You are on page 1of 24

PART TWO

WORKER RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION


I. BASIS OF RIGHT
S.S. Ventures International v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union, 559 SCRA 435 !"#
Ventures is an export firm located in Bataan and is in the business of manufacturing rubbershoes. SS Ventures labor union (union), is a labor organization registered
with DO!.
"n #$$$, the %nion filed with Dole a petition for certification election in behalf of the ran& and file emplo'ees of Ventures. (here were )*# signatures, +# f which belong
to terminated Ventures emplo'ees.
Ventures filed a petition to cancel the certificate of registration of the %nion because,
(-) (he %nion deliberatel' and maliciousl' included the names of more or less +# former emplo'ees no longer connected with Ventures in its list of members who
attended the organizational meeting and in the adoption.ratification of its constitution and b'/laws held on 0anuar' 1, #$$$ in 2ari3eles, Bataan4 and the %nion forged
the signatures of these +# former emplo'ees to ma&e it appear the' too& part in the organizational meeting and adoption and ratification of the constitution4
(#) (he %nion maliciousl' twice entered the signatures of three persons namel', 2ara Santos, 5a'mond Balangbang, and 6aren 7gunos4
(8) 9o organizational meeting and ratification actuall' too& place4 and
(*) (he %nion:s application for registration was not supported b' at least #$; of the ran&/and/file emplo'ees of Ventures, or *-+ of the total #,-1</ emplo'ee
complement. Since more or less +# of the )$$ signatures were forged or in3alid, then the remaining 3alid signatures would onl' be *-+, which is 3er' much short of the
*81 minimum (#-1< total emplo'ees x #$; = *81.*) re>uired b' the abor ?ode.
%nion@s answer,
(-) the organizational meeting actuall' too& place on 0anuar' 1, #$$$ at the Shoe ?it' bas&etball court in 2ari3eles4 (#) the +# emplo'ees ad3erted to in Ventures:
petition were >ualified %nion members for, although the' ha3e been ordered dismissed, the one/'ear prescripti3e period to >uestion their dismissal had not 'et lapsed4
(8) it had complied with the #$;/member registration re>uirement since it had )*# members4 and (*) the AdoubleA signatures were inad3ertent human error.
Ventures showed affida3its showing that the +# emplo'ees were coerced into signing the minutes that an organizational meeting was held.
DO! regional director found for Ventures. "n a 2otion for 5econsideration, the B5, re3ersed DO! decision. ?7 affirmed.
"ssue, could Ventures ha3e the %nion decertified for 3iolating 7rt #81 (a) of the labor codeB (misrepresentation with regard to adoption or ratification of the union@s
constitution and li&e documents)
(he S? held, 9o.
(o decertif' a union, it is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible emplo'ees in its membership. "t must also be shown that there was misrepresentation,
false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for registration and the supporting documents, such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and b'/
laws or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or b'/laws, among other documents.
the emplo'ees: withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed 3oluntar', while withdrawal after the filing of
such petition is considered to be in3oluntar' and does not affect the same
7fter a labor organization has filed the necessar' registration documents, it becomes mandator' for the B5 to chec& if the re>uirements under 7rt. #8* of the abor
?ode ha3e been sedulousl' complied with. "f the union:s application is infected b' falsification and li&e serious irregularities, especial those appearing on the face of the
application and its attachments, a union should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. the issuance to the %nion of ?ertificate of necessaril' implies
that its application for registration and the supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from an' 3itiating irregularities.
(he assailed inclusion of the said +# indi3iduals to the meeting and proceedings ad3erted to is not reall' fatal to the %nion:s cause for, as determined b' the B5, the
allegations of falsification of signatures or misrepresentation with respect to these indi3iduals are without basis. , the procedure for ac>uiring or losing union
membership and the determination of who are >ualified or dis>ualified to be members are matters internal to the union and flow from its right to self/organization.
"n its union records on file with this Bureau, respondent union submitted the names of C)*#D members x x x. (his number easil' complied with the #$; re>uirement, be
it -,1#+ or #,#$# emplo'ees in the establishment. !3en subtracting the +# emplo'ees from )*# lea3es *E$ union members, still within **$ or #$; of the maximum
total of #,#$# ran&/and/file emplo'ees.
(he issue surrounding the in3ol3ement of the +# emplo'ees is a matter of membership or 3oter eligibilit'. "t is not a ground to cancel union registration.
ACFDor fraud and misrepresentation Cto be grounds forD cancellation of union registration under 7rticle #81 Cof the abor ?odeD, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentation must be gra3e and compelling enough to 3itiate the consent of a maGorit' of union members.A
the %nion points out that for almost se3en (<) 'ears following the filing of its petition, no certification election has 'et been conducted among the ran&/and/file
emplo'ees. "f this be the case, the dela' has gone far enough and can no longer be allowed to continue. 7 certification election is exclusi3el' the concern of emplo'ees
and the emplo'er lac&s the legal personalit' to challenge it.
HI!5!FO5!, the petition is D!9"!D
A. Constitution, 1987 Constitution A!ts. III, S"#. 8, $n% &III, S"#. '
Page 1 of 24
S"" $(so) 19'* Constitution A!t. III, S"#. +, $n% 197' Constitution A!t. I-, S"#. 7
1987 Constitution, A!ti#(" III, S"#. 8. (he right of the people, including those emplo'ed in the public and pri3ate sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies
for purposes not contrar' to law shall not be abridged.
1987 Constitution, A!ti#(" &III, S"#. '. (he State shall afford full protection to labor, local and o3erseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full emplo'ment
and e>ualit' of emplo'ment opportunities for all.
"t shall guarantee the rights of all wor&ers to self/organization, collecti3e bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted acti3ities, including the right to stri&e in
accordance with law. (he' shall be entitled to securit' of tenure, humane conditions of wor&, and a li3ing wage. (he' shall also participate in polic' and decision/ma&ing
processes affecting their rights and benefits as ma' be pro3ided b' law.
(he State shall promote the principle of shared responsibilit' between wor&ers and emplo'ers and the preferential use of 3oluntar' modes in settling disputes, including
conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
(he State shall regulate the relations between wor&ers and emplo'ers, recognizing the right of labor to its Gust share in the fruits of production and the right of
enterprises to reasonable returns to in3estments, and to expansion and growth.
19'* Constitution, A!t. III, S"#. +. (he right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrar' to law shall not be abridged.
197' Constitution, A!t. I-, S"#. 7. (he right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrar' to the law shall not be abridged.
B. St$tuto!. /0', /00, /0*, /+9, /1/ 123, /1/ 143
A!t. /0'. Co5"!$2" $n% "67(o.""s8 !i29t to s"(4-o!2$ni:$tion. 7ll persons emplo'ed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious,
charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall ha3e the right to self/organization and to form, Goin, or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collecti3e bargaining. 7mbulant, intermittent and itinerant wor&ers, self/emplo'ed people, rural wor&ers and those
without an' definite emplo'ers ma' form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang <$, 2a' -, -1+$)
A!t. /00. Ri29t o4 "67(o.""s in t9" 7u;(i# s"!5i#". !mplo'ees of go3ernment corporations established under the ?orporation ?ode shall ha3e the right to organize
and to bargain collecti3el' with their respecti3e emplo'ers. 7ll other emplo'ees in the ci3il ser3ice shall ha3e the right to form associations for purposes not contrar' to
law. (7s amended b' !xecuti3e Order 9o. ---, December #*, -1+E)
A!t. /0*. In"(i2i;i(it. o4 6$n$2"!i$( "67(o.""s to <oin $n. ($;o! o!2$ni:$tion, !i29t o4 su7"!5iso!. "67(o.""s. 2anagerial emplo'ees are not eligible to Goin,
assist or form an' labor organization. Super3isor' emplo'ees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the ran&/and/file emplo'ees but ma' Goin,
assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. (7s amended b' Section -+, 5epublic 7ct 9o. E<-), 2arch #-, -1+1)
A!t. /+9. =!o9i;ition $2$inst $(i"ns, ">#"7tions. 7ll aliens, natural or Guridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictl' prohibited from engaging directl' or
indirectl' in all forms of trade union acti3ities without preGudice to normal contacts between Jhilippine labor unions and recognized international labor centers, Jro3ided,
howe3er, (hat aliens wor&ing in the countr' with 3alid permits issued b' the Department of abor and !mplo'ment, ma' exercise the right to self/organization and Goin
or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collecti3e bargaining, Jro3ided, further, (hat said aliens are nationals of a countr' which grants the
same or similar rights to Filipino wor&ers. (7s amended b' Section #1, 5epublic 7ct 9o. E<-), 2arch #-, -1+1)
A!t. /1/. ?"4initions.
(f) A!mplo'eeA includes an' person in the emplo' of an emplo'er. (he term shall not be limited to the emplo'ees of a particular emplo'er, unless the ?ode so
explicitl' states. "t shall include an' indi3idual whose wor& has ceased as a result of or in connection with an' current labor dispute or because of an' unfair labor
practice if he has not obtained an' other substantiall' e>ui3alent and regular emplo'ment.
(g) Aabor organizationA means an' union or association of emplo'ees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collecti3e bargaining or of dealing with
emplo'ers concerning terms and conditions of emplo'ment.
UST $a%ult& Union v. 'itonio, 3(" SCRA (") 99#
NAT@RE Special ci3il action in the Supreme ?ourt. ?ertiorari.
FACTS / %nion announced a 2"n"!$( $ss"6;(. to elect next union officers.
/ (5O was issued b' med/arbiter enGoining them from conducting election.
/ %S( held a 2"n"!$( 4$#u(t. $ss"6;(., attended b' both union members and non/members. Iere, appellants were elected as new union officers b' acclamation and
clapping of hands.
/ 7ppellees filed instant petition to see& inGuncti3e relief and to nullif' results of election.
/ Bitonio upheld med/arbiter and said election was 3oid. Ie reGected contention that it was a legitimate exercise of right to self organization
ISS@EAS Basis of right to self/organization (p) of outline) . Hor&ers with right of self/organization (pE of outline)
HEL? Ratio Self/organization is a fundamental right to form, Goin or assist labor organizations for #o(("#ti5" ;$!2$inin2, 6utu$( $i% $n% 7!ot"#tion. W9"t9"!
"67(o."% 4o! $ %"4init" 7"!io% o! not, "67(o."" s9$(( ;" #onsi%"!"% $s su#9, ;"2innin2 on 1
st
%$. o4 s"!5i#", 4o! 7u!7os"s o4 6"6;"!s9i7 in $ ($;o!
union. ?orollar' to this right is the prerogati3e not to Goin.
Page 2 of 24
Reasonin* (he election can@t be considered as exercise of right to self/organization because the petitioners@ frustration o3er the performance of the respondents could
not Gustif' the method the' chose to impose their will on the union.
-. 7ll !mplo'ees
75(. #*8. ?o3erage and emplo'ees@ right to self/organization. / 7ll persons emplo'ed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable,
medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall ha3e the right to self/organization and to form, Goin, or assist labor organizations of their
own choosing for purposes of collecti3e bargaining. 7mbulant, intermittent and itinerant wor&ers, self/emplo'ed people, rural wor&ers and those without an' definite
emplo'ers ma' form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang <$, 2a' -, -1+$).
+ational Union o, 'an- ./0lo&ees v. 1inister o, Labor ((! SCRA 234 "(#
NAT@RE) 279D72%S
FACTS) /(he %nion filed this action to compel the public respondents to hold a certification election among the ran& and file emplo'ees of Jroducers Ban&.
/(he Ban& agreed to recognize and negotiate with the %nion as soon as the latter obtained its registration certificate as local union.
/Iowe3er, e3en if said certificate had alread' been secured, the Ban& failed to submit its pa'roll of emplo'ees (which was re>uired pre3iousl' at the hearing for direct
certification. )
/ (he 2ed/ 7rbiter issued an order for the holding of a certification election, a proceeding which was sought to be suspended b' the Ban& on the grounds that a
preGudicial >uestion was pending re, cancellation of the %nion@s registration for allegedl' engaging in prohibited and unlawful acti3ities.
ISS@E, HO9 a certification election should be held despite the pending petition to cancel the %nion@s certificate of 5egistration
HEL?, K!S. (he pendenc' of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of herein petitioner union is not a bar to the holding of a certification election.
R"$sonin2,
/(he pendenc' of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of petitioner union founded on the alleged illegal stri&es staged b' the leaders and members
of the inter3enor union and petitioner union should not suspend the holding of a certification election, because there is no order directing such cancellation.
/ 7side from the fact that the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of petitioner union has not 'et been finall' resol3ed, there is another fact that
militates against the stand of the Ban&, the liberal approach obser3ed b' this ?ourt as to matters of certification election.
/ Atlas $ree Wor-ers Union A$WU#4PSSLU Lo%al vs. 5on. Car/elo C. +oriel, et al. , AC(Dhe ?ourt resol3es to grant the petition (for mandamus) in line with the
liberal approach consistentl' adhered to b' this ?ourt in matters of certification election. (he whole democratic process is geared towards the determination of
representation, not onl' in go3ernment but in other sectors as well, b' election. (hus, the ?ourt has declared its commitment to the 3iew that a certification election is
crucial to the institution of collecti3e bargaining, for it gi3es substance to the principle of maGorit' rule as one : of the basic concepts of a democratic polic'A (9ational
2ines and 7llied Hor&ers %nion 3s. una, +8 S?57 E-$).
/ S%out Ra/on V. Albano 1e/orial Colle*e vs. +oriel, et al.6
... (he institution of collecti3e bargaining is, to recall ?ox, a prime manifestation of industrial democrac' at wor&. (he two parties to the relationship, labor and
management, ma&e their own rules b' coming to terms. (hat is to go3ern themsel3es in matters that reall' count. 7s labor, howe3er, is composed of a number of
indi3iduals, it is indispensable that the' be represented b' a labor organization of their choice. (hus ma' be discerned how crucial is a certification election. So our
decisions from the earliest case of JD( !mplo'ees %nion 3. JD( ?o. Free (elephone Hor&ers %nion to the latest, Jhilippine ?ommunications, !lectronics L !lectricit'
Hor&ers: Federation (J?HF) 3. ?ourt of "ndustrial 5elations, had made clear. (he same principle was again gi3en expression in language e>uall' emphatic in the
subse>uent case of Jhilippine 7ssociation of Free abor %nions 3. Bureau of abor 5elations, :Jetitioner thus appears to be woefull' lac&ing in awareness of the
significance of a certification election for the collecti3e bargaining process. "t is the fairest and most effecti3e wa' of determining which labor organization can trul'
represent the wor&ing force. "t is a fundamental postulate that the will of the maGorit', if gi3en expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the 3oters to
ma&e their choice, is controlling. No better device can assure the institution of industrial democracy with the two parties to a business enterprise, management and
labor, establishing a regime of self-rule.: That is to accord respect to the policy of the Labor Code, indisputably partial to the holding of a certification election so as to
arrive in a manner definitive and certain concerning the choice of the labor organization to represent the workers in a collective bargaining unit (emphasis supplied!
/ ?ancellation of the registration certificate is not the onl' resultant penalt' in case of an' 3iolation of the abor ?ode. (See Sec. + 5ule "" Boo& V of abor ?ode, in
relation to 7#<8)
/ 7s aptl' ruled b' respondent Bureau of abor 5elations Director 9oriel, A(he rights of wor&ers to self/organization finds general and specific constitutional guarantees.
Section <, 7rticle "V of the Jhilippine ?onstitution pro3ides that the right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrar' to law shall not be abridged. (his
right is more pronounced in the case of labor. Section 1, 7rticle "" (ibid) specificall' declares that the State shall assure the rights of wor&ers to self/organization,
collecti3e bargaining, securit' of tenure and Gust and humane conditions of wor&. Such constitutional guarantees should not be lightl' ta&en much less easil' nullified. 7
health' respect for the freedom of association demands that acts imputable to officers or members be not easil' 3isited with capital punishments against the association
itselfA
7is0ositive, (I! H5"( OF mandamus "S M579(!D4 B5 D"5 O5D!5!D (O ?7 79D D"5!?( (I! "22!D"7(! IOD"9M OF 7 ?!5("F"?7("O9 !!?("O9.
Page 3 of 24
C. @ni5"!s$( ?"#($!$tion o4 Hu6$n Ri29ts =!"$6;(", A!ts. /, Int"!n$tion$( Co5"n$nt on E#ono6i#, So#i$( $n% Cu(tu!$( Ri29ts A!ts. / $n% 8 1$3,
Int"!n$tion$( Co5"n$nt on Ci5i( $n% =o(iti#$( Ri29ts A!t. //
@?HR, =!"$6;("
Hhereas recognition of the inherent dignit' and of the e>ual and inalienable rights of all members of the human famil' is the foundation of freedom, Gustice and peace in
the world,
Hhereas disregard and contempt for human rights ha3e resulted in barbarous acts which ha3e outraged the conscience of man&ind, and the ad3ent of a world in which
human beings shall enGo' freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Hhereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to ha3e recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against t'rann' and oppression, that human rights should be
protected b' the rule of law,
Hhereas it is essential to promote the de3elopment of friendl' relations between nations,
Hhereas the peoples of the %nited 9ations ha3e in the ?harter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignit' and worth of the human person and in
the e>ual rights of men and women and ha3e determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Hhereas 2ember States ha3e pledged themsel3es to achie3e, in co/operation with the %nited 9ations, the promotion of uni3ersal respect for and obser3ance of human
rights and fundamental freedoms,
Hhereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
9ow, (herefore (I! M!9!57 7SS!2BK proclaims (I"S %9"V!5S7 D!?757("O9 OF I%279 5"MI(S as a common standard of achie3ement for all peoples and all
nations, to the end that e3er' indi3idual and e3er' organ of societ', &eeping this Declaration constantl' in mind, shall stri3e b' teaching and education to promote
respect for these rights and freedoms and b' progressi3e measures, national and international, to secure their uni3ersal and effecti3e recognition and obser3ance, both
among the peoples of 2ember States themsel3es and among the peoples of territories under their Gurisdiction.
@?HR, A!ti#(" /. !3er'one is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of an' &ind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, propert', birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
Gurisdictional or international status of the countr' or territor' to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non/self/go3erning or under an' other
limitation of so3ereignt'.
ICESCR, A!ti#(" /
-. !ach State Jart' to the present ?o3enant underta&es to ta&e steps, indi3iduall' and through international assistance and co/operation, especiall' economic and
technical, to the maximum of its a3ailable resources, with a 3iew to achie3ing progressi3el' the full realization of the rights recognized in the present ?o3enant b' all
appropriate means, including particularl' the adoption of legislati3e measures.
#. (he States Jarties to the present ?o3enant underta&e to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present ?o3enant will be exercised without discrimination of an'
&ind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, propert', birth or other status.
8. De3eloping countries, with due regard to human rights and their national econom', ma' determine to what extent the' would guarantee the economic rights
recognized in the present ?o3enant to non/nationals.
A!ti#(" 8
-. (he States Jarties to the present ?o3enant underta&e to ensure,
(a) (he right of e3er'one to form trade unions and Goin the trade union of his choice, subGect onl' to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and
protection of his economic and social interests. 9o restrictions ma' be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed b' law and which are necessar' in
a democratic societ' in the interests of national securit' or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others4
(b) (he right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or Goin international trade/union organizations4
(c) (he right of trade unions to function freel' subGect to no limitations other than those prescribed b' law and which are necessar' in a democratic societ' in the
interests of national securit' or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others4
(d) (he right to stri&e, pro3ided that it is exercised in conformit' with the laws of the particular countr'.
#. (his article shall not pre3ent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights b' members of the armed forces or of the police or of the
administration of the State.
8. 9othing in this article shall authorize States Jarties to the "nternational abour Organisation ?on3ention of -1*+ concerning Freedom of 7ssociation and Jrotection of
the 5ight to Organize to ta&e legislati3e measures which would preGudice, or appl' the law in such a manner as would preGudice, the guarantees pro3ided for in that
?on3ention.
IC==R, A!ti#(" //
-. !3er'one shall ha3e the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and Goin trade unions for the protection of his interests.
#. 9o restrictions ma' be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed b' law and which are necessar' in a democratic societ' in the
interests of national securit' or public safet', public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(his article shall not pre3ent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.
Page 4 of 24
8. 9othing in this article shall authorize States Jarties to the "nternational abour Organisation ?on3ention of -1*+ concerning Freedom of 7ssociation and Jrotection of
the 5ight to Organize to ta&e legislati3e measures which would preGudice, or to appl' the law in such a manner as to preGudice, the guarantees pro3ided for in that
?on3ention.
?. ILO Con5"ntion No. 87, A!t. /, 11 $n% 98
ILO 87, A!t. /. Hor&ers and emplo'ers, without distinction whatsoe3er, shall ha3e the right to establish and, subGect onl' to the rules of the organisation concerned, to
Goin organisations of their own choosing without pre3ious authorisation.
ILO 87, A!t. 11. !ach 2ember of the "nternational abour Organisation for which this ?on3ention is in force underta&es to ta&e all necessar' and appropriate measures
to ensure that wor&ers and emplo'ers ma' exercise freel' the right to organise.
Stan8ar8 C9artere8 'an- ./0lo&ees Union v. Con,essor, 432 SCRA 3!" !4#
Facts,
Jetitioner %nion is the exclusi3e bargaining agent of the ran& and file emplo'ees of Standard ?hartered Ban& (Ban&).
(he %nion and the Ban& signed a ) 'ear ?B7 in -11$ with a pro3ision to renegotiate its terms in its 8
rd
'ear.
"n -118, the %nion initiated negotiations. "t submitted its proposal to the Ban& as well as a list containing the members of its negotiating panel. (he Ban& submitted
its counter/proposal and the respecti3e list of the members of its negotiating panel.
Before negotiations can begin, the %nion suggested that the Ban&@s law'ers are to be excluded from its negotiating panel. (he Ban& agreed. (he Ban& howe3er,
suggested that 0ose J. %mali, 0r., the Jresident of 9%B! be excluded from the %nion@s negotiating panel. Iowe3er, %mali remained a member of the %nion@s panel.
During the preliminar' negotiations, the parties laid down the ground rules. (he Ban& suggested that the negotiation be &ept a Nfamil' affairO. (he negotiations on
the re3isions on the ?B7 began on 2arch -#, -118. (he proposed non/economic pro3isions were discussed first. (he parties were not able to reach at an agreement
lea3ing some of the pro3isions as D!F!55!D.D!7DO?6!D.
7fterwards, negotiations on the economic pro3isions began on 2a' -+, -118. i&e before, the %nion and the Ban& could not reach an agreement. %mali chided the
Ban& for the insufficienc' of its counter/proposal and reminded the Ban& how the' got what the' wanted in -1+< and that the' were willing to resort to such means
if needed.
(he negotiations resumed but e3en after the submission of counter/proposals from both parties, the impasse remained. !xasperated, %mali asserted that it would
be easier to bargain if both parties trusted each other li&e before. (he Ban& re>uested the %nion to refrain from in3ol3ing personalities and to focus on the
negotiations.
On 0une #-, -118, the %nion declared a deadloc& and filed a 9otice of Stri&e with the 9?2B.
On its part, the Ban& filed a complaint for unfair labor practices against the %nion with the abor 7rbiter. (he Ban& claimed that the %nion engaged in blue sky
bargaining (unrealistic or unreasonable demands in negotiations where neither concedes an'thing or demands the impossible) ! (he Ban& also claimed that the
%nion 3iolated the no stri&e/no loc&out clause of the ?B7.
(hen Secretar' of abor ?onfesor assumed Gurisdiction of the dispute and dismissed the %J charges of both the Ban& and %nion. She also ordered the award of
certain benefits. On 2arch ##, -11*, the Ban& and %nion signed the ?B7.
?laiming that the SO! committed gra3e abuse of discretion when she dismissed the %J charge filed b' the %nion, the' filed a petition pra'ing that her Order be
set aside. "n the petition, it was claimed that the Ban& committed %J when it as&ed that %mali be excluded from the panel and when it as&ed that the negotiations
be &ept a Nfamil' affairO. "t also claimed that the Ban& engaged in surface bargaining. For its part the ban& reiterated its claims for %J against the %nion in its
complaint before the abor 7rbiter.
Ield,
9o %J committed b' the Ban& or %nion.
7rticle #*+(a) considers it an %J if the emplo'er interferes, restrains or coerces emplo'ees in the exercise of their right to self organization or the right to form an
association.
"n order to show that the emplo'er committed %J under the abor ?ode, substantial e3idence is re>uired to support the claim. Substantial e3idence is such
rele3ant e3idence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade>uate to support a conclusion.
(he facts show that the suggestion to exclude %mali 0r., was not an anti/unioon conduct from which it can be inferred that the Ban& adopted to undermine the free
exercise of the right to self/organization and collecti3e bargaining of the emplo'ees especiall' when it was re>uested after the %nion re>uested the exclusion of the
Ban&@s law'er from its negotiating panel.
Further, the %J charge was merel' an afterthought as the complaint was onl' made after a deadloc& was declared b' the %nion.
(here was no surface bargaining on the part of the Ban&. Surface bargaining is defined as going through the motions of negotiating without an' legal intent to reach
an agreement. Such is a >uestion of the intent of the part' in >uestion and usuall' such intent can be inferred from the totalit' of the challenged part'@s conduct
both at and awa' from the table.
Page 5 of 24
(he dut' to bargain does not compel either part' to agree to a proposal or re>uire the ma&ing of a concession.
(here was no gra3e abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretar' of abor. "t cannot be said that she acted in a capricious and whimsical exercise of Gudgment.
(here was no showing that the public respondent exercised her power in an arbitrar' and despotic manner b' reason of passion or personal hostilit'.
i&ewise, neither is the %nion guilt' of %J for engaging in blue s&' bargaining. (he demands of the %nion were not exaggerated or unreasonabl' but based on the
data of ran& and file emplo'ees and other pre3ailing economic benefits recei3ed b' emplo'ees in the industr'.
II. WORKER B@ALIFICATION /77 1#3 AN? REB@IRE? ACTION CONSTIT@TION AN? BC-LAW
A!t. /77. Dis#"(($n"ous 7!o5isions.
(c) 7n' emplo'ee, whether emplo'ed for a definite period or not, shall, beginning on his first da' of ser3ice, be considered as an emplo'ee for purposes of
membership in an' labor union. (7s amended b' Section 88, 5epublic 7ct 9o. E<-))
UST $a%ult& Union v. 'itonio, 3(" SCRA ("5 99#
Facts,
Jetitioner %S(F% is the exclusi3e bargaining representati3e of the facult' of %S(. "n September -11E, the %nion announced the con3ening of a general assembl' on
$) October -11E. 7mong the agenda in the general assembl' is the election of %S(F%. (he proposed election was contested b' some members of the %nion alleging
that the preparations for the said election as demanded b' the %nion@s constitution and b'/laws (?B) were not satisfied. (he meeting was mo3ed earlier to $*
October -11E.
On $* October -11E, the general facult' assembl' was held. "t was attended b' both members of %S(F% and non/members thereof. "n the said general assembl' a
new set of %S(F%@s officers was elected b' acclamation and clapping of hands.
5espondents filed a petition with the med/arbiter alleging the illegalit' of the election conducted on $* October -11E as it did not conform to the re>uirements of
the ?B.
"n the meantime a new ?B7 was declared to be ratified purportedl' b' a maGorit' of %S(@s academic communit'.
(he med/arbiter rendered a decision declaring the election done in $* October -11E as null and 3oid for not ha3ing been executed conformabl' to the ?B of the
%nion. (he said decision was affirmed b' public respondent Bitonio 0r., hence this petition.
"ssue, HO9 the election conducted on $* October -11E is null and 3oid
Ield,
Kes the election is null and 3oid. Jetitioners argue that the anomalies allegedl' comtted b' the respondents impelled them to conduct the election on $* October
-11E and that such exercise was pursuant to their right to self/organization.
Self/organization is a fundamental right guaranteed b' the wor&ers b' the Jhilippine ?onstitution and the abor ?ode. Such right is better understood in the context
of "O ?on3ention 9o. +< to which the Jhilippines is a signator'. "t pro3ides that the incident of the assertion of the right to self/organization is reflected in the
promulgation of the union@s ?B which go3erns the relationship between the members of the union. "t is where the rights, duties and obligations, powers, functions
and authorit' of the officers and as well as the members is defined. It %"t"!6in"s t9" 5$(i%it. o4 t9" $#ts %on" ;. $n. o44i#"! o! 6"6;"! o4 t9" union.
?learl' the election conducted on $* October -11E was tainted with irregularities as,
o (he assembl' was not con3ened in accordance with the pro3ision of the ?B
o (here was no commission of elections to o3ersee the election as mandated b' Sections - and # of 7rticle "P of the ?B
o (he purported election was not done thru secret balloting as pro3ided b' Section E 7rticle "P of the ?B as well as 7rticle #*- (c) of the abor ?ode
(he foregoing infirmities more than Gustifies the conclusion b' the public respondents that the proceedings were rendered 3oid due to lac& of due process.
7s to the contention that the $* October -11E assembl' suspended the operation of the ?B, such argument is bereft of merit. Such is in fact, an implied admission that
the election held on that date could not be considered as 3alid under the existing %S(F% constitution.
III. E&TENT AN? SCO=E OF RIGHT /0', /0+
A!t. /0'. Co5"!$2" $n% "67(o.""s8 !i29t to s"(4-o!2$ni:$tion. 7ll persons emplo'ed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious,
charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall ha3e the right to self/organization and to form, Goin, or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collecti3e bargaining. 7mbulant, intermittent and itinerant wor&ers, self/emplo'ed people, rural wor&ers and those
without an' definite emplo'ers ma' form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang <$, 2a' -, -1+$)
A!t. /0+. Non-$;!i%26"nt o4 !i29t to s"(4-o!2$ni:$tion. "t shall be unlawful for an' person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or undul' interfere with
emplo'ees and wor&ers in their exercise of the right to self/organization. Such right shall include the right to form, Goin, or assist labor organizations for the purpose of
collecti3e bargaining through representati3es of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted acti3ities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection,
subGect to the pro3isions of 7rticle #E* of this ?ode. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang <$, 2a' -, -1+$)
Page 6 of 24
Re&es v. Tra:ano, 2!9 SCRA 4"4 92#
Facts,
"n the certification election for the exclusi3e representati3e of the bargaining unit for the (ri/%nion "ndustries ?orporation, two unions 3ie for the support of the
wor&ers.
(he competing unions were (ri/%nion !mplo'ees %nion/Organized abor 7ssociation in ine "ndustries and 7griculture ((%!%/O7"7) and (rade %nion of the
Jhilippines and 7llied Ser3ices ((%J7S). 8*+ wor&ers were supposed to participate in the certification election but onl' #*$ cast their 3ote.
7mong the #*$ emplo'ees, -*- were members of the "glesia 9i 6risto who all 3oted for 9O %9"O9. (heir 3otes were challenged on the ground that the' should not
be allowed to 3ote as the' are not members of an' union and refused to participate in the pre3ious certification elections. "t is also argued that their religion does
not allow membership in labor unions and thus the' should not be allowed to 3ote in the certification elections.
(he "96 emplo'ees filed a case before the 2ed/7rbiter to protest the exclusion of their 3otes. (he 2ed/7rbiter dismissed the petition. On appeal to the B5,
7ssistant abor Secretar' ?resenciano (raGano affirmed the 2ed/7rbiter@s decision as the "96 emplo'ees are bereft of legal personalit' to protest their
disenfranchisement.
"ssue, HO9 the 3otes of the -*- members of the "96 can be 3alidl' excluded from the certification election.
Ield,
Muaranteed to all emplo'ees or wor&ers is the right to self/organization and to form, Goin or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of
collecti3e bargaining.
(he right not to Goin, affiliate with or assist an' union and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization is subsumed in the right to Goin affiliate with or assist an'
union. (he said right includes the right to refuse and refrain from exercising such right. 0ust as an'one cannot be denied the exercise of a right granted b' law,
neither can the' be compelled to exercise such a conferred right.
(he purpose of a certification election is to determine the wishers of maGorit' of the emplo'ees in the appropriate bargaining unit as to whether to be or not to be
represented b' a labor organization and if 'es, b' what particular labor organization. "f the results show that no union is desired b' the wor&ers, the minorit'
cannot impose their will on the maGorit' and the' will ha3e to wait for the next certification election to attempt a change.
(he fact that the "96 members, as emplo'ees 3oted for 9O %9"O9, the' were simpl' exercising that right of self/organization albeit in its negati3e aspect.
7ll bona fide emplo'ees possess such right. (he fact that the' did not participate in pre3ious certification elections nor the fact that the' are not members of an'
union does not depri3e them of such right.
Pan4A/eri%an Worl8 Air;a&s, In%. v. Pan4A/eri%an ./0lo&ees Asso%iation, 23 SCRA (2!2 )9#
F7?(S, 5espondent %nion filed a stri&e with the Department of abor against the petitioner compan'. On that same da', the union declared and maintained such stri&e.
(he stri&e, being an industrial dispute affecting the national interest, was certified b' the Jresident to ?"5. Se3eral conferences were held to settle their dispute. (he
position of the %nion was that the' would not return to wor& unless its officers were also included in the return/to/wor& order. Iowe3er, petitioner compan' alleged that
the stri&e that the union held was illegal. Ience, its officers should be liable for dismissal.
(he ?"5 issued an order re>uiring petitioner compan' to accept the fi3e union officers pending resolution on the merits of the dispute in3ol3ed in the stri&e. 7n 25 was
filed but was denied b' the same court. Ience, the union filed the instant petition, alleging a gra3e abuse of discretion of the said court.
"SS%!S L I!D, -. HO9 ?"5 has Gurisdiction o3er the case.
Kes.(he case comes under the operation of ?7 -$8 which empowers the ?"5 to act on cases of labor disputes in industries indispensable to the national interest. Since
the court was granted authorit' b' the president to find a solution in an industrial dispute and such solution consists in ordering of emplo'ees to return bac& to wor&, it
cannot be said that the ?"5 does not ha3e Gurisdiction o3er such case.
#. HO9 the fi3e union officers should be included in the return/to/wor& order.
Kes. (he record is bereft of the slightest indication that an' danger is to be expected from their return to wor&. Iowe3er, the ?ourt said that the greater offense is to the
labor mo3ement itself, mores specificall' the right to self organization. (here is both a constitutional and statutor' recognition that laborers ha3e the right to form
unions which would ta&e care of their interests 3is/a3is their emplo'ers. (heir freedom would be rendered nugator' if the' could not choose their own leaders who
would represent them to the management.
Union o, Su0ervisors R.'.#4+ATU v. Se%. o, Labor, (!9 SCRA (39 "(#
F7?(S, Jetitioner %nion filed with the 95? a complaint against respondent Ban&, charging it with unfair labor practice committed against 9orberto una, the president
of the union, for harassment, unGust suspension from his emplo'ment as a branch manager, and unlawful dismissal as administrator and secretar' of the fund, all due to
his militant espousal and defense of wor&ers: rights. "t was alleged that Luna uttered libelous remarks at the meeting of the #ord of Trustees of the $# %rovident &und!
7fterwhich, a supplemental complaint was filed, alleging that the respondent ban& terminated una:s emplo'ment for gra3e misconduct and insubordination.
(he 95? 7rbitrator rendered a decision, finding that una:s dismissal was without sufficient Gust cause and ordering the compan' to pa' complainant separation pa'.
Hith regards to the charges of unfair labor practice, the arbitrator dismissed the said charge. On appeal, the 95? affirmed the aforementioned decision. (he petitioner
Page 7 of 24
thereafter appealed to the Secretar' of abor, which affirmed the decision insofar as it granted clearance for the termination of una:s emplo'ment and discharging the
unfair labor charge.
I!D, (he S? held that una:s dismissal had no Gustifiable ground. 2r. una:s utterance at the meeting of an official board are pri3eleged for it was precisel' in acting
out his role as the president of the union to protect the interests of the members of the Jro3ident Fund from what he belie3ed to be a ris&' 3enture on the part of the
management, hence, his statements should therefore be regarded as falling under protected labor acti3it'. 2oreo3er, the other basis for dismissal Q insubordination Q
also appears to be without Gustifiable ground. (he NorderO which was allegedl' diobe'ed b' una was onl' a letter/re>uest from the Jro3ident Fund ?hairman, re>uesting
him to turno3er the records of Jro3ident Fund. Hhen una explained that he felt that it would be better to &eep the records, the management preferred as man'
charges as it could frame against una.
I-. WORKERS WITH RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION A!t. III, S"#. 8, $n% A!t. &III, S"#. ', 1987 Constitution
1987 Constitution, A!ti#(" III, S"#. 8. (he right of the people, including those emplo'ed in the public and pri3ate sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies
for purposes not contrar' to law shall not be abridged.
1987 Constitution, A!ti#(" &III, S"#. '. "t shall guarantee the rights of all wor&ers to self/organization, collecti3e bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
acti3ities, including the right to stri&e in accordance with law.

A. A(( E67(o.""s /0', /1/ 143
A!t. /0'. Co5"!$2" $n% "67(o.""s8 !i29t to s"(4-o!2$ni:$tion. 7ll persons emplo'ed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious,
charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall ha3e the right to self/organization and to form, Goin, or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collecti3e bargaining. 7mbulant, intermittent and itinerant wor&ers, self/emplo'ed people, rural wor&ers and those
without an' definite emplo'ers ma' form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang <$, 2a' -, -1+$)
A!t. /1/. ?"4initions.
143 A!mplo'eeA includes an' person in the emplo' of an emplo'er. (he term shall not be limited to the emplo'ees of a particular emplo'er, unless the ?ode so
explicitl' states. "t shall include an' indi3idual whose wor& has ceased as a result of or in connection with an' current labor dispute or because of an' unfair labor
practice if he has not obtained an' other substantiall' e>ui3alent and regular emplo'ment.
1. Non-=!o4it O!2$ni:$tion
$.U47r. +i%anor Re&es 1e8i%al $oun8ation, In%. v. Tra:ano, (52 SCRA 325 "3#
F7?(S, 7lliance Filipino Hor&ers, members of which are emplo'ees of petitioner F!%/Dr. 9icanor 5e'es 2emorial Foundation, "nc., filed a petition for ?onsent.or
?ertification !lection with the 2inistr' of abor. (he petitioner opposed the petition on the ground that a similar petition is pending resolution before the S?. 7FH
admitted that it filed a similar petition, but this petition was denied b' 2!D 7rbiter and the Secretar' of abor on appeal, on the ground that the petitioner was a non/
stoc&, non/profit medical institution. Jursuant to 7rt. #** of the abor ?ode, the emplo'ees ma' not form, Goin, or organize a union.
(he 2ed 7rbiter declared that a certification election be conducted to determine the exclusi3e bargaining representati3e of the compan':s emplo'ees. (his order was
affirmed b' the respondent director.
"SS%!, HO9 respondent director gra3el' abused his discretion in granting the petition for certification of election.
I!D, 9o. 7t the time the petition for certification election was filed, 7rticle #** was alread' amended b' BJ Blg <$, which added the phrase whether operating for
profit or not. %nder the 7rt. #** ?, there is no doubt that ran& and file emplo'ees of non/profit medical institutions are now permitted to form, organize or Goin labor
unions of their choice for purposes of collecti3e bargaining. Since pri3ate respondent had complied with the re>uisites pro3ided b' law for calling a certification of
election, it was incumbent upon respondent Director to conduct such certification election to ascertain the bargaining representati3e of the emplo'ees.
Vi%toria v. In%ion*, (53 SCRA 339 ""#
Jetitioner Saturno Victoria was emplo'ed on 2arch -<, -1)E b' pri3ate respondent Far !ast Broadcasting ?ompan', "ncorporated as a radio transmitter operator.
Sometime in 0ul' -1<-, he and his co/wor&ers organized the Far !ast Broadcasting ?ompan' !mplo'ees 7ssociation. 7fter registering their association with the then
Department of abor, the' demanded recognition of said association b' the compan' but the latter refused on the ground that being a non/profit, non/stoc&, non/
commercial and religious corporation, it is not co3ered b' 5epublic 7ct +<), otherwise &nown as the "ndustrial Jeace 7ct, the labor law enforced at that time.
Se3eral conciliation meetings were held at the Department of abor
Director of abor 5el, no right to bargain collecti3el'
7ssociation held stri&e
?ompan' sued for damages and inGunction which ?F" granted, later compan' as&ed that stri&e be declared illegal
?ase on stri&e transferred to 95? created b' JD #-
7,emplo'ees to return to wor& without preGudice to the pending ?F" case
7 affirmed b' 95?, SO! and OJ
Page 8 of 24
?F", stri&e illegal, F!B? is a non/profit.non/stoc& org which does not issue di3idends, cannot compel to recognize labor org because not co3ered b' 57 +<)
Because of ?F" decision, F!B? dismissed Victoria as an officer in the illegal stri&e to which Victoria filed "D case with 7 (another issue altogether)
S6"JJ"9M (O (I! 7?(%7 5!7(!D "SS%!, Hhether or not right to self/organization and collecti3e bargaining exists 3is. non/profit.non stoc& org
S?, (he stri&e staged b' the union in -1<# was a futile mo3e. (he law then enforced, 5epublic 7ct +<) specificall' excluded respondent compan' from its co3erage.
!3en if the parties had gone to court to compel recognition, no positi3e relief could ha3e been obtained since the same was not sanctioned b' law. Because of this, there
was no necessit' on the part of pri3ate respondent to show specific acts of petitioner during the stri&e to Gustif' his dismissal.
(his is a matter of responsibilit' and of answerabilit'. Jetitioner as a union leader, must see to it that the policies and acti3ities of the union in the conduct of labor
relations are within the precepts of law.
Jetitioner should ha3e &nown and it was his dut' to impart this imputed &nowledge to the members of the union that emplo'ees and laborers in non/ profit
organizations are not co3ered b' the pro3isions of the "ndustrial Jeace 7ct and the ?ourt of "ndustrial 5elations Cin the case at bar, the ?ourt of First "nstanceD has no
Gurisdiction to entertain petitions of labor unions or organizations of said non/profit organizations for certification as the exclusi3e bargaining representati3es of said
emplo'ees and laborers.
7s a stri&e is an economic weapon at war with the polic' of the ?onstitution and the law at that time, a resort thereto b' laborers shall be deemed to be a choice of
remed' peculiarl' their own and outside of the statute, and as such, the stri&ers must accept all the ris&s attendant upon their choice. "f the' succeed and the emplo'er
succumbs, the law will not stand in their wa' in the enGo'ment of the lawful fruits of their 3ictor'. But if the' fail, the' cannot thereafter in3o&e the protection of the law
for the conse>uences of their conduct unless the right the' wished 3indicated is one which the law will, b' all means, protect and enforce.
(J!7S! 9O(! (I7( %9D!5 (I! ?%55!9( 7H, e3en emplo'ees of non/profit orgs ha3e a right to self/organization)
/. D"6;"!s R"(i2ious G!ou7
Vi%toriano v. .li<al8e Wor-ers Union, 59 SCRA 54 34#
BenGamin Victoriano (hereinafter referred to as 7ppellee), a member of the religious sect &nown as the A"glesia ni ?ristoA, had been in the emplo' of the !lizalde 5ope
Factor', "nc. (hereinafter referred to as ?ompan') since -1)+. 7s such emplo'ee, he was a member of the !lizalde 5ope Hor&ers: %nion (hereinafter referred to as
%nion) which had with the ?ompan' a collecti3e bargaining agreement containing a closed shop pro3ision which reads as follows,
2embership in the %nion shall be re>uired as a condition of emplo'ment for all permanent emplo'ees wor&ers co3ered b' this 7greement.
(he collecti3e bargaining agreement expired on 2arch 8, -1E* but was renewed the following da', 2arch *, -1E*.
%nder Section *(a), paragraph *, of 5epublic 7ct 9o. +<), prior to its amendment b' 5epublic 7ct 9o. 88)$, the emplo'er was not precluded Afrom ma&ing an
agreement with a labor organization to re>uire as a condition of emplo'ment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representati3e of the emplo'ees.A On
0une -+, -1E-, howe3er, 5epublic 7ct 9o. 88)$ was enacted, introducing an amendment to R paragraph (*) subsection (a) of section * of 5epublic 7ct 9o. +<), as
follows, ... Abut such agreement shall not co3er members of an' religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in an' such labor organizationA.
Victoriano was "glesia, and presented his resignation to appellant %nion in -1E#, and when no action was ta&en thereon, he reiterated his resignation on September 8,
-1<*. (hereupon, the %nion wrote a formal letter to the ?ompan' as&ing the latter to separate 7ppellee from the ser3ice in 3iew of the fact that he was resigning from
the %nion as a member. (he management of the ?ompan' in turn notified 7ppellee and his counsel that unless the 7ppellee could achie3e a satisfactor' arrangement
with the %nion, the ?ompan' would be constrained to dismiss him from the ser3ice. (his prompted 7ppellee to file an action for inGunction, doc&eted as ?i3il ?ase 9o.
)++1* in the ?ourt of First "nstance of 2anila to enGoin the ?ompan' and the %nion from dismissing 7ppellee.
?F", !lizalde cannot be dismissed in light of 57 88)$ exempting members of religious organizations from being dismissed due to closed shop pro3isions in ?B7
"SS%!, whether or not in light of the closed shop pro3ision in the ?B7, !lizalde should be dismissed for terminating his membership with the union.
%9"O9 75M%2!9(S,
1.
57 88)$ is unconstitutional because
a. it depri3es members of relig orgs of their constitutional right to form or Goin lawful associations or organizations guaranteed b' the Bill of 5ights, and
thus becomes obnoxious to 7rticle """, Section - (E) of the -18) ?onstitution
b. it impairs obligations of contracts (?B7 and closed shop)
/.
discriminates b' fa3oring certain relig sectors in 3iolation of 7rticle "ll, Section - (<) of the -18) ?onstitution4 and while said 7ct undul' protects certain
religious sects, it lea3es no rights or protection to labor organizations.

'.
3iolates the constitutional pro3ision that Ano religious test shall be re>uired for the exercise of a ci3il right,A in that the laborer:s exercise of his ci3il right to Goin
associations for purposes not contrar' to law has to be determined under the 7ct b' his affiliation with a religious sect4 that con3ersel', if a wor&er has to se3er
his religious connection with a sect that prohibits membership in a labor organization in order to be able to Goin a labor organization, said 7ct would 3iolate
religious freedom
Page 9 of 24
Page 10 of 24
-. 57 88)$
is unconstitutional because
a. it depri3es members of relig orgs of their
constitutional right to form or Goin lawful
associations or organizations guaranteed b' the
Bill of 5ights, and thus becomes obnoxious to
7rticle """, Section - (E) of the -18)
?onstitution
a right comprehends at least two broad notions, namel', first, libert' or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal
restraint, whereb' an emplo'ee ma' act for himself without being pre3ented b' law4 and second, power, whereb'
an emplo'ee ma', as he pleases, Goin or refrain from 0oining an association. "t is, therefore, the emplo'ee who
should decide for himself whether he should Goin or not an association4 and should he choose to Goin, he himself
ma&es up his mind as to which association he would Goin4 and e3en after he has Goined, he still retains the libert'
and the power to lea3e and cancel his membership with said organization at an' time.4the right to Goin
associations includes the right not to Goin or to resign from a labor org4 the 7ct has gi3en substance to such right
b' prohibiting the compulsion of wor&ers to Goin labor organizations4
Hhat the exception pro3ides, therefore, is that members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to
Goin labor unions e3en when said unions ha3e closed shop agreements with the emplo'ers4 that in spite of an'
closed shop agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be refused emplo'ment or dismissed from their
Gobs on the sole ground that the' are not members of the collecti3e bargaining union. "t is clear, therefore, that
the assailed 7ct, far from infringing the constitutional pro3ision on freedom of association, upholds and reinforces
it. "t does not prohibit the members of said religious sects from affiliating with labor unions. "t still lea3es to said
members the libert' and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor unions. "f, notwithstanding their
religious beliefs, the members of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, the' can do so. "f in
deference and fealt' to their religious faith, the' refuse to sign up, the' can do so4 the law does not coerce them
to Goin4 neither does the law prohibit them from Goining4 and neither ma' the emplo'er or labor union compel
them to Goin. 5epublic 7ct 9o. 88)$, therefore, does not 3iolate the constitutional pro3ision on freedom of
association.
b. it impairs obligations of
contracts (?B7 and closed
shop)
agreement was alread' in existence at the time 5epublic 7ct 9o. 88)$ was enacted on 0une -+, -1E-, and it
cannot, therefore, be deemed to ha3e been incorporated into the agreement4 (he 7ct, therefore, introduced a
change into the express terms of the union securit' clause4 the ?ompan' was partl' absol3ed b' law from the
contractual obligation it had with the %nion of emplo'ing onl' %nion members in permanent positions, "t cannot
be denied, therefore, that there was indeed an impairment of said union securit' clause.
"t should not be o3erloo&ed, howe3er, that the prohibition to impair the obligation of contracts is not absolute and
un>ualified
"n spite of the constitutional prohibition, the State continues to possess authorit' to safeguard the 3ital interests
of its people. egislation appropriate to safeguarding said interests ma' modif' or abrogate contracts alread' in
effect.
/*
For not onl' are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix the obligations as between the parties,
but the reser3ation of essential attributes of so3ereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal
order. 7ll contracts made with reference to an' matter that is subGect to regulation under the police power must
be understood as made in reference to the possible exercise of that power
(his has special application to contracts regulating relations between capital and labor which are not merel'
contractual, and said labor contracts, for being impressed with public interest, must 'ield to the common good
egislation impairing the obligation of contracts can be sustained when it is enacted for the promotion of the
general good of the people, and when the means adopted to secure that end are reasonable. Both the end sought
and the means adopted must be legitimate, i.e., within the scope of the reser3ed power of the state construed in
harmon' with the constitutional limitation of that power
the purpose sought to be achie3ed b' 5epublic 7ct 9o. 88)$B "ts purpose was to insure freedom of belief and
religion, and to promote the general welfare b' pre3enting discrimination against those members of religious
sects which prohibit their members from Goining labor unions, confirming thereb' their natural, statutor' and
constitutional right to wor&, the fruits of which wor& are usuall' the onl' means whereb' the' can maintain their
own life and the life of their dependents. "t cannot be gainsaid that said purpose is legitimate.
(he >uestioned 7ct also pro3ides protection to members of said religious sects against two aggregates of group
strength from which the indi3idual needs protection. (he indi3idual emplo'ee, at 3arious times in his wor&ing life,
is confronted b' two aggregates of power R collecti3e labor, directed b' a union, and collecti3e capital, directed
b' management. (he union, an institution de3eloped to organize labor into a collecti3e force and thus protect the
indi3idual emplo'ee from the power of collecti3e capital, is, paradoxicall', both the champion of emplo'ee rights,
and a new source of their frustration.
the means adopted b' the 7ct to achie3e that purpose R exempting the members of said religious sects from
co3erage of union securit' agreements R is reasonable.
the free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. "n case of conflict, the latter must,
0.
3iolates the Ae>ual protection of lawsA clause of the ?onstitution, it being a discriminatel' legislation, inasmuch as b' exempting from the operation of closed
shop agreement the members of the A"glesia ni ?ristoA, it has granted said members undue ad3antages o3er their fellow wor&ers, for while the 7ct exempts
them from union obligation and liabilit', it ne3ertheless entitles them at the same time to the enGo'ment of all concessions, benefits and other emoluments that
the union might secure from the emplo'er
*.
3iolates the constitutional pro3ision regarding the promotion of social Gustice
+.
trade unionism in this countr' would be wiped out as emplo'ers would prefer to hire or emplo' members of the "glesia ni ?risto in order to do awa' with labor
organizations
S?, 9o. ?F" is right. Freedom of religion is ousts freedom to self/organization (simple answer)
J5"9?"J!S, (complicated answer)
Vis 7F, %nion denies right to 7F for Victoriano because of protection under Section #* of 5epublic 7ct 9o. +<),
9o suit, action or other proceedings shall be maintainable in an' court against a labor organization or an' officer or member thereof for an' act done b' or on behalf of
such organization in furtherance of an industrial dispute to which it is a part', on the ground onl' that such act induces some other person to brea& a contract of
emplo'ment or that it is in restraint of trade or interferes with the trade, business or emplo'ment of some other person or with the right of some other person to
dispose of his capital or labor
S?, (he mere fact that appellant is a labor union does not necessaril' mean that all its acts are in furtherance of an industrial dispute.
7*
7ppellant %nion, therefore,
cannot in3o&e in its fa3or Section #* of 5epublic 7ct 9o. +<). (his case is not intertwined with an' unfair labor practice case existing at the time when 7ppellee filed his
complaint before the lower court.
Vis defense against 7F using ##$+ of 9??, (he article pro3ides that attorne':s fees and expenses of litigation ma' be awarded Awhen the defendant:s act or omission
has compelled the plaintiff ... to incur e'penses to protect his interestA4 and Ain an' other case where the court deems it Gust and e>uitable that attorne':s fees and
expenses of litigation should be reco3eredA. "n the instant case, it cannot be gainsaid that appellant %nion:s act in demanding 7ppellee:s dismissal caused 7ppellee to
incur expenses to pre3ent his being dismissed from his Gob.
S?, 7F allowed
=a0atiran sa 1eat an8 Cannin* 7ivision v. Calle:a, ()2 SCRA 3)3 ""#
From -1+* to -1+< (%J7S was the sole and exclusi3e collecti3e bargaining representati3e of the wor&ers in the 2eat and ?anning Di3ision of the %ni3ersal 5obina
?orporation, with a 8/'ear collecti3e bargaining agreement (?B7) which was to expire on 9o3ember -), -1+<.
On October +, -1+<, the 9!H %O, composed mostl' of wor&ers belonging to the "M!S"7 9" 65"S(O sect, registered as a labor union.
On October -#, -1+<, the (%J7S staged a stri&e. 5OB"97 obtained an inGunction against the stri&e, resulting in an agreement to return to wor& and for the parties to
negotiate a new ?B7.
(he next da', October -8, -1+<, 9!H %O, claiming that it has Athe maGorit' of the dail' wage ran& and file emplo'ees numbering -1-,A filed a petition for a
certification election at the Bureau of abor 5elations.
(%J7S mo3ed to dismiss the petition for being defecti3e in form and that the members of the 9!H %O were mostl' members of the "glesia ni 6risto sect which three
(8) 'ears pre3ious refused to affiliate with an' labor union. "t also accused the compan' of using the 9!H %O to defeat (%J7S: bargaining rights
On 9o3ember -<, -1+<, the 2ed/7rbiter ordered the holding of a certification election within #$ da's
(%J7S appealed to the Bureau of abor 5elations B5. "n the meantime, it was able to negotiate a new 8/'ear ?B7 with 5OB"97, which was signed on December 8,
-1+< and to expire on 9o3ember -), -11$.
27, affirmed b' B5, ordered cert election
", whether or not "glesia members can form a labor org which can be a legitimate labor organization
Hhether or not cert election barred b' newl' signed ?B7 between (%J7S and 5obina 2eat factor'
S?, the right of members of the "M!S"7 9" 65"S(O sect not to Goin a labor union for being contrar' to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect
from forming their own union
(he fact that (%J7S was able to negotiate a new ?B7 with 5OB"97 within the E$/da' freedom period of the existing ?B7, does not foreclose the right of the ri3al union,
9!H %O, to challenge (%J7S: claim to maGorit' status, b' filing a timel' petition for certification election on October -8, -1+< before (%J7S: old ?B7 expired on
9o3ember -), -1+< and before it signed a new ?B7 with the compan' on December 8, -1+<.
a Acertification election is the best forum in ascertaining the maGorit' status of the contending unions wherein the wor&ers themsel3es can freel' choose their bargaining
representati3e thru secret ballot.
C. Go5"!n6"nt Co!7o!$tion E67(o.""s /00
A!t. /00. Ri29t o4 "67(o.""s in t9" 7u;(i# s"!5i#". !mplo'ees of go3ernment corporations established under the ?orporation ?ode shall ha3e the right to organize
and to bargain collecti3el' with their respecti3e emplo'ers. 7ll other emplo'ees in the ci3il ser3ice shall ha3e the right to form associations for purposes not contrar' to
law. (7s amended b' !xecuti3e Order 9o. ---, December #*, -1+E)
Page 11 of 24
?. Su7"!5iso!s /0*, /1/ 163
A!t. /0*. In"(i2i;i(it. o4 6$n$2"!i$( "67(o.""s to <oin $n. ($;o! o!2$ni:$tion, !i29t o4 su7"!5iso!. "67(o.""s. 2anagerial emplo'ees are not eligible to Goin,
assist or form an' labor organization. Super3isor' emplo'ees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the ran&/and/file emplo'ees but ma' Goin,
assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. (7s amended b' Section -+, 5epublic 7ct 9o. E<-), 2arch #-, -1+1)
A!t. /1/. ?"4initions.
163 A2anagerial emplo'eeA is one who is 3ested with the powers or prerogati3es to la' down and execute management policies and.or to hire, transfer,
suspend, la'/off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline emplo'ees. Super3isor' emplo'ees are those who, in the interest of the emplo'er, effecti3el' recommend such
managerial actions if the exercise of such authorit' is not merel' routinar' or clerical in nature but re>uires the use of independent Gudgment. 7ll emplo'ees not falling
within an' of the abo3e definitions are considered ran&/and/file emplo'ees for purposes of this Boo&.
1. T"st
Pa0er In8ustries Cor0oration v. La*ues/a, 33! SCRA 295 !!#
FACTS) (he compan' (J"?OJ) is engaged in manufacture of paper and timber products in Bislig Surigao with 1$$$ emplo'ees, 1** of whom are super3isor' emplo'ees
and out of which, *+< are members of J"?OJ/Bislig Super3isor' and (echnical Staff !mplo'ees %nion (JBS(S!%). JBS(S!% instituted a ?ertification of !lection to
determine the sole and exclusi3e bargaining agent of super3isor' and technical staff emplo'ees of J"?OJ for ?B7 purposes. 2ed/7rbiter set the holding of the elections
with JBS(S!% as one of the choices for union. During the pre/election conference, J"?OJ >uestioned the inclusion of some section heads and super3isors in the list of
3oters whose positions, it claimed were reclassified as managerial emplo'ees under the 5e3ised Organizational Structure of the J"?OJ and argued that as managerial
emplo'ees, the' were ineligible to form or Goin an' labor organization. 2ed/7rbiter held that the super3isors and section heads are managerial emplo'ees and should be
excluded. %pon appeal, %sec aguesma set aside the 2ed/7rbiter order and held that the subGect emplo'ees are super3isor' emplo'ees and are eligible to 3ote.
aguesma denied appeal, thus the current petition arguing that the subGect emplo'ees has the power to hire and fire and were designated as Section 2anagers and %nit
2anagers.
Issu") HO9 the subGect emplo'ees are managerial emplo'ees and as such are ineligible to form a union.
H"(%) 9o. SubGect emplo'ees are super3isor' emplo'ees. 7s held in %nited Jepsi/?ola Super3isor' %nion 3 aguesma, NmanagersO are di3ided into 8, top/le3el
managers, middle managers, and first/line managers. (op and 2iddle 2anagers ha3e the authorit' to de3ise, implement and control strategic and operational policies
while the tas& of First/ine 2anagers is simpl' to ensure that such policies are carried out b' the ran&/and/file emplo'ees of an organization. %nder this distinction,
Nmanagerial emplo'eesO therefore fall in two (#) categories, namel', -.(he NmanagersO per se composed of (op and 2iddle 2anagers, and4 #. the Nsuper3isorsO
composed of First/ine 2anagers. (he mere fact that an emplo'ee is designated as a NmanagerO does not ma&e him one. Designations should be reconciled with the
actual Gob description. 7 dissection of the Gob description of the subGect emplo'ees show that the' are not managerial as the' do not compan' policies. 2oreo3er, their
alleged power to hire and fire was Gust recommendator' in character, subGect to re3iew of the higher executi3es.
Sa/son v. +LRC, 33! SCRA 4)! !!#
FACTS, 5ufino Samson is a District Sales 2anager of Schering/Jlough ?orporation. "n a letter sent b' the corporation through one 2r. !stingor (I5 2anager) calling his
attention on his misconduct on two occasions, one happening during their informal ?hristmas part' where he uttered obscene and malicious words (Nbullshit 'ang si
!D(O, where !D( is the president and gen manager) and made lewd gestures (the finger) in front of his co/wor&ers, and the other happening on a subse>uent and
different date where he threatened to disrupt or otherwise create 3iolence during the compan'@s forthcoming 9ational Sales ?onference (sa'ing that its going to be
blood'). "n the same letter, Samson was gi3en # da's to explain wh' no disciplinar' action should be gi3en and in the meantime placing him under pre3enti3e
suspension. Samson sent a repl' den'ing the acts imputed, and apologizing for whate3er words he uttered and sa'ing that it was prompted b' his feelings on the
management decision of a certain ?ua im case and not towards a specific person. 7t the same time, Samson filed a complaint for illegal suspension. On a subse>uent
date, he sent another letter to the I5 2anager as&ing for reinstatement. "nstead of reinstating to former position, Samson recei3ed a subse>uent letter from the
compan' ad3ising him of the termination of his emplo'ment. (hus, Samson amended his complaint to illegal dismissal. abor 7rbiter held that termination was illegal as
Samson@s conduct was not so serious as to warrant dismissal and that under compan' rules and regulations, the penalt' for his offense is onl' 3erbal reminder. 95?
howe3er re3ersed . 7. and held that there was Gust cause for dismissal, i.e. gross misconduct. "t further held that Samson is a managerial emplo'ee, and as such, the
emplo'er is allowed wider latitude of discretion than in the case of ran&/and/file emplo'ees.
Issu") HO9 95? committed gra3e abuse of discretion in re3ersing the .7. (3is. HO9 he was unGustl' dismissed)
H"(%) Kes. 2isconduct is improper or wrong conduct4 it must be of such serious and aggra3ated character and not merel' tri3ial. "n the current case, the misconduct of
petitioner, when 3iewed in the context of the en3ironment is not of such serious and gra3e character as to warrant dismissal. ?onsidering the en3ironment in which the
e3ent transpired (i.e. it was an informal part' where li>uors were being ser3ed), emplo'ees are most li&el' to loosen their tongue and express their grie3ance against
their emplo'er. Furthermore, the utterances were not directed to attac& the person of the president as he was not in the present when the words were uttered. Further,
being a first offense, the penalties sanctioned b' the compan' rules is Gust 3erbal reminder, which he was alread' gi3en when he was admonished in a meeting after the
e3ent. 9either is his dismissal Gustified on ground of loss of confidence as this ground is restricted to managerial emplo'ees, which he is not. Iis Gob description does not
Page 12 of 24
contain the power to la' down policies not to hire, transfer, suspend, la' off, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline emplo'ees. "nstead, his function includes onl'
efficient planning, auditing and control, and Nmanagement functionsO translated to directing the acti3ities of 2ed 5eps.
Ta*a&ta& 5i*9lan8s v. Ta*a&ta& 5i*9lan8s, 395 SCRA )99 !3#
FACTS) On Oct -11<, the (7M7K(7K I"MI79DS !2JOK!!S %9"O9/J(MHO ((I!%/ J(MHO), a legitimate labor organization said to represent maGorit' of the ran&/
and/file emplo'ees of (aga'ta' Iighlands Mold ?lub ((I"M?") filed a petition for certification election before the DO! 2ed/7rb unit. (I"M?" opposed the petition on the
ground that the list of union members submitted was flawed as it includes super3isors, resigned emplo'ees, 7HO emplo'ees and non/emplo'ees of (I"M?". DO!
2ed/7rbiter ordered holding of a certification election on the ground that the union is a legitimate labor federation, and that the issues on the members should be
properl' raised in exclusion/inclusion proceedings in the pre/election conference, (I"M?" appealed to the DO! Secretar' which set aside the 2ed/7rbiter decision on
the ground of clear absence of communit' of mutualit' of interestsO as (I!% sought to represent separate bargaining units (super3isor' emp and ran&/and/file emp).
%pon 25 b' (I!%, DO! %sec, b' authorit' of the Secretar' set aside the resolution dismissing the petition for certification election and held that rather than
disregarding the legitimate status of (I!%, the names of alleged super3isor' emplo'ees should be simpl' remo3ed form the roster of membership. (I%M?" filed an 25
but was denied. ?7 li&ewise denied.
Issu") HO9 the inclusion of super3isor' emplo'ees in the ran&/and/file union affects the legitimac' of the union
H"(%) 9o. Hhile 7rticle #*) expressl' prohibits super3isor' emplo'ees from Goining a ran&/and/file union, it does not pro3ide what would be the effect if a ran&/and/file
union counts super3isor' emplo'ees as members. 7fter a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personalit' cannot be subGect to collateral attac&. "t ma'
be >uestioned onl' in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section ) of 5ule V, Boo& "V of the A5ules to "mplement the abor ?odeA
("mplementing 5ules) which section reads,
Sec. ). !ffect of registration. (he labor organization or wor&ers: association shall be deemed registered and 3ested with legal personalit' on the date of issuance of its
certificate of registration. Such legal personalit' cannot thereafter be subGect to collateral attac&, but ma' be >uestioned onl' in an independent petition for cancellation
in accordance with these 5ules.
(he inclusion in a union of dis>ualified emplo'ees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of 7rticle #81 of abo3e/>uoted 7rticle #81 of the abor ?ode.
7s for the lac& of mutualit' of interest, it does not lie, gi3en the compan'@s failure to present substantial e3idence that the assailed emplo'ees are actuall' occup'ing
super3isor' positions. Hhile petitioner submitted a list of its emplo'ees with their corresponding Gob titles and ran&s, there is nothing mentioned about the super3isor@s
respecti3e duties, powers, and prerogati3es that would show that the' can effecti3el' recommend managerial actions with the re>uired use of the independent
Gudgment.
/. Ri29t
$iloil Re,iner& Cor0oration v. $iloil Su0ervisor& an8 Con,i8ential ./0lo&ees Asso%iation, 4) SCRA 5(2 32#
NAT@RE 7ppeal from the orders of the ?ourt of "ndustrial 5elations
FACTS / Filoil 5efiner' ?orporation executed a collecti3e bargaining agreement with the Filoil !mplo'ees L Hor&ers 7ssociation (F!H7), a labor association composed
of the corporation:s ran&/and/file emplo'ees . (his collecti3e bargaining agreement expressl' excluded from its co3erage petitioner:s super3isor' and confidential
emplo'ees, who in turn organized their own labor association, respondent herein.
/ (he ?orporation filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification of the respondent association as the sole and exclusi3e collecti3e bargaining agent of all
petitioner@s super3isor' and confidential emplo'ees wor&ing at its refiner' in 5osario, ?a3ite. (heir reason being, since the' are part of the management, the' do not
ha3e the right to bargain collecti3el' although the' ma' organize an organization of their own.
ISS@E HO9 super3isors :shall ha3e the right to self/organization, and to form, Goin or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collecti3e
bargaining
HEL? K!S.
Reasonin* 7s stated for the ?ourt b' the now ?hief 0ustice in 7M L J ?o. of 2anila, "nc. 3s. ?.".5., + section 8 of the "ndustrial Jeace 7ct Aexplicitl' pro3ides that
:emplo'ees: and this term includes super3isors :shall ha3e the right to self/organization, and to form, Goin or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of collecti3e bargaining through representations of their own choosing and to engage in concerted acti3ities for the purpose of collecti3e bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection: and that :indi3iduals emplo'ed as super3isors . . . ma' form separate organizations of their own:. "ndeed, it is well settled that :in relation to
his emplo'er,: a foreman or super3isor :is an emplo'ee within the meaning of the 7ct: . . . For this reason, super3isors are entitled to engage in union acti3ities and an'
discrimination against them b' reason thereof constitutes an unfair labor practice.A
Super3isors and confidential emplo'ees, e3en though the' ma' exercise the prerogati3es of management as regards the ran& and file emplo'ees are indeed emplo'ees
in relation to their emplo'er, the compan' which is owned b' the stoc&holders and bondholders (capital) and should therefore be entitled under the law to bargain
collecti3el' with the top management with respect to their terms and conditions of emplo'ment. S
?IS=OSITION Jetition D"S2"SS!D.
Page 13 of 24
Santa Rosa Co%a4Cola Plant ./0lo&ees Union v. Co%a4Cola 'ottlers P9ili00ines, In%, 3(2 SCRA 433 !3#
F7?(S, (he Sta. 5osa ?oca/?ola Jlant !mplo'ees %nion (%nion) is the sole and exclusi3e bargaining representati3e of the regular dail' paid wor&ers and the monthl'
paid non/commission/earning emplo'ees of the ?oca/?ola Bottlers Jhilippines, "nc. (?ompan') in its Sta. 5osa, aguna plant. (he indi3idual petitioners are %nion
officers, directors, and shop stewards.
On 7ugust 8$, -111, the %nion, its officers, directors and six shop stewards filed a A9otice of Stri&eA with the 9ational ?onciliation and 2ediation Board (9?2B) 5egional
Office in Southern (agalog, "mus, ?a3ite. (he petitioners relied on two grounds, (a) deadloc& on ?B7 ground rules4 and (b) unfair labor practice arising from the
compan'@s refusal to bargain. (he %nion then participated in a pic&et, which was later on declared b' the abor 7rbiter to be an illegal stri&e. 7ccording to the abor
7rbiter, the stri&e conducted b' the %nion was illegal since there was no showing that the %nion conducted a stri&e 3ote, obser3ed the prescribed cooling/off period,
much less, submitted a stri&e 3ote to the DO! within the re>uired time. ?onse>uentl', for &nowingl' participating in the illegal stri&e, the indi3idual petitioners (who
are union officers) were considered to ha3e lost their emplo'ment status. 95? affirmed. 7ppeal to the ?7 was dismissed.
"SS%!, -. Hhether the union staged a stri&e
#. HO9 the stri&e was legal
8. whether the indi3idual officers and shop stewards of petitioner %nion should be dismissed from their emplo'ment.
I!D, -. K!S. (hat there was a labor dispute between the parties, in this case, is not an issue. Jetitioners notified the respondent of their intention to stage a stri&e,
and not merel' to pic&et. Jetitioners@ insistence to stage a stri&e is e3ident in the fact that an amended notice to stri&e was filed e3en as respondent mo3ed to dismiss
the first notice. (he basic elements of a stri&e are present in this case, -$E members of petitioner %nion, whose respecti3e applications for lea3e of absence on
September #-, -111 were disappro3ed, opted not to report for wor& on said date, and gathered in front of the compan' premises to hold a mass protest action.
Jetitioners deliberatel' absented themsel3es and instead wore red ribbons, carried placards with slogans such as, AK!S 672" S7 S(5"6!,A AJ5O(!S(7 672",A AS7IOD,
6757J7(79 9M 279MM7M7H7 "J7M7B79,A A?B7/TH7M B7BOK"9,A AS(OJ %9"O9 B%S("9M.A (he' marched to and fro in front of the compan'@s premises during
wor&ing hours. (hus, petitioners engaged in a concerted acti3it' which alread' affected the compan'@s operations. (he mass concerted acti3it' constituted a stri&e.
#. 9O. "n the present case, there is no e3idence on record to show that respondents had complied with the abo3e mandator' re>uirements of law for a 3alid stri&e.
Jarticularl', there is no showing that respondents had obser3ed the prescribed cooling/off period, conducted a stri&e 3ote, much less submitted a stri&e 3ote report to
the Department of abor within the re>uired time. (his being the case, respondents@ stri&e on September #-, -111 is illegal. "n the recent case of ??BJ" Jostmix
Hor&ers %nion 3s. 95?, #111 (sic) S?57 *-$, the Supreme ?ourt had said, A"t bears stressing that the stri&e re>uirements under 7rticle #E* and #E) of the abor
?ode are mandator' re>uisites, without which, the stri&e will be considered illegal. (he e3idence (sic) intention of the law in re>uiring the stri&e notice and stri&e/3ote
report as mandator' re>uirements is to reasonabl' regulate the right to stri&e which is essential to the attainment of legitimate polic' obGecti3es embodied in the law.
Veril', substantial compliance with a mandator' pro3ision will not suffice. Strict adherence to the mandate of the law is re>uired.
8.K!S. %nion officers are dut'/bound to guide their members to respect the law. "f instead of doing so, the officers urge the members to 3iolate the law and def' the
dul' constituted authorities, their dismissal from the ser3ice is Gust penalt' or sanction for their unlawful acts. (he officers@ responsibilit' is greater than that of the
members.
7s to the shop/stewards who contend that the' are merel' union members and not union officers, the S? said that the' are union officers. "t is >uite clear that the
Gurisdiction of shop stewards and the super3isors includes the determination of the issues arising from the interpretation or e3en implementation of a pro3ision of the
?B7, or from an' order or memorandum, circular or assignments issued b' the appropriate authorit' in the establishment.(awphi(!net "n fine, the' are part and parcel
of the continuous process of grie3ance resolution designed to preser3e and maintain peace among the emplo'ees and their emplo'er. (he' occup' positions of trust and
laden with awesome responsibilities.
"n this case, instead of pla'ing the role of Apeacema&ersA and grie3ance sol3ers, the petitioners/shop stewards participated in the stri&e. (hus, li&e the officers and
directors of petitioner %nion who Goined the stri&e, petitioners/shop stewards also deser3e the penalt' of dismissal from their emplo'ment.
Unite8 Pe0si Cola v. La*ues/a, 2"" SCRA (5 9"#
F7?(S, Jetitioner is a union of super3isor' emplo'ees. "t appears that on 2arch #$, -11) the union filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the route
managers at Jepsi/?ola Jroducts Jhilippines, "nc. Iowe3er, its petition was denied b' the med/arbiter and, on appeal, b' the Secretar' of abor and !mplo'ment, on
the ground that the route managers are managerial emplo'ees and, therefore, ineligible for union membership under the first sentence of 7rt. #*) of the abor ?ode,
which pro3ides,
"neligibility of managerial employees to )oin any labor organization* right of supervisory employees! + ,anagerial employees are not eligible to )oin, assist or form any
labor organization! -upervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may )oin, assist or form
separate labor organizations of their own!
Jetitioner brought this suit challenging the 3alidit' of the order dated 7ugust 8-, -11), as reiterated in the order dated September ##, -11), of the Secretar' of abor
and !mplo'ment. "ts petition was dismissed b' the (hird Di3ision for lac& of showing that respondent committed gra3e abuse of discretion. But petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration, pressing for resolution its contention that the first sentence of 7rt. #*) of the abor ?ode, so far as it declares managerial emplo'ees to be
ineligible to form, assist or Goin unions, contra3enes 7rt. """ U + of the ?onstitution which pro3ides,
Page 14 of 24
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for the purposes not contrary to law shall
not be abridged!
"SS%!S,
-) whether the route managers at Jepsi/?ola Jroducts Jhilippines, "nc. are managerial emplo'ees and
(#) whether 7rt. #*), insofar as it prohibits managerial emplo'ees from forming, Goining or assisting labor unions, 3iolates 7rt. """, U + of the ?onstitution.
I!D, -. K!S. !arlier in this opinion, reference was made to the distinction between managers per se (top managers and middle managers) and super3isors (first/line
managers). (hat distinction is e3ident in the wor& of the route managers which sets them apart from super3isors in general. %nli&e super3isors who basicall' merel'
direct operating emplo'ees in line with set tas&s assigned to them, route managers are responsible for the success of the compan':s main line of business through
management of their respecti3e sales teams. Such management necessaril' in3ol3es the planning, direction, operation and e3aluation of their indi3idual teams and
areas which the wor& of super3isors does not entail.
(he route managers cannot thus possibl' be classified as mere super3isors because their wor& does not onl' in3ol3e, but goes far be'ond, the simple direction or
super3ision of operating emplo'ees to accomplish obGecti3es set b' those abo3e them. (he' are not mere functionaries with simple o3ersight functions but business
administrators in their own right. 7n idea of the role of route managers as managers per se can be gotten from a memo sent b' the director of metro sales operations
of respondent compan' to one of the route managers.
#. 9O. Hhen read in relation to this definition in 7rt. #-#(m), it will be seen that 7rt. #*) faithfull' carries out the intent of the ?onstitutional ?ommission in framing 7rt.
""", U+ of the fundamental law. 9or is the guarantee of organizational right in 7rt. """, U+ infringed b' a ban against managerial emplo'ees forming a union. (he right
guaranteed in 7rt. """, U+ is subGect to the condition that its exercise should be for purposes Anot contrary to law.A
"n the case of 7rt. #*), there is a rational basis for prohibiting managerial emplo'ees from forming or Goining labor organizations. 7s 0ustice Da3ide, 0r., himself a
constitutional commissioner, said A the rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be, because if these managerial emplo'ees would belong to or be affiliated with a
%nion,
-. (he latter might not be assured of their lo'alt' to the %nion in 3iew of e3ident conflict of interests.
#. (he %nion can also become compan'/dominated with the presence of managerial emplo'ees in %nion membership.A
"n #ulletin %ublishing Co!, "nc! v! .on! /ugusto -anchez, this ?ourt elaborated on this rationale, thus,
A. . . (he rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be, because if these managerial emplo'ees would belong to or be affiliated with a %nion, the latter might not be
assured of their lo'alt' to the %nion in 3iew of e3ident conflict of interests. (he %nion can also become compan'/dominated with the presence of managerial emplo'ees
in %nion membership.A
N0T12 7rt. #*) prohibits managerial emplo'ees to organize for purpose of collecti3e bargaining. B%( it does not pre3ent them for organizing for other purpose such as
for mutual aid and protection. (he basis of this is the fiduciar' and confidential relationship between manager and emplo'er.
E. A(i"n /+9
A!t. /+9. =!o9i;ition $2$inst $(i"ns, ">#"7tions. 7ll aliens, natural or Guridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictl' prohibited from engaging directl' or
indirectl' in all forms of trade union acti3ities without preGudice to normal contacts between Jhilippine labor unions and recognized international labor centers, Jro3ided,
howe3er, (hat aliens wor&ing in the countr' with 3alid permits issued b' the Department of abor and !mplo'ment, ma' exercise the right to self/organization and Goin
or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collecti3e bargaining, Jro3ided, further, (hat said aliens are nationals of a countr' which grants the
same or similar rights to Filipino wor&ers. (7s amended b' Section #1, 5epublic 7ct 9o. E<-), 2arch #-, -1+1)
F. S"#u!it. Gu$!%s
1anila .le%tri% Co. v. Se%retar& o, Labor, (93 SCRA 235 9(#
F$#ts) 2!57?O !mplo'ees and Hor&ers 7ssociation (2!H7) is an existing union who represents the ran& and file emplo'ees in Ja' Mrades -/E of 2!57?O. "t holds a
3alid ?B7. 2eanwhile, the Staff and (echnical !mplo'ees 7ssociation of 2!57?O (S(!72/J?HF), a labor organization, filed a petition (consolidated with a similar
petition of F72!S or First ine 7ssociation of 2!57?O Super3isor' !mplo'ees) for #"!ti4i#$tion "("#tion, see&ing to represent regular emplo'ees of 2!57?O who
are a) non/managerial emplo'ees with Ja' Mrades < and up4 b) emplo'ees of the Jatrol Di3ision, (reasur' Securit' Ser3ices Section who are automaticall' remo3ed
from the bargaining unit4 and c) emplo'ees within the ran& and file unit who are dis>ualified from becoming members of the same bargaining unit. DERALCO o77os"%
s$i% 7"tition on the grounds that the emplo'ees represented a) are managerial emplo'ees4 b) securit' ser3ices personnel who are prohibited from Goining unions4 c)
did not gi3e their consent4 and d) alread' represented b' 2!H7. 2ed/7rbiter ruled "FO S(!72/J?HF4 abor Sec. Drilon affirmed with modification insofar as ran& and
file emplo'ees alread' represented in the existing ?B7. Hith the passage of 57 E<-) and its "55, which dis>ualif' super3isor' emplo'ees and securit' guards from
membership in a labor organization of the ran& and file, S(!72/J?HF later withdrew its petition with respect to emplo'ees of the Jatrol Di3ision, (reasur' Securit'
Ser3ices Section and ran&/and/file emplo'ees in Ja' Mrades -/E.
Issu") -) HO9 the 5esolution of the abor Sec is 3alid, considering the passage of 57 E<-). (focus on part about securit' emplo'ees)
H"(%) R"so(ution $44i!6"% Eit9 6o%i4i#$tion
Page 15 of 24
-) Kes. (he 5esolution is based on 7rt #-# of the -1++ abor ?ode which defines managerial and ran& and file emplo'ees, the onl' groups of emplo'ees recognized at
that time. (his is wh' Drilon limited his classification of emplo'ees belonging to Ja' Mrades < and up to the said two groups. 7s to alleged failure to establish a
demarcation line between managerial and super3isor', 7rt #-#/m of 57 E<-) itself pro3ides a definition, 6$n$2"!i$( "67(o.""s $!" t9os" E9o ($. %oEn o!
">"#ut" 6$n$2"!i$( 7o(i#i"s, E9i(" su7"!5iso!. "67(o.""s 6"!"(. !"#o66"n% t9"6.
7s for s"#u!it. "67(o.""s, the implementation rules insofar as it dis>ualifies securit' emplo'ees from Goining labor organizations of the ran& and file, is null and 3oid,
for not being germane to the purposes of !O --- (annulled the pro3ision from 7rt. #*) of old abor ?ode, which was erroneousl' Ncarried o3erO in 57 E<-)@s "55) and
57 E<-). 9ow the' ma' Goin either the union of the ran& and file or of the super3isors, depending on their ran&. (5ationale of pre3ious exclusion, Jotential conflict of
interest, di3ided lo'alt').
2!57?O had admitted that emplo'ees within Ja' Mrades < and up are super3isor'. (he authorit' of the abor Sec for the establishment of two labor organizations for
the ran& and file will ha3e to be disregarded since S? upheld certification elections onl' for super3isor' emplo'ees, with S(!72/J?HF and F72!S as choices. (hose
emplo'ees alread' co3ered in the ?B7 shall remain in the existing bargaining unit.
-. WORKERS WITH NO RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION
A. D$n$2"!i$( $n% Con4i%"nti$( E67(o.""s /1/ 163, 8/
A!t. /1/. ?"4initions.
163 A2anagerial emplo'eeA is one who is 3ested with the powers or prerogati3es to la' down and execute management policies and.or to hire, transfer,
suspend, la'/off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline emplo'ees. Super3isor' emplo'ees are those who, in the interest of the emplo'er, effecti3el' recommend such
managerial actions if the exercise of such authorit' is not merel' routinar' or clerical in nature but re>uires the use of independent Gudgment. 7ll emplo'ees not falling
within an' of the abo3e definitions are considered ran&/and/file emplo'ees for purposes of this Boo&.
A!t. 8/. Co5"!$2". (he pro3isions of this (itle shall appl' to emplo'ees in all establishments and underta&ings whether for profit or not, but not to go3ernment
emplo'ees, managerial emplo'ees, field personnel, members of the famil' of the emplo'er who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the
personal ser3ice of another, and wor&ers who are paid b' results as determined b' the Secretar' of abor in appropriate regulations.
7s used herein, Amanagerial emplo'eesA refer to those whose primar' dut' consists of the management of the establishment in which the' are emplo'ed or of a
department or subdi3ision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff.
AField personnelA shall refer to non/agricultural emplo'ees who regularl' perform their duties awa' from the principal place of business or branch office of the emplo'er
and whose actual hours of wor& in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certaint'.
1. T"st
Stan8ar8 C9artere8, et%. v. Stan8ar8 C9artere8 'an-, 552 SCRA 2"4 !"#
San 1i*uel Cor0oration Su0ervisors v. La*ues/a, 233 SCRA 33! 93#
F$#ts) Jetitioner %nion filed before DO! a petition for certification election among super3isors and exempt emplo'ees of the S2? 2agnolia Joultr' Jroducts Jlants of
?abu'ao, San Fernando and Otis. abor %Sec issued an Order ordering the conduct of the said election, with the emplo'ees of the three plants considered as one
bargaining unit. S2? appealed, assailing the grouping together of the three plants, and the inclusion of super3isor' le3els 8 and abo3e whose positions are allegedl'
confidential. 7n Order was issued directing the conduct of separate certification elections of Super3isors ran&ed -/* in the three plants.
Issu") -) HO9 Super3isors 8 and * are considered confidential emplo'ees.
#) HO9 the emplo'ees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit.
H"(%) -) 9o. ?onfidential emplo'ees are those who a) assist or act in a confidential capacit'4 79D b) those who formulate, determine and effectuate management
policies in the field of labor relations (i.e. he must ha3e necessar' access to labor relations information, and said access must not merel' be incidental to his duties). (he
broad rationale behind their exclusion from bargaining units is that emplo'ees should not be placed in position in3ol3ing potential conflict of interests. (he criteria ha3e
not been met. Hhile it is true that Super3isors ran&ed 8 and * answered in the affirmati3e when as&ed NDo 'ou handle confidential data or documentsBO in the Josition
Vuestionnaires submitted b' the %nion, the same >uestionnaire stated that the confidential information refer to products formula and standards, not to labor relations.
#) Kes. (he fact that the emplo'ees belong to three different plants is immaterial. Meographical locations can be completel' disregarded so long as their mutual and
communal interests are not sacrificed. 7 bargaining unit is Na group of emplo'ees of a gi3en emplo'er, comprised of all or less than all of the entire bod' of emplo'ees,
which the collecti3e interest of all the emplo'ees consistent with e>uit' to the emplo'er, indicate to be best suited to ser3e the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties
under the collecti3e bargaining pro3isions of the law.O 7 unit must ha3e substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours and other wor&ing conditions. "f the three groups in
this case were to be considered as separate bargaining entities, their bargaining le3erage will be diminished. 7n' concerted acti3it' of one will not ha3e much impact on
the operations of the emplo'er.
Su*buanon Rural 'an- In%, v. La*ues/a, 325 SCRA 425 !!#
NAT@RE) Special ci3il action for certiorari and prohibition
Page 16 of 24
FACTS)
- Jetitioner Sugbuanon 5ural Ban&, "nc., (-$#", for bre3it') is a dul'/registered ban&ing institution with principal office in ?ebu ?it' and a branch in 2andaue
?it'. Jri3ate respondent S5B" 7ssociation of Jrofessional, Super3isor', Office, and (echnical !mplo'ees %nion (7JSO(!%) is a legitimate labor organization
affiliated with the (rade %nions ?ongress of the Jhilippines ((%?J).
- On October +, -118, the DO! 5egional Office in ?ebu ?it' granted ?ertificate of 5egistration to 7JSO(!%/(%?J, hereafter referred to as the union.
- On October #E, -118, the union filed a petition for certification election of the super3isor' emplo'ees of S5B". "t alleged, among others, that, (-) 7JSO(!%/
(%?J was a labor organization dul'/registered with the abor Department4 (#) S5B" emplo'ed ) or more super3isor' emplo'ees4 (8) a maGorit' of these
emplo'ees supported the petition, (*) there was no existing collecti3e bargaining agreement (?B7) between an' union and S5B"4 and ()) no certification
election had been held in S5B" during the past -# months prior to the petition.
- On 9o3ember -#, -118, S5B" filed a motion to dismiss the union:s petition. "t sought to pre3ent the holding of a certification election on two grounds. &irst,
that the members of 7JSO(!%/(%?J were in fact managerial or confidential emplo'ees. -econd, the 7ssociation of abor %nions/(rade %nions ?ongress of the
Jhilippines or 7%/(%?J was representing the union.
- (he union filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on December -, -118. "t argued that its members were not managerial emplo'ees but merel'
super3isor' emplo'ees.
- On December 1, -118, the 2ed/7rbiter denied petitioner:s motion to dismiss.
- S5B" appealed the 2ed/7rbiter:s decision to the Secretar' of abor and !mplo'ment. (he appeal was denied for lac& of merit. (he certification election was
ordered.
- On 0une -E, -11*, the 2ed/7rbiter scheduled the holding of the certification election for 0une #1, -11*.
- On 0une -<, -11*, S5B" filed with the 2ed/7rbiter an urgent motion to suspend proceedings. (he 2ed/7rbiter denied the same. S5B" then filed a motion for
reconsideration. (wo da's later, the 2ed/7rbiter cancelled the certification election scheduled for 0une #1, -11* in order to address the motion for
reconsideration.
- (he 2ed/7rbiter later denied petitioner:s motion for reconsideration
- S5B" appealed the order of denial to the DO! Secretar'
- Jetitioner proceeded to file a petition with the DO! 5egional Office see&ing the cancellation of the respondent union:s registration. "t a3erred that the
7JSO(!%/(%?J members were actuall' managerial emplo'ees who were prohibited b' law from Goining or organizing unions.
- DO! %ndersecretar' denied S5B":s appeal for lac& of merit. Ie ruled that 7JSO(!%/(%?J was a legitimate labor organization. "t was full' entitled to all the
rights and pri3ileges granted b' law to a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election. Ie also held that until and
unless a final order is issued cancelling 7JSO(!%/(%?J:s registration certificate, it had the legal right to represent its members for collecti3e bargaining
purposes.
- S5B" mo3ed for reconsideration of the %ndersecretar':s decision
ISS@EAS) (-) HO9 the members of the respondent union are managerial emplo'ees and.or highl'/placed confidential emplo'ees, hence prohibited b' law from Goining
labor organizations and engaging in union acti3ities
(#) HO9 the 2ed/7rbiter ma' 3alidl' order the holding of a certification election
HEL?)
(. NO Reasonin*
/ 7rticle #-# (m) of the abor ?ode defines the terms Amanagerial emplo'eeA and Asuper3isor' emplo'eesA as follows, 7rt. #-#. 3efinitions
(m) A2anagerial emplo'eeA is one who is 3ested with powers or prerogati3es to la' down and execute management policies and.or hire, transfer, suspend, la'/off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline emplo'ees. -upervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the emplo'er, effecti3el' recommend such managerial actions if the
exercise of such authorit' is not merel' routinar' or clerical in nature but re>uires the use of independent Gudgment. 7ll emplo'ees not falling within an' of the abo3e
definitions are considered ran&/and/file emplo'ees for purposes of
/ Jetitioner submitted detailed Gob descriptions to support its contention that the union members are managerial emplo'ees and.or confidential emplo'ees proscribed
from engaging in labor acti3ities. "n the present case, howe3er, petitioner failed to show that the emplo'ees in >uestion were 3ested with managerial powers. 7t best
the' onl' had recommendator' powers subGect to e3aluation, re3iew, and final decision b' the ban&:s management. (he Gob description forms submitted b' petitioner
clearl' show that the union members in >uestion ma' not transfer, suspend, la'/off, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline emplo'ees. 2oreo3er, the forms also do not
show that the ?ashiers, 7ccountants, and 7cting ?hiefs of the oans Department formulate and execute management policies which are normall' expected of
management officers.
/. CES Reasonin*
- One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under 7rticle #*#(b) of the abor ?ode is the right to be certified as the exclusi3e representati3e of all
emplo'ees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collecti3e bargaining. Ia3ing complied with the re>uirements of 7rt. #8*, it is our 3iew that
respondent union is a legitimate labor union. 7rticle #)< of the abor ?ode mandates that a certification election shall automatically be conducted b' the 2ed/
7rbiter upon the filing of a petition b' a legitimate labor organization.
Page 17 of 24
?IS=OSITI-E) ="tition %is6iss"%.
Sa/son v. +LRC, 33! SCRA 4)! !!#
NAT@RE Special ci3il action of certiorari
FACTS / 5ufino 9orberto F. Samson was dismissed from the ?ompan' for uttering what was considered b' the compan' as obscene, insulting, and offensi3e words and
for ma&ing malicious and lewd gestures directed at the Jresident and Meneral 2anager of the compan' during an informal Sales and 2ar&eting gathering in relation to
the decision of the 2anagement ?ommittee on a dispute with another emplo'ee. Ie was also accused of threatening to disrupt or create 3iolence in a forthcoming
9ational Sales ?onference.
/ (he abor 7rbiter found that Samson was illegall' dismissed but the decision was re3ersed b' 95?.
ISS@EAS HO9 the dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is 3alid
HEL? 9o. 7s a ground for dismissal, the term Ntrust and confidenceO is restricted to managerial emplo'ees. 7nd before one ma' be properl' considered a managerial
emplo'ee, three conditions must be met,
a. (heir primar' dut' consists of the management of the establishment in which the' are emplo'ed or of a department or subdi3ision thereof,
b. (he' customaril' and regularl' direct the wor& of two or more emplo'ees therein4
c. T9". 9$5" t9" $ut9o!it. to 9i!" o! 4i!" ot9"! "67(o.""s o4 (oE"! !$nF, o! t9"i! su22"stions $n% !"#o66"n%$tions $s to 9i!in2 $n 4i!in2 $n% $s to t9"
7!o6otion o! $n. ot9"! #9$n2" o4 st$tus o4 ot9"! "67(o.""s $!" 2i5"n 7$!ti#u($! E"i29t.
/"n this case the Gob description of Samson does not mention that petitioner possesses the power Nto la' down policies nor to hire, transfer, suspend, la' off, recall.
discharge, assign or discipline emplo'eesO. 7bsent this crucial element, petitioner cannot be considered a managerial emplo'ee despite his designation as District Sales
2anager.
7is0osition Jetition is granted. 95? decision is re3ersed and set aside. Samson is reinstated to his position without loss of seniorit' rights and is awarded pa'ment of
his full bac&wages.
Pa0er In8ustries Cor0oration o, t9e P9ili00ines v. La*ues/a, 33! SCRA 295 !!#
Jetitioner Japer "ndustries ?orporation of the Jhilippines (J"?OJ) has o3er 1,$$$ emplo'ees,
1**

of whom are super3isor' and technical staff emplo'ees. JBS(S!% instituted a Jetition

for ?ertification !lection to determine the sole and exclusi3e bargaining agent
of the super3isor' and technical staff emplo'ees of J"?OJ for collecti3e bargaining agreement (?B7) purposes. 2eanwhile, pri3ate respondents Federation of Free
Hor&ers (FFH) and 7ssociated abor %nion (7%) filed their respecti3e petitions for inter3ention.
2ed 7rbiter granted the petitions for inter3entions of the FFH and 7%. "t held that the super3isors and section heads are managerial emplo'ees and therefore excluded
from the list of 3oters for purposes of certification election. DO! %ndersecretar' aguesma re3ersed 2ed 7rbiter4 hence this appeal b' J"?OJ.
J"?OJ >uestioned and obGected to the inclusion of some section heads and super3isors in the list of 3oters whose positions it a3erred were reclassified as managerial
emplo'ees in the light of the reorganization effected b' it. %nder the 5e3ised Organizational Structure of the J"?OJ, the compan' was di3ided into *) main business
groups, namel', Japer Jroducts Business, (imber Jroducts Business, Forest 5esource Business and Support Ser3ices Business. 7 3ice/ president or assistant 3ice/
president heads each of these business groups. 7 di3ision manager heads the di3isions comprising each business group. 7 department manager heads the departments
comprising each di3ision. Se%tion 9ea8s an8 su0ervisors, no; %alle8 se%tion /ana*ers an8 unit /ana*ers, head the sections and independent units,
respecti3el', comprising each department. J"?OJ ad3anced the 3iew that considering the alleged present authorit' of these section managers and unit managers to hire
and fire, the' are classified as managerial emplo'ees, and hence, ineligible to form or Goin an' labor organization.
Issu") HO9 section managers and unit managers are considered managerial emplo'ees4 hence, ineligible to form or Goin an' labor organization.
SC) 9o.
7 thorough dissection of the Gob description of the concerned super3isor' emplo'ees and section heads indisputabl' show that the' are not actuall' managerial but onl'
super3isor' emplo'ees since the' do not la' down compan' policies.
J"?OJ:s contention that the subGect section heads and unit managers exercise the authorit' to hire and fire is ambiguous and >uite misleading for the reason that an'
authorit' the' exercise is not supreme but merel' ad3isor' in character. (heirs is not a final determination of the compan' policies inasmuch as an' action ta&en b'
them on matters relati3e to hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension and termination of emplo'ees is still subGect to confirmation and appro3al b' their respecti3e
superior. (hus, where such power, which is in effect recommendator' in character, is subGect to e3aluation, re3iew and final action b' the department heads and other
higher executi3es of the compan', the same, although present, is not effecti3e and not an exercise of independent Gudgment as re>uired b' law.
(he fact that J"?OJ 3oiced out its obGection to the holding of certification election, despite numerous opportunities to 3entilate the same, onl' after respondent
%ndersecretar' of abor affirmed the holding thereof, simpl' bolstered the conclusion that J"?OJ raised the issue merel' to pre3ent and thwart the concerned section
heads and super3isor' emplo'ees from exercising a right granted them b' law. 9eedless to stress, no obstacle must be placed to the holding of certification elections,
for it is a statutor' polic' that should not be circum3ented.
Cainta v. Cainta, 4"9 SCRA 4)" !)#
Page 18 of 24
F$#ts) ?B7 between the school and the %nion pro3ided stipulation in a ?B7 that allows management to retire an emplo'ee in its emplo' for a predetermined length'
period but who has not 'et reached the minimum compulsor' retirement age
%nion held an election of officers, with 2rs. lagas, Dean, being elected as Jresident4 2s. 0a3ier, subGect coordinator, as VJ. (he School retired lagas and 0a3ier, who
had rendered more than #$ 'ears of continuous ser3ice, pursuant to the ?B7.
%nion filed a notice of stri&e and pic&eted the School@s entrances. %nion filed a complaint for unfair labor practice before the 95?. (he 95? ruled that the retirement of
lagas and 0a3ier is legal as the School was merel' exercising an option gi3en to it under the ?B7. (he 95? dismissed the unfair labor practice charge against the
School for insufficienc' of e3idence. Furthermore, it was found that the stri&e declared b' the %nion is illegal, thereb' declaring all union officers to ha3e lost their
emplo'ment status. ?7 annulled and set aside the resolutions of the 95?4 hence, this appeal.
Issu"s) (-) HO9 the retirement of lagas and 0a3ier is legal4 (#) HO9 the School is guilt' of unfair labor practice4 and (8) HO9 the stri&e is legal.
SC) i4o S#9oo(. A44i!6"% CA.
(-) 5etirement is legal, arising as it did from a management prerogati3e granted b' the mutuall'/negotiated ?B7 between the School and the %nion.
(he retirement of 5osalinda lagas has become ine3itable because, bein* a /ana*erial e/0lo&ee b& reason o, 9er 0osition as 7ean o, Stu8ent A,,airs, s9e
a%%e0te8 t9e Union 0resi8en%&. She lost the trust and confidence on her b' the S?IOO as she occupied a managerial position as Dean Being also the union
president, she has allowed her lo'alties to be di3ided between the administration and the union.
As to Pa< >avier, 9er retire/ent ;as 8e%i8e8 u0on a,ter an evaluation s9o;s t9at s9e ;as not 0er,or/in* ;ell as 9er stu8ents ;ere %o/0lainin* about
9er brus?ue attitu8e an8 ba8 lan*ua*e, asi8e ,ro/ bein* 9abituall& absent an8 late.
B' their acceptance of the ?B7, the %nion and its members are obliged to abide b' the commitments and limitations the' had agreed to cede to management. (he
>uestioned retirement pro3isions cannot be deemed as an imposition foisted on the %nion, which 3er' well had the right to ha3e refused to agree to allowing
management to retire emplo'ees with at least #$ 'ears of ser3ice.
(#) (he law and this ?ourt frowns upon unfair labor practices b' management, including so/called union/busting but the exercise b' the emplo'er of a 3alid and dul'
established prerogati3e to retire an emplo'ee does not constitute unfair labor practice.
(8) (he functions of the Dean of Student 7ffairs, as occupied b' lagas, are enumerated in the Facult' 2anual, are managerial in nature, thereb' classif'ing lagas as a
managerial emplo'ee.
0a3ier was occup'ing the position of SubGect 7rea ?oordinator. Ier duties and responsibilities include 3arious recommendations to the principal@s consideration the
appointment of facult' members in the department, their promotion, discipline and e3en termination. She was therefore a super3isor' emplo'ee.
Both are therefore proscribed from Goining a labor union, more so being elected as union officer. "n the case of 0a3ier, a super3isor' emplo'ee, she ma' Goin a labor
union composed onl' of super3isor' emplo'ees. Finding both union officers to be emplo'ees not belonging to the ran&/and/file, their membership in the %nion has
become >uestionable, rendering the %nion inutile to represent their cause4 hence, stri&e is considered illegal.
/. =!o9i;ition $n% R$tion$("
1etrolab In8ustries, In%. v. Rol8an4Con,essor, 254 SCRA ("2 9)#
F$#ts) 2etro Drug ?orporation !mplo'ees 7ssociation/Federation of Free Hor&ers (%nion) is a labor organization representing the ran& and file emplo'ees of petitioner
2etrolab "ndustries, "nc. (2etro Drug, "nc.).
?B7 expired. (he negotiations for a new ?B7, howe3er, ended in a deadloc&. %nion filed a notice of stri&e against 2etrolab and 2etro Drug "nc. SO! (orres issued an
order resol3ing all the disputed items in the ?B7 and ordered the parties in3ol3ed to execute a new ?B7.
On the basis of its management prerogati3e, 2etrolab laid off 1* of its ran& and file emplo'ees, including executi3e secretaries. 7cting abor Secretar' 9ie3es ?onfesor
issued a resolution declaring the la'off of 2etrolab:s 1* ran& and file wor&ers illegal and ordered their reinstatement.
Cont"ntion o4 D"t!o($;) (he executi3e secretaries of the Jresident, !xecuti3e Vice/Jresident, Vice/Jresident, Vice/Jresident for Sales, Jersonnel manager, and
Director for ?orporate Jlanning who ma' ha3e access to 3ital labor relations information or who ma' otherwise act in a confidential capacit' to persons who determine
or formulate management policies. (his being the case, the' could not be made members of a labor organization.
Issu") ?an the executi3e secretaries be gi3en the benefit of whate3er the %nion a3ails b' wa' of its petitions. Stated differentl', can the' be members of a labor
organizationB
SC) 9o, as the' are considered confidential emplo'ees. Alt9ou*9 Arti%le 245 o, t9e Labor Co8e li/its t9e ineli*ibilit& to :oin, ,or/ an8 assist an& labor
or*ani<ation to /ana*erial e/0lo&ees, :uris0ru8en%e 9as e@ten8e8 t9is 0ro9ibition to %on,i8ential e/0lo&ees or t9ose ;9o b& reason o, t9eir 0ositions
or nature o, ;or- are re?uire8 to assist or a%t in a ,i8u%iar& /anner to /ana*erial e/0lo&ees an8 9en%e, are li-e;ise 0riv& to sensitive an8 9i*9l&
%on,i8ential re%or8s.
B' the 3er' nature of their functions, the' assist and act in a confidential capacit' to, or ha3e access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial
functions in the field of labor relations. 7s such, the rationale behind the ineligibilit' of managerial emplo'ees to form, assist or Goin a labor union e>uall' applies to
them.
Page 19 of 24
2oreo3er, unionization of confidential emplo'ees for the purpose of collecti3e bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or indi3iduals who are
supposed to act Ain the interest of the emplo'ers. "t is not farfetched that in the course of collecti3e bargaining, the' might Geopardize that interest which the' are dut'/
bound to protect.
Finall', confidential emplo'ees cannot be classified as ran& and file. (he nature of emplo'ment of confidential emplo'ees is >uite distinct from the ran& and file, thus,
warranting a separate categor'. !xcluding confidential emplo'ees from the ran& and file bargaining unit, therefore, is not tantamount to discrimination.
Pe0si Cola Pro8u%ts, v. Se%retar& o, Labor, 3(2 SCRA (!4 99#
Facts, ?onsolidation of # cases.
-. (he union Jepsi/?ola !mplo'ees Organization/%O!F filed a petition for certification election. 2ed/7rbiter granted the petition, explicitl' stating that it was an affiliate
of the federation %nion de Obreros !sti3adores de Filipinas, together with the ran& and file unions of Jepsi emplo'ees. Jepsi filed with the Bureau of abor 5elations a
petition to cancel and.or re3o&e the charter affiliation of the union, sa'ing that the union:s members were managers and that a super3isors: union can not affiliate with a
federation whose members include the ran& and file union of the same compan'.
#. (he 2ed/7rbiter issued an order to conduct a certification election to be participated b' and among the super3isor' wor&ers of Jepsi. Jepsi appealed the order. (he
abor Secretar' modified b' referring the cases to the 5egional Director, but the call for certification election was sustained. (he Bureau of abor 5elations later issued a
registration certificate in fa3or of the union.
"ssues, -. HO9 a super3isors: union can affiliate with the same federation of which two ran& and file unions are also members,
#. HO9 the petition to cancel.re3o&e the union:s registration is a preGudicial >uestion to the petition for certification election,
8. HO9 confidential emplo'ees can Goin labor unions of ran& and file emplo'ees.
Ield, -. "n 3iew of the super3isors: union:s withdrawal from the federation, the issue has become moot and academic, and was dismissed. But to guide the parties and
others similarl' situated, the ?ourt resol3ed it.
7rticle #*) onl' states that managerial emplo'ees are not eligible to Goin, assist or form an' labor organization, and that super3isor' emplo'ees are not eligible to Goin
ran& and file unions but ma' Goin, assist or form their own organizations. Hhile the wording of the law does not co3er federations of unions of ran& and file emplo'ees,
the intent of the law must be upheld, i.e. to a3oid a situation where super3isors would co/mingle with those emplo'ees whom the' directl' super3ise and thus represent
conflicting interests, especiall' if the federation ta&es acti3e part in union acti3ities in the same compan'. "n a batter' of cases the ?ourt has said that the prohibition
extends to a super3isors: union appl'ing for membership in a federation which has ran& and file unions for its members.
#. 9o, it is not a preGudicial >uestion. ?ertification proceedings are in3estigations which are non/ad3ersarial and fact/finding in character. (hus, technical rules of
e3idence do not appl'. 7 union still has the legal personalit' to petition for certification election absent an order directing the cancellation.
8. 9o, the' cannot. %nder the doctrine of necessar' implication, 7rticle #*) dis>ualifies confidential emplo'ees from becoming members of ran& and file unions, e3en
though the pro3ision singles out managerial emplo'ees.(he reasons for such dis>ualification of managerial emplo'ees are -) the union will not be so sure of the
managers: lo'alt' because managers are supposed to be on the side of the emplo'er, and #) the union ma' become compan'/dominated, ma&ing collecti3e bargaining a
one/sided affair. (he same reasons hold for confidential emplo'ees, especiall' in 3iew of the fact that the' ha3e access to the compan':s confidential matters.
B. Wo!F"!AD"6;"! o4 Coo7"!$ti5"
'en*uet .le%tri% Coo0erative, In%. v. Calle:a, ("! SCRA 34! "9#
Facts, BH%/7DO filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusi3e bargaining representati3e of Benguet !lectric ?ooperati3e (B!9!?O). B!% opposed,
sa'ing that it was the sole and exclusi3e bargaining representati3e of B!9!?O:s wor&ers, and in fact had filed two cases against B!9!?O for bargaining deadloc& and
%J. B!9!?O on the other hand filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming that it is a non/profit electric cooperati3e, and the emplo'ees sought to be represented b'
BH%/7DO are not eligible to form, Goin or assist labor unions because the' are members and Goint owners of the cooperati3e. (he 2ed/7rbiter ga3e due course to the
petition for certification election, but limiting it to 8< emplo'ees who are not members and without an' in3ol3ement in the actual ownership of the cooperati3e. B!%
and B!9!?O appealed, but their appeals were dismissed. (he election was held with B!% emerging as the winner (*1 out of +8 3otes cast). B!9!?O through counsel
protested, submitting a certification that onl' * emplo'ees were not B!9!?O members and were the onl' ones eligible to 3ote. (he 2ed/arbiter dismissed the protest.
B% director Ferrer/?alleGa affirmed. B!9!?O filed a petition for certiorari with the S?.
"ssue, HO9 the B% director committed gra3e abuse of discretion in certif'ing B!% as the bargaining representati3e of B!9!?O:s ran& and file emplo'ees.
Ield, Kes. (he right to collecti3e bargaining and self/organization is not a3ailable to an emplo'ee who is also a member and co/owner of the same cooperati3e. (he fact
that the members/emplo'ees do not participate in the actual management does not ma&e them eligible to Goin, form or assist labor organizations. "t is the fact of
ownership of the cooperati3e and not in3ol3ement in its management which dis>ualifies them.
B!% contends that Athere would be no hindrance for emplo'ers to grant on a scheme of generous profit sharing stoc& bonuses to their emplo'ees and thereafter claim
that since their emplo'ees are not stoc&holders, the' are now also co/owners and thus dis>ualified to form unionsA. (he S? said that membership in cooperati3es is
different from being a stoc&holder of a corporation. (he owners and members of a cooperati3e are the ones who run and operate the business. (hus, an emplo'ee who
is also a member and co/owner of the same cooperati3e cannot in3o&e the right to collecti3e bargaining because he cannot bargain with himself or his co/owners.
!3en if there were 8< emplo'ees who were originall' non/members of the cooperati3e but were forced to Goin it, and therefore must be allowed to 3ote, the election is
Page 20 of 24
still 3oid because those who were alread' members of the cooperati3e at the time of the issuance of the 2ed/arbiter:s order were allowed to 3ote.
(he director thus committed gra3e abuse of discretion in affirming the med/arbiter:s order.
Central +e*ros .le%tri% Coo0erative, In%, v. Se%retar& o, 7OL., 2!( SCRA 5"4 9(#
NAT@RE Special ci3il action for certiorari
FACTS / Jetitioner C"nt!$( N"2!os E("#t!i# Coo7"!$ti5", In#. (?!9!?O) see&s to annul the order issued b' then 7cting Secretar' of abor aguesma declaring the
proGected certification election unnecessar' and directing petitioner ?!9!?O to continue recognizing pri3ate respondent CENECO @nion o4 R$tion$( E67(o.""s
(?%5!) as the sole and exclusi3e bargaining representati3e of all the ran&/and/file emplo'ees of petitioner:s electric cooperati3e.
/ Jre3ious e3ents, (heir ?B7 was 3alid for a term of 8 'ears4 ?%5! then wrote ?!9!?O proposing that negotiations be conducted for a new agreement. ?!9!?O denied
?%5!:s re>uest on the ground that, un%"! $77(i#$;(" %"#isions o4 t9" Su7!"6" Cou!t, "67(o.""s E9o $t t9" s$6" ti6" $!" 6"6;"!s o4 $n "("#t!i#
#oo7"!$ti5" $!" not "ntit("% to 4o!6 o! <oin $ union.
/ ?%5! filed a petition for direct recognition or for certification election4 ?!9!?O filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of legal restraints.
/ Some emplo'ees of ?!9!?O then filed for withdrawal of membership in the cooperati3e but ?!9!?O contended that this cannot be allowed.
ISS@EAS
-. HO9 the emplo'ees were allowed to withdraw membership from the cooperati3e so as to entitle them to form or Goin ?%5! for purposes of the negotiations for a
collecti3e bargaining agreement
HEL? -. K!S Ratio 2embership in the cooperati3e is on a 5o(unt$!. ;$sis. Ience, withdrawal therefrom cannot be restricted unnecessaril'. The right to )oin an
organization necessarily includes the e4uivalent right not to )oin the same.
No Ri29t o4 S"(4-O!2$ni:$tion) WORKERADEDBER OF COO=ERATI-E
/ "t was held in #atangas " 1lectric Cooperative Labor 5nion vs! $omeo /! 6oung that Aemplo'ees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperati3e are not
entitled to form or Goin unions for purposes of collecti3e bargaining agreement, for certainl' an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co/owners.A
/ Iowe3er, nowhere in said case is it stated that member/emplo'ees are prohibited from withdrawing their membership in the cooperati3e in order to Goin a labor union.
7is0osition (he >uestioned order is hereb' 799%!D and S!( 7S"D!. (he med/arbiter is hereb' ordered to conduct a certification election among the ran&/and/ file
emplo'ees of ?!9!?O with ?%5! and 9o %nion as the choices therein.
Re0ubli% et%. v. Asia Pro Coo0erative, 53" SCRA )59 !3#
J75("!S, 5J through the Social Securit' ?ommission, Social Securit' S'stem (57 --E- as amended b' +#+#) (p) 3. 7siapro ?ooperati3e (57 E18+) (r)
F7?(S, 7siapro is a cooperati3e composed of # t'pes of owners/members, -. 5egular members Q entitled to all the rights and pri3ileges of membership #. 7ssociate
members Q who has no right to 3ote and be 3oted upon and entitled onl' to the rights and pri3ileges pro3ided in its b'/laws. "ts obGecti3es are to pro3ide sa3ings and
credit facilities and to de3elop other li3elihood ser3ices for its members. "t entered into se3eral Ser3ice ?ontracts with Stanfilco, a di3ision of DO! Jhils, based in
Bu&idnon. (he members earn their income from the ser3ice surplus generated b' the >ualit' and amount of ser3ices the' rendered which is determined b' the BOD of
the cooperati3e. (he members who were assigned to Stanfilco re>uested the ser3ices of 7siapro to register them with SSS as self/emplo'ed and to remit their
contributions. (he' pa' the same premium contribution as that paid b' both an emplo'er and emplo'ee. SSS sent 7siapro a letter ordering it to register as an emplo'er
of the members because it is actuall' a manpower contractor suppl'ing emplo'ees to Stanfilco. 7siapro declined asserting that the owners/members are the cooperati3e
itself hence, it cannot be its own emplo'er. SSS filed a petition with the SS? against 7siapro and Stanfilco pra'ing that 7siapro or, in the alternati3e, Stanfilco, be
directed to register as an emplo'er and to report the members as emplo'ees under compulsor' co3erage of SSS and to remit the necessar' contributions in accordance
with the SSS aw of -11<. 7siapro reasoned that there was no emplo'er/emplo'ee relationship between itself and the members and since onl' the 95? can determine
the existence of such relationship, the SS? therefore has no Gurisdiction. SS? granted the petition of the SSS. %pon appeal to the ?7, it also reasoned that it is a multi/
purpose cooperati3e created under 57 E18+ and composed of owners/members whose rights and obligations are deri3ed from their 2embership 7greement, the
?ooperati3e B'/aws, and 57 E18+ and not from an' contract of emplo'ment or from the abor aws. ?7 granted 7siapro@s petition.
"SS%!,
-. ("SS%! 5!7(!D (O (I! ?7S!) HO9 the existence of an emplo'er/emplo'ee relationship between the cooperati3e and its owners/members entitle them to the right
to collecti3e bargaining.
#. HO9 the SS? has Gurisdiction o3er the issue
8. HO9 there is an emplo'er/emplo'ee relationship between the cooperati3e and its owners/members.
-. 7s to the right of an owner/member of a cooperati3e to collecti3e bargaining, the S? cited its ruling in ?ooperati3e 5ural Ban& of Da3ao ?it', "nc. 3. Ferrer/?alleGa that
a cooperati3e is b' nature, different from an ordinar' business concern, being run either b' persons, partnerships, or corporations and tts owners and.or members are
the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its emplo'ees. 7n emplo'ee therefore of such a cooperati3e who is a member and co/owner of it cannot
in3o&e the right to collecti3e bargaining for certainl' an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co/owners. (he emplo'ees of cooperati3es who are themsel3es
members of the cooperati3e ha3e no right to form or Goin labor organizations for purposes of collecti3e bargaining for being themsel3es co/owners of the cooperati3e.
Iowe3er, as to cooperati3es whose emplo'ees are not members or co/owners, such emplo'ees are entitled to exercise the rights of all wor&ers to organization,
Page 21 of 24
collecti3e bargaining, negotiations, and others enshrined in the ?onstitution and existing laws of the countr'. (hus, e3en if there is the existence of an emplo'er/
emplo'ee relationship between a cooperati3e and its owners/members, the' do not ha3e the right to collecti3e bargaining.
#. K!S, SS? has Gurisdiction. Sec. ) of 57 +#+# and Sec -, 5ule 8, of the 5e3ised 5ules of Jrocedure of the SS? is clear that an' issue regarding the compulsor'
co3erage of the SSS is within the exclusi3e domain of the SS? although mandator' co3erage under the SSS aw is premised on the existence of an emplo'er/emplo'ee
relationship, except in self/emplo'ed cases. 0urisdiction o3er an issue is dependent upon the allegations in a complaint and once Gurisdiction is ac>uired, it remains until
the termination of the case. Since, the petition filed b' the SSS in the SS? alleges that the members are subGect to compulsor' co3erage because the' are emplo'ees of
the cooperati3e and thus, it has to register as their emplo'er and report the members as co3ered members of the SSS, then it is clear that this case clearl' falls within
the SS?@s Gurisdiction. ?hallenging the Gurisdiction of the SS? on an alleged lac& of emplo'er/emplo'ee relationship in a 2otion to Dismiss is not enough to depri3e the
SS? of its Gurisdiction. But the SS? still has to determine HO9 there is an !r/!e relationship since the compulsor' co3erage of the SSS aw is predicated on the
existence of such relationship and it has Gurisdiction to do so because the 95? is not the onl' go3ernmental bod' that has exclusi3e Gurisdiction since Social Securit'
claims are exceptions to the 95? Gurisdiction and these claims are undeniabl' rooted in the co3erage b' the s'stem. (hus, the >uestion of the existence of an !r/!e
relationship for the purpose of determining the co3erage of the SSS is explicitl' excluded from the Gurisdiction of the 95? and falls within the Gurisdiction of the SS?
which is primaril' charged with the dut' of settling disputes arising under the SS aw of -11<.
8. 7s to HO9 there exists an !r/!e relationship between the cooperati3e and its owners/members, the S? held that there is an !r/!e relationship because the *
elements are present. -. Based on the Ser3ice ?ontracts, 7siapro has the exclusi3e discretion in the selection and engagement of the owners/members as well as the
team members who will be assigned at Stanfilco. #. (he wee&l' stipends or shares in the ser3ice surplus gi3en b' 7siapro were in realit' wages since the' were
e>ui3alent to the pre3ailing rates of wages and were gi3en as compensation in rendering ser3ices to 7siapro@s client, Stanfilco. 8. (he Ser3ice ?ontracts expressl' state
that 7siapro has the power to in3estigate, discipline, and remo3e the owners/members and the team leaders rendering ser3ices to Stanfilco. *. 7siapro has control o3er
the means and manner of performing the ser3ices under the Ser3ice ?ontracts as well as the means and methods of wor& and is solel' and entirel' responsible for its
owner/members, team leaders, and other representati3es at Stanfilco. 7ll these pro3e that there is indeed an !r/!e relationship. (he express pro3ision stated in the
Ser3ice ?ontracts that there is no !r/!e relationship must be struc& down as being contrar' to law and public polic' since it is being used b' the cooperati3e to
circum3ent the compulsor' co3erage of its emplo'ees.
C. Non-E67(o.""s /0'
A!t. /0'. Co5"!$2" $n% "67(o.""s8 !i29t to s"(4-o!2$ni:$tion. 7ll persons emplo'ed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious,
charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall ha3e the right to self/organization and to form, Goin, or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collecti3e bargaining. 7mbulant, intermittent and itinerant wor&ers, self/emplo'ed people, rural wor&ers and those
without an' definite emplo'ers ma' form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang <$, 2a' -, -1+$)
Re0ubli% Planters 'an- v. La*ues/a, 2)4 SCRA )33 9)#
NAT@RE Jetition for certiorari
FACTS /on 0anuar' #-, -11-, 5epublic Jlanters Ban& Meneral Ser3ices !mplo'ees %nion/9ational 7ssociation of (rade %nions (petitioner) filed a petition for certification
election to determine the sole and exclusi3e bargaining representati3e of all regular emplo'ees outside the bargaining unit of 5epublic Jlanters Ban&.
/(he proposed bargaining unit is composed of cler&s, messengers, Ganitors, plumbers, telex operators, mailing and printing personnel, dri3ers, mechanics and computer
personnel. 7llegedl', these emplo'ees are regular emplo'ees but are considered as contractual emplo'ees b' the ban& and are excluded from the existing collecti3e
bargaining agreement.
/(he ban& filed mo3ed to dismiss the petition for certification election on the contentions that the' are emplo'ed on contractual basis, that there was alread' an existing
bargaining unit, and that the petition failed to state the number of emplo'ees in the proposed bargaining unit.
/ (he petition was dismissed b' the 2ed/7rbiter. On Dec #-, -11#, %ndersecretar' Bien3enido aguesma re3ersed the Order of the 2ed/arbiter. Jetitioner filed a 2otion
for 5econsideration. %sec aguesma modified the December #-, -11# 5esolution, finding E emplo'ees as regular and included in the existing ran& and file unit.
/ Both parties mo3ed for reconsideration. Jetitioner sought a ruling that the other wor&ers in the proposed bargaining unit should also be considered regular emplo'ees.
On Feb #*, -11), %sec aguesma issued another Order reinstating the 5esolution dated December #-, -11#.
ISS@E HO9 petitioners ha3e the right to self/organization, and thus be allowed to file a petition for certification election.
HEL? 9O.
/ "n the case of -inger -ewing ,achine Company vs. 3rilon, et al., it was rules that if the union members are not emplo'ees, no right to organize for purposes of
bargaining, nor to be certified as bargaining agent can be recognized. Since the persons in3ol3ed are not emplo'ees of the compan', the' are not entitled to the
constitutional right to Goin or form a labor organization for purposes of collecti3e bargaining.
7is0osition Jetition is dismissed
-I. =ARTC =ROTECTE?
1a%tan Wor-ers Union v. Aboiti<, 45 SCRA 533 32#
Page 22 of 24
NAT@RE 7ppeal from ?F" ?ebu b' inter3enor 7ssociated abor %nion
FACTS / (he emplo'ees and laborers of ?ebu Ship'ard and !ng@g Hor&s belong to two ri3al unions, the 2actan Hor&ers %nion and 7ssociated abor %nion.
/ 7ssociated abor %nion (7%), as exclusi3e bargaining representati3e of the wor&ers, entered into a ?B7 with ?ebu Ship'ard where the' agreed on a profit/sharing
bonus scheme. "t was agreed that ?ebu Ship'ard will release the mone' to 7% then 7% will deli3er it to the members. 7n' unclaimed mone' will be returned to the
compan' after E$ da's.
/(he <# members of 2actan Hor&ers %nion failed to get their mone' (bec the' did not li&e to go to 7%@s office). (heir mone' was returned to the compan' and 7%
ad3ised the compan' not to deli3er the amount to the members of the 2actan Hor&ers %nion unless ordered b' the ?ourt, otherwise the 7% will ta&e steps to protect
the interest of its members.
/So ?ebu Ship'ard did not pa' to the plaintiffs, but instead, deposited the said amount with the abor 7dministrator. For the reco3er' of their mone', 2actan Hor&ers
filed mone' claims against ?ebu Ship'ard.
/(he lower court declared the ?ebu Ship'ard to deli3er the mone' to 7%, and for 7% to distribute it immediatel' to 2actan Hor&ers members.
/ 7% appealed, alleging lac& of a cause of action, of Gurisdiction of the ?it' ?ourt of apulapu and of personalit' of the 2actan Hor&ers %nion to represent its members.
ISS@ES HO9 ?F" ?ebu was correct in ordering 7% to deli3er 2actan Hor&ers %nion@s share
HEL? K!S
/(he lower court Gust re>uired literal compliance with the terms of a collecti3e bargaining contract
/(he terms and conditions of a collecti3e bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties. (hose who are entitled to its benefits can in3o&e its pro3isions. "n
the e3ent that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled, the aggrie3ed part' has the right to go to court for redress.
/ T9" ;"n"4its o4 $ #o(("#ti5" ;$!2$inin2 $2!""6"nt ">t"n% to t9" ($;o!"!s $n% "67(o.""s in t9" #o(("#ti5" ;$!2$inin2 unit, in#(u%in2 t9os" E9o %o not
;"(on2 to t9" #9os"n ;$!2$inin2 ($;o! o!2$ni:$tion. G T9" ($;o! union t9$t 2"ts t9" 6$<o!it. 5ot" $s t9" ">#(usi5" ;$!2$inin2 !"7!"s"nt$ti5" %o"s not
$#t 4o! its 6"6;"!s $(on". It !"7!"s"nts $(( t9" "67(o.""s in su#9 $ ;$!2$inin2 unit.
/ (he raison d@etre of labor unions, it is not to be forgotten that what is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or more specificall' the wor&ing men and women,
not labor organizations. (he latter are merel' the instrumentalities through which their welfare ma' be promoted and fostered. (hat is the raison d:etre of labor unions.
7is0osition ?F" Decision affirmed
#.$E 9O9/7B5"DM2!9( OF 5"MI(
75(. #*E. 9on/abridgment of right to self/organization. / "t shall be unlawful for an' person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or undul' interfere with emplo'ees
and wor&ers in their exercise of the right to self/organization. Such right shall include the right to form, Goin, or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collecti3e
bargaining through representati3es of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted acti3ities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subGect
to the pro3isions of 7rticle #E* of this ?ode. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang <$, 2a' -, -1+$).
75(. #*+. %nfair labor practices of emplo'ers. / "t shall be unlawful for an emplo'er to commit an' of the following unfair labor practice,
(a) (o interfere with, restrain or coerce emplo'ees in the exercise of their right to self/organization4
(b) (o re>uire as a condition of emplo'ment that a person or an emplo'ee shall not Goin a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs4
(c) (o contract out ser3ices or functions being performed b' union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce emplo'ees in the exercise of their rights to
self/organization4
(d) (o initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of an' labor organization, including the gi3ing of financial or other support to
it or its organizers or supporters4
(e) (o discriminate in regard to wages, hours of wor& and other terms and conditions of emplo'ment in order to encourage or discourage membership in an' labor
organization. 9othing in this ?ode or in an' other law shall stop the parties from re>uiring membership in a recognized collecti3e bargaining agent as a condition for
emplo'ment, except those emplo'ees who are alread' members of another union at the time of the signing of the collecti3e bargaining agreement. !mplo'ees of an
appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collecti3e bargaining agent ma' be assessed a reasonable fee e>ui3alent to the dues and other fees
paid b' members of the recognized collecti3e bargaining agent, if such non/union members accept the benefits under the collecti3e bargaining agreement, Jro3ided,
that the indi3idual authorization re>uired under 7rticle #*#, paragraph (o) of this ?ode shall not appl' to the non/members of the recognized collecti3e bargaining
agent4
(f) (o dismiss, discharge or otherwise preGudice or discriminate against an emplo'ee for ha3ing gi3en or being about to gi3e testimon' under this ?ode4
(g) (o 3iolate the dut' to bargain collecti3el' as prescribed b' this ?ode4
(h) (o pa' negotiation or attorne'@s fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of an' issue in collecti3e bargaining or an' other dispute4 or
(i) (o 3iolate a collecti3e bargaining agreement.
(he pro3isions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, onl' the officers and agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who ha3e actuall' participated in,
authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminall' liable. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang -8$, 7ugust #-, -1+-).
75(. #*1. %nfair labor practices of labor organizations. / "t shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representati3es,
(a) (o restrain or coerce emplo'ees in the exercise of their right to self/organization. Iowe3er, a labor organization shall ha3e the right to prescribe its own rules with
respect to the ac>uisition or retention of membership4
Page 23 of 24
(b) (o cause or attempt to cause an emplo'er to discriminate against an emplo'ee, including discrimination against an emplo'ee with respect to whom membership in
such organization has been denied or to terminate an emplo'ee on an' ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of
membership is made a3ailable to other members4
(c) (o 3iolate the dut', or refuse to bargain collecti3el' with the emplo'er, pro3ided it is the representati3e of the emplo'ees4
(d) (o cause or attempt to cause an emplo'er to pa' or deli3er or agree to pa' or deli3er an' mone' or other things of 3alue, in the nature of an exaction, for ser3ices
which are not performed or not to be performed, including the demand for fee for union negotiations4
(e) (o as& for or accept negotiation or attorne'@s fees from emplo'ers as part of the settlement of an' issue in collecti3e bargaining or an' other dispute4 or
(f) (o 3iolate a collecti3e bargaining agreement.
(he pro3isions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, onl' the officers, members of go3erning boards, representati3es or agents or members of labor associations
or organizations who ha3e actuall' participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminall' liable. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang
-8$, 7ugust #-, -1+-).
-II. NON-ABRI?GDENT OF RIGHT /0+, /08 1$3, /09 1$3
A!t. /0+. Non-$;!i%26"nt o4 !i29t to s"(4-o!2$ni:$tion. "t shall be unlawful for an' person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or undul' interfere with
emplo'ees and wor&ers in their exercise of the right to self/organization. Such right shall include the right to form, Goin, or assist labor organizations for the purpose of
collecti3e bargaining through representati3es of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted acti3ities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection,
subGect to the pro3isions of 7rticle #E* of this ?ode. (7s amended b' Batas Jambansa Bilang <$, 2a' -, -1+$)
A!t. /08. @n4$i! ($;o! 7!$#ti#"s o4 "67(o."!s. "t shall be unlawful for an emplo'er to commit an' of the following unfair labor practice,
a. (o interfere with, restrain or coerce emplo'ees in the exercise of their right to self/organization4
A!t. /09. @n4$i! ($;o! 7!$#ti#"s o4 ($;o! o!2$ni:$tions. "t shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representati3es,
a. (o restrain or coerce emplo'ees in the exercise of their right to self/organization. Iowe3er, a labor organization shall ha3e the right to prescribe its own rules
with respect to the ac>uisition or retention of membership4
Page 24 of 24