 6avin/ testiAed or about to
testify in a certiAcation case, and also t6at t6e president of San/ilo was
dis,issed because of refusal to dissolve t6e $nion.
Ito/on-Suyoc Mines c6allen/es San/ilo?s capaciy to sue. '6ey contend t6at
San/ilo ceased to be a le/iti,ate labor union w6en t6e 0ept. of Labor
cancelled its re/istration for failure to co,ply wit6 Statutory &eKuire,ents.
Contrariwise, San/ilo avers t6at at t6e ti,e of Alin/ of t6e co,plaint, it was a
le/iti,ate labor or/ani+ation.
Issue
=:% San/ilo 6as t6e capacity to sue as a Labor $nion
&ulin/
Judicial inKuiry was ,ade by CI& on t6is issue. 3 subpoena duces tecu, was
issued to t6e re/istrar of labor or/ani+ations of t6e 0epart,ent of Labor
reKuirin/ 6i, or 6is duly aut6ori+ed representative SVtWo brin/ wit6 V6i,W t6e
followin/E B1C t6e list of ,e,bers6ip of t6e Sa>/ilo-Ito/on =or8ers? $nionI B2C
t6e revocation, if any, of t6e re/istration per,it of t6e Sa>/ilo-Ito/on
=or8ers? $nion dated Marc6 22, 1!41I and BC t6e cancellation proceedin/s
of t6e Sa>/ilo-Ito/on =or8ers? $nion w6ic6 too8 place so,eti,e in 1!41.S
3tty. %arciso #abella, t6e duly aut6ori+ed representative, answered t6e
subpoena. =it6 t6e record of t6e cancellation proceedin/s of Sa>/ilo wit6
6i,, 6e testiAed before t6e CI& 6earin/ o@cer t6at on Marc6 1, 1!41,
Sa>/ilo?s re/istration per,it V%o. 21-1-I5 issued on May 21, 1!2)W was
cancelled by t6e 0epart,ent of Labor under Cancellation 5roceedin/s
1)22I! t6at 6is o@ce t6en received a ,otion for reconsideration of said
cancellationI t6at on 3pril 2), 1!41, an order was issued advisin/ Sa>/ilo to
co,ply wit6 t6e reKuire,ent it failed to satisfy and w6ic6 was t6e cause of
1
t6e cancellation of Sa>/ilo?s per,itI t6at on Marc6 !, 1!42, Sa>/ilo Aled a
,anifestation and ,otion to lift resolution wit6 t6e reKuest t6at it be /iven
Afteen days wit6in w6ic6 to present evidence of co,plianceI t6at on Marc6
2, 1!42, an order was issued directin/ t6e union to sub,it, wit6in Afteen
days fro, notice, a copy of its Anancial report for t6e period fro, May 12,
1!2) to May 11, 1!2", sworn to by its treasurer, Ernesto 3ra/on, pursuant to
San/ilo?s constitution and by-laws and Section 1)B8C of &epublic 3ct ")2I and
t6at no Anancial report 6ad been sub,itted to t6e 0epart,ent of Labor.
3nd t6en, t6e witness testiAed as followsE
3''D. &ILLE&3 VCounsel for Sa>/iloWE
X %ow, Mr. #abella, per your records, do you 6ave t6e Anal order cancellin/
t6e per,it of t6e co,plainant union, or is t6e proceedin/ still /oin/ onY
=I'%ESS
3 3s far as t6e record is concerned, it see,s t6at t6e proceedin/ is still /oin/
on because t6ere is no ot6er order pertainin/ VtoW t6e non-sub,ittal of t6e
union of t6e Anancial report reKuired wit6in Afteen B12C days.
So it is, t6at t6ere is no order Anal in c6aracter cancellin/ Sa>/ilo?s
re/istration per,it and droppin/ its na,e fro, t6e roster of le/iti,ate labor
unions. San/ilo?s status does not appear in t6e record to 6ave c6an/ed.
'6erefore, Sa>/ilo still en(oys all t6e ri/6ts accorded by law to a le/iti,ate
labor union. :ne of t6ose ri/6ts is t6e ri/6t to sue.
Even assu,in/ t6at Sa>/ilo later lost its re/istration per,it in t6e course of
t6e present proceedin/s, still Sa>/ilo ,ay continue as a party wit6out need
of substitution of parties, Ssub(ect 6owever to t6e understandin/ t6at
w6atever decision ,ay be rendered t6erein will only be bindin/ upon t6ose
,e,bers of t6e union w6o 6ave not si/niAed t6eir desire to wit6draw fro,
t6e case before its trial and decision on t6e ,erits.S
&eally, we perceive of no reason w6y t6e (ud/,ent in favor of t6e Afteen
individual respondent laborers s6ould be overturned si,ply because t6e
union of w6ic6 t6ey were ,e,bers ceased to be a le/iti,ate labor union. It
cannot be disputed t6at CI&?s prosecutor brou/6t t6is case not ,erely for
Sa>/iloI it was also on be6alf of t6e 11) e,ployees enu,erated t6erein. '6is
accounts for t6e fact t6at CI&?s (ud/,ent for reinstate,ent and bac8pay was
rendered in favor of t6e Afteen respondent laborers. 'o accept petitioner?s
ar/u,ent as valid is to s6unt aside substance to /ive way to for,. Error, if
any, was 6ar,less. It does not aGect t6e substantial ri/6ts of t6e parties in
interest. It is no /round for reversal. 3t t6is sta/e t6is Court ,ay even stri8e
out Sa>/ilo-Ito/on =or8ers? $nion and leave t6e Afteen individual
respondents alone.
1
UST +aculty Union vs. Citonio E1 3B. 757>5=
+acts$
4ppellees *arino et. al. are duly elected officers of the UST +aculty Union. Thru the
Secretary Eeneral! a general assemly "as held and ne" officers "ere elected. The election
pushed through even "ithout a Committee on @lections as re.uired y the Constitution and Cy-
La"s of the union. 4lso! present in the election are non-union memers and the manner of
voting "as done through acclamation and clapping of the hands. The election of the ne"
officers "as made through a motion of 4tty. Lope&! a non-union memer! that the constitution
and y-la"s e suspended so that the election e held on that day. 4ccusing appellants of
usurpation(of duties)! appellees characteri&ed the election as spurious for eing violative of
UST+UFs CCL and that there "as a violation of 76-day notice rule and the supposed elections
"ere conducted "ithout a CB*@L@C eing constituted y the Coard of Bfficers. Citonio! as
director of the ureau of laor relations held that the election is void since it "as not done in
accordance "ith the union2s constitution and y-la"s.
#ssue$ %hether or not the election is valid.
'eld$
7. 3B.
4 union election is held pursuant to the unionFs constitution and yla"s! and the right to
vote in it is en)oyed only y union !e!$ers. 4 union election should e distinguished from a
certification election! "hich is the process of determining! through secret allot! the sole and
e/clusive argaining agent of the employees in the appropriate argaining unit! for purposes of
collective argaining. Specifically! the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain "hether
or not a ma)ority of the employees "ish to e represented y a laor organi&ation and! in the
affirmative case! y &hich particular laor organi&ation.
#n oth elections! there are procedures to e follo"ed. Thus! the election mentioned in
the aove case cannot properly e called a union election! ecause the procedure laid do"n in
the UST+UFs CCL for the election of officers "as not follo"ed. #t could not have een a
certification election either! ecause representation "as not the issue! and the proper procedure
for such election "as not follo"ed. The participation of non-union memers in the election
aggravated its irregularity.
The privilege of determining "ho the union officers "ill e elongs e/clusively to the
memers of the union. Said privilege is e/ercised in an election proceeding in accordance "ith
the unionFs CCL and applicale la".
%e agree "ith the solicitor generalFs oservation that Gthe act of suspending the
constitution "hen the .uestioned election "as held is an implied admission that the election
held on that date could not e considered valid under the e/isting UST+U constitutionH.
#15
Ferrer vs. NLRC
2
ALEX FERRER, RAFAEL FERRER HENRY DIAZ, DOMINGO BANCOLITA, GIL DE
GZMAN, !"# FEDERATION OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR NION$,
%FEDL&, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATION$ COMMI$$ION %$ECOND DI'I$ION&, HI (AM
CHANG %I" )*s +!,!+*-. !s Ge"er!/ M!"!0er 12 O++*#e"-!/ F13"#r. C1r,1r!-*1"&,
OCCIDENTAL FONDRY COR4ORATION, MACEDONIO $. 'ELA$CO %I" )*s
+!,!+*-. !s re,rese"-!-*ve 12 -)e Fe#er!-*1" 12 Free 51r6ers&, GENARO CA4ITLE,
7E$$ TMAGAN, ERNE$TO BARROGA, 4EDRO LLENA, GODOFREDO
4ACHECO, MARCELINO CA$TILLO, GEORGE IGNA$, 4IO DOMINGO, !"# 7AIME
BAYNADO, respondents.
F!+-s8
Petitioners were regular and permanent employees of the Occidental Foundry
Corporation (OFC). They had been in the employ of OFC for about ten (!) years at the time of
their dismissal in "#" as piece wor$ers. The %amahang &anggagawa ng Occidental Foundry
Corporation'Federation of Free (or$ers (%)&)*)+) and the OFC entered into a collective
bargaining agreement (C,)). The agreement provides that a union member who fails to retain a
membership of good standing may be dismissed by the employer upon written re-uest by the
union.
Pursuant to this provision, herein petitioners were dismissed from employment on the ground of
failure to retain membership in good standing. .t was later on found out that the dismissal was
due to an intra'union s-uabble arising out of the attempt by the petitioners to oust the elected
union officials.
/pon $nowledge of their dismissal, petitioners volunteered to be admitted as members of the
Federation of 0emocratic 1abor /nions (F201/) who represented them before the 0O12 in the
complaint for illegal dismissal against the company, %)&)*)+ and FF(.
Iss3e8
(hether or not petitioners failed to maintain membership in good standing by
committing acts of disloyalty against %)&)*)+
He/#8
+o. Petitioners sought the help of the F201/ only after they had learned of the
termination of their employment. Their alleged application with federations other than the FF(
can hardly be considered as disloyalty to the %)&)*)+, nor may the filing of such applications
denote that petitioners failed to maintain in good standing their membership in the %)&)*)+.
The %)&)*)+ is a different entity from FF(, the federation to which it belonged. +either
may it be inferred that petitioners sought disaffiliation from the FF( for petitioners had not
formed a union distinct from that of the %)&)*)+. Parenthetically, the right of a local union to
disaffiliate from a federation in the absence of any provision in the
federation3s constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union is legal. %uch right is consistent
with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.
*ence, while petitioners3 act of holding a special election to oust Capitle, et al. may be
considered as an act of sowing disunity among the %)&)*)+ members, and, perhaps,
disloyalty to the union officials, which could have been dealt with by the union as a disciplinary

matter, it certainly cannot be considered as constituting disloyalty to the union. Faced with a
%)&)*)+ leadership which they had tried to remove as officials, it was but a natural act of
self'preservation that petitioners fled to the arms of the F201/ after the union and the OFC had
tried to terminate their employment. Petitioners should not be made accountable for such an act.
(ith the passage of 4epublic )ct +o. 567 which too$ effect on &arch 8, "#", )rticle 86" of
the 1abor Code was amended to read as follows9
%ecurity of Tenure. : .n cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate
the services of an employee e;cept for a <ust cause or when authori=ed by this Title. )n
employee who is un<ustly dismissed from wor$ shall be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full bac$wages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary e-uivalent computed from the
time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
and as implemented by %ection >, 4ule # of the ""! +ew 4ules of Procedure of the +ational
1abor 4elations Commission, it would seem that the &ercury 0rug 4ule (&ercury 0rug Co.,
.nc. vs. Court of .ndustrial 4elations, 75 %C4) 5"? @"6?A) which limited the award of bac$
wages of illegally dismissed wor$ers to three (>) years Bwithout deduction or -ualificationB to
obviate the need for further proceedings in the course of e;ecution, is no longer applicable.
)s to the propriety of the dismissal, the court said that while it is true that the C,) between OFC
and the %)&)*)+ provided for the dismissal of employees who have not maintained their
membership in the union, the manner in which the dismissal was enforced left much to be
desired in terms of respect for the right of petitioners to procedural due process. %)&)*)+ did
not conduct any investigation and hearing where petitioners could have defended themselves.
&oreover, the company summarily dismissed petitioners upon re-uest of the union officers
without conducting their own investigation.
Verceles vs BLR
Facts:
Private respondents are members of UEEA and they each received a memorandum from UEEA
charging them with spreading false rumors and creating disinformation among the members of
the said association. Private respondents denied the allegations and they sent a letter to the
chairman and members of UEEA disciplinary committee informing them that the
memorandum was vague and without legal basis. Verceles, in his capacity as president of the
association through a memorandum, informed respondents that their membership in the
association has been suspended and shall take efect immediately. A complaint for illegal
suspension, unlawful violation of UEEA constitution, refusal to render fnancial reports and to
call general and special meeting was fled by the respondents against herein petitioner.
-
A decision was rendered by Regional Director Lim adverse to petitioners as they were ordered
to lift the suspension and at the same time to hold a general membership meeting and conduct
and election of ofcers.
The petitioners appealed to the BLR of DOLE and during the pendency of this appeal, an
election was held. The appeal, however was dismissed for lack of merit in a resolution.
The CA modifed the lower courts decision and annulled and set aside the election held.
Issue/s:
1.WON a 30% support requirement is needed to report violation of right and conditions of
union membership?
2.WON it is a reversible error for the court of appeals to hold the election as invalid and a
nullity?
3.WON the decision to hold meeting and submit reports contradict and override the
sovereign will of the majority?
Ruling:
1.The 30% requirement is not mandatory. A report of a violation of the rights and
conditions of membership in the labor organization may be made by at least 30% of all
the members of a union or any member or members specially concerned. The use of
permissive may in the provision at once negates the notion that the assent of 30% of all
the members is mandatory. The ofcials mentioned are given the power to act on all
inter-union and intra-union confict upon request of either or bother parties as well as at
their own initiative.
2.We cannot hold the election valid as this would make us condone an iniquitous act. Said
election was done to hinder any resolution or decision that would be made by BLR-
DOLE.
3. The obligation to hold meeting and render fnancial reports is mandated by the UEEAs
constitution and by-laws and their eventual compliance shall not release them from the
obligation to accomplish these things in the future. Prompt compliance in rendering fnancial
reports together with the holding of regular meetings with the submission of minutes with BLR
DOLE and DOLE-NCR shall negate any suspicion of dishonesty.
G.R. No. 85AAA February 26, 1990
CARMELITO L. PALACOL, ET AL., 4,. P7RA ERRER&CALLEJA, "3+)-0o+
o/ 01) !.+)a. o/ La*o+ R)9a03o#,, MANILA CC!PI SALES ORCE
7NION, a#$ COCA&COLA !OTTLERS (PAILIPPINES), INC.
ACTS'
1. Manila CC75I Sales #orce $nion B$nionC, t6e collective bar/ainin/ a/ent
of all re/ular sales,en, re/ular 6elpers, and relief 6elpers of t6e Manila
5lant and Metro Manila Sales :@ce of Coca-Cola 7ottlers B56ilippinesC,
Inc. BCo,panyC concluded a new collective bar/ainin/ a/ree,ent.
2. '6e president of t6e $nion sub,itted to t6e Co,pany,
a. '6e ratiAcation by t6e union ,e,bers of t6e new C73I and
2
b. '6e aut6ori+ation for t6e Co,pany to deduct union dues
eKuivalent to 511.11 every payday or 521.11 every ,ont6 and,
in addition, 11T by way of special assess,ent, fro, t6e C73
lu,p-su, pay /ranted to t6e union ,e,bers.
. '6e purpose of t6e special assess,ent sou/6t to be levied isE
a. 'o put up a cooperative and credit unionI
b. 'o purc6ase ve6icles and ot6er ite,s needed for t6e beneAt of
t6e o@cers and t6e /eneral ,e,bers6ipI and
c. #or t6e pay,ent for services rendered by union o@cers,
consultants and ot6ers.
-. '6e S3ut6ori+ation and C73 &atiAcationS was obtained by t6e $nion
t6rou/6 a secret referendu, 6eld in separate local ,e,bers6ip
,eetin/s.
2. Me,bers of t6e $nion sub,itted docu,ents to t6e Co,pany statin/
t6at alt6ou/6 t6ey 6ave ratiAed t6e new C73, t6ey are wit6drawin/ or
disaut6ori+in/ t6e deduction of any a,ount fro, t6eir C73 lu,p su,.
4. '6e Co,pany Aled an action for interpleader wit6 t6e 7ureau of Labor
&elations in order to resolve t6e conPictin/ clai,s of t6e parties. =6ile
t6e re/ular ran8-and-Ale e,ployees of t6e Co,pany and bona Ade
,e,bers of t6e $nion, Aled a ,otionHco,plaint for intervention,
assailin/ t6e 11T special assess,ent as a violation of 3rticle 2-1BoC in
relation to 3rticle 222BbC of t6e Labor Code.
ART. 222. Appearances and Fees.
999 999 999
BbC %o attorney?s fees, ne/otiation fees or si,ilar c6ar/es of any
8ind arisin/ fro, any collective bar/ainin/ ne/otiations or
conclusion of t6e collective a/ree,ent s6all be i,posed on any
individual ,e,ber of t6e contractin/ unionI 5rovided, 6owever,
t6at attorney?s fees ,ay be c6ar/ed a/ainst union funds in an
a,ount to be a/reed upon by t6e parties. 3ny contract,
a/ree,ent or arran/e,ent of any sort to t6e contrary s6all be
null and void.
ART. 2@1. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization.
999 999 999
BoC :t6er t6an for ,andatory activities under t6e Code, no
special assess,ents, attorney?s fees, ne/otiation fees or any
ot6er e9traordinary fees ,ay be c6ec8ed oG fro, any a,ount
due to an e,ployee wit6out an individual written aut6ori+ation
duly si/ned by t6e e,ployee. '6e aut6ori+ation s6ould
speciAcally state t6e a,ount, purpose and beneAciary of t6e
deductionI
999 999 999
BnC %o special assess,ent or ot6er e9traordinary fees ,ay be
levied upon t6e ,e,bers of a labor or/ani+ation unless
aut6ori+ed by a written resolution of a ,a(ority of all t6e
4
,e,bers at a /eneral ,e,bers6ip ,eetin/ duly called for t6e
purpose. '6e secretary of t6e or/ani+ation s6all record t6e
,inutes of t6e ,eetin/ includin/ t6e list of all ,e,bers present,
t6e votes cast, t6e purpose of t6e special assess,ent or fees and
t6e recipient of suc6 assess,ents or fees. '6e record s6all be
attested to by t6e presidentI
999 999 999
). '6e Med-3rbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, and ordered t6e Co,pany
to re,it t6e a,ount directly to t6e ran8-and-Ale personnel wit6out
delay. :n appeal to t6e 7ureau of Labor &elations, t6e order was
reversed by t6e respondent-0irector #errer-Calle(a up6oldin/ t6e clai,
of t6e $nion t6at t6e special assess,ent is aut6ori+ed under 3rticle
2-1 BnC of t6e LC, and t6at t6e $nion 6as co,plied wit6 t6e
reKuire,ents t6erein. ;ence, t6is petition.
ISS7E'
=6et6er or not a special assess,ent be validly deducted by a labor union
fro, t6e lu,p-su, pay of its ,e,bers, /ranted under a C73,
notwit6standin/ a subseKuent disaut6ori+ation of t6e sa,e by a ,a(ority of
t6e union ,e,bers. --- %:.
R7LING'
'6e deduction of t6e 11T special assess,ent by t6e $nion was not
,ade in accordance wit6 t6e reKuire,ents provided by law. '6e applicable
provisions are clear. 5ara/rap6 BnC refers to SlevyS w6ile para/rap6 BoC refers
to Sc6ec8-oGS of a special assess,ent. 7ot6 provisions ,ust be co,plied
wit6.
$nder para/rap6 BnC, t6e $nion ,ust sub,it to t6e Co,pany a written
resolution of a ,a(ority of all t6e ,e,bers at a /eneral ,e,bers6ip ,eetin/
duly called for t6e purpose. '6e secretary of t6e or/ani+ation ,ust record
t6e ,inutes of t6e ,eetin/, includin/ t6e list of all t6e ,e,bers present as
well as t6e votes cast. ;owever, t6e $nion failed to co,ply wit6 t6e
reKuire,ents of para/rap6 BnC. It 6eld local ,e,bers6ip ,eetin/s on
separate occasions and at various venues, contrary to t6e e9press
reKuire,ent t6at t6ere ,ust be a /eneral ,e,bers6ip ,eetin/. It sub,itted
only ,inutes of t6e local ,e,bers6ip ,eetin/s w6en w6at is reKuired is a
written resolution adopted at t6e /eneral ,eetin/. '6e ,inutes were
recorded by a union director and not by t6e union secretary. 3lso, it
contained no list of t6e ,e,bers present and no record of t6e votes cast.
'6e $nion did not co,ply wit6 t6e law. '6erefore, t6ere was no valid levy of
t6e special assess,ent pursuant to para/rap6 BnC of 3rticle 2-1 of t6e LC.
5ara/rap6 BoC reKuires an individual written aut6ori+ation duly si/ned
by every e,ployee in order t6at a special assess,ent ,ay be validly
)
c6ec8ed-oG. '6ere can be no valid c6ec8-oG considerin/ t6at t6e ,a(ority of
t6e union ,e,bers 6ad already wit6drawn t6eir individual aut6ori+ations. 3
wit6drawal of individual aut6ori+ations is eKuivalent to no aut6ori+ation at
all.
'6e $nion contends t6at t6e disaut6ori+ations are not valid for bein/
collective in for,. '6e contention 6as no ,erit because t6e docu,ents
containin/ t6e disaut6ori+ations 6ave t6e si/natures of t6e union ,e,bers.
'6e Court Ands t6ese retractions to be valid. '6ere is not6in/ in t6e law
w6ic6 reKuires t6at t6e disaut6ori+ation ,ust be in individual for,.
It is well-settled t6at Sall doubts in t6e i,ple,entation and
interpretation of t6e provisions of t6e LCRs6all be resolved in favor of labor.S
Labor in t6is case refers to t6e union ,e,bers, as e,ployees of t6e
Co,pany. '6e Co,pany is ordered to re,it 51.2M to t6e union ,e,bers
fro, w6o, t6e said a,ount was wit66eld.
"
5;ILI55I%E 0I3M:%0 ;:'EL 3%0 &ES:&', I%C. BM3%IL3 0I3M:%0 ;:'ELC v.
M3%IL3 0I3M:%0 ;:'EL EM5L:DEES $%I:% C3SE 0I<ES'
#3C'SE
'6e 0ia,ond ;otel E,ployee?s $nion Bt6e unionC Aled a petition for
CertiAcation Election before t6e 0:LE-%ational Capital &e/ion B%C&C see8in/
certiAcation as t6e e9clusive bar/ainin/ representative of its ,e,bers. '6e 0:LE-
%C& denied said petition as it failed to co,ply wit6 t6e le/al reKuire,ents. '6e
$nion later notiAed petitioner 6otel of its intention to ne/otiate for collective
bar/ainin/ a/ree,ent BC73C. '6e ;u,an &esource 0epart,ent of 0ia,ond ;otel
re(ected t6e notice and advised t6e union since it was not certiAed by t6e 0:LE as
t6e e9clusive bar/ainin/ a/ent, it could not be reco/ni+ed as suc6.
Since t6ere was a failure to settle t6e dispute re/ardin/ t6e bar/ainin/
capability of t6e union, t6e union went on to Ale a notice of stri8e due to unfair labor
pracritce B$L5C in t6at t6e 6otel refused to bar/ain wit6 it and t6e ran8-and-Ale
e,ployees were bein/ 6arassed and prevented fro, (oinin/ it. In t6e ,eanti,e,
.i,po Aled a co,plaint for $L5 a/ainst petitioner 6otel. 3fter several conferences,
t6e union suddenly went on stri8e.
'6e followin/ day, t6e %ational $nion of =or8ers in t6e ;otel, &estaurant and
3llied Industries B%$=;&3I%C (oined t6e stri8e and openly e9tended its support to
t6e union. '6e so,e of t6e entrances were bloc8ed by t6e stri8in/ e,ployees. '6e
%ational Labour &elations Co,,ission B%L&CC representative w6o conducted an
ocular inspection of t6e ;otel pre,ises conAr,ed in 6is &eport t6at t6e stri8ers
obstructed t6e free in/ress to and e/ress fro, t6e ;otel.

'6e %L&C t6us issued a 'e,porary &estrainin/ :rder B'&:C directin/ t6e
stri8ers to i,,ediately Scease and desist fro, obstructin/ t6e free in/ress and
e/ress fro, t6e ;otel pre,ises. 0urin/ t6e i,ple,entation of t6e order, t6e stri8in/
e,ployees resisted and so,e of t6e /uards tas8ed to re,ove t6e barricades were
in(ured. '6e %L&C declared t6at t6e stri8e was ille/al and t6at t6e union o@cers and
,e,bers w6o participated were ter,inated on t6e /rounds of participatin/ in an
ille/al stri8e. '6e union contended t6at t6e stri8e was pre,ised on valid /round and
t6at it 6ad t6e capacity to ne/otiate t6e C73 as t6e representatives of t6e
e,ployees of 0ia,ond ;otel. '6e union contended t6at t6eir dis,issal is
tanta,ount to an unfair labour practice and union bustin/.
:n appeal, t6e Court of 3ppeals a@r,ed t6e %L&C &esolution dis,issin/ t6e
co,plaints of Mary <race, 3/ustin and &owena and of t6e union. It ,odiAed t6e
%L&C resolution, 6owever, by orderin/ t6e reinstate,ent wit6 bac8 wa/es of union
,e,bers.
IssueE w6et6er or not t6e dis,issal of t6e union ,e,bers is valid on t6e /rounds of
participatin/ in an ille/al stri8e
;EL0E
even if t6e purpose of t6e stri8e is valid, t6e stri8e ,ay still be 6eld ille/al w6ere
t6e ,eans e,ployed are ille/al. '6us, t6e e,ploy,ent of violence, inti,idation,
restraint coercion in carryin/ out concerted activities w6ic6 are in(urious to t6e
!
ri/6ts to property renders a stri8e ille/al. 3nd so is pic8etin/ or t6e obstruction to
t6e free use of property or t6e co,fortable en(oy,ent of life or property. =6en
acco,panied by inti,idation, t6reats, violence, and coercion as to constitute
nuisance.
=;E&E#:&E, t6e 0ecision dated %ove,ber 21, 2112 of t6e Court of 3ppeals is, in
li/6t of t6e fore/oin/ ratiocinations, 3##I&ME0 wit6 M:0I#IC3'I:% in t6at only
t6ose ,e,bers of t6e union w6o did not co,,it ille/al acts durin/ t6e course of
t6e ille/al stri8e s6ould be reinstated but wit6out bac8wa/es. '6e case is, t6erefore,
&EM3%0E0 to t6e Labor 3rbiter, t6rou/6 t6e %L&C, w6ic6 is 6ereby directed to, wit6
dispatc6, identify said ,e,bers and to t6ereafter order petitioner to reinstate t6e,,
wit6out bac8wa/es or, in t6e alternative, if reinstate,ent is no lon/er feasible, t6at
t6ey be /iven separation pay at t6e rate of :ne B1C Mont6 pay for every year of
service.
S: :&0E&E0.
-1
General Rubber and Footwear Corp. vs. Drilon
FACTS: Some members of the Union declared a strike against Gen. Rubber, demanding the
diferential pay arising from a wage order increasing the minimum wage rate. Gen. Rubber & sto.
Domingo, Purporting to represent the striking workers, entered into a return-to-work agreement
where the Union agreed not to demand the diferential pay. Majority members of the Union ratifed
the document
ISSUE: Is the waiver agreement binding upon all the members of the Union, even those who did not
sign it?
HELD: No. Minority members cannot be bound by the return-to-work agreement. The waiver of the
money claims is a personal right. For a waiver thereof to be legally efective, the individual consent or
ratifcation of the employees involved must be shown.
-1