Labrel Digests - Set 1

LABOR RELATIONS CASES-MSU |1
CASES:
1) La suerte v. director of BLR 123 scra 679;
2) Univ of pangasinan v. NLRC 218 scra 65;
3) UST v. Bitonio, 318 scra 185;
4) Victoriano v. Elizalde rope workers 59 scra 54;
5) BPI v. Bpi employees Aug 10, 2010;
6) Natu v. Torres 239 scra 546;
7) San Miguel v. Laguesma 277 scra 370;
8) Tunay na Pagkakaisa v. Asia brewery Aug 3, 2010
9) Pepsi v. Sec of labor Aug 10, 1999
10) Philips v. NLRC 210 scra 339;
11) Golden farms v. Calleja 175 scra 471;
12) National assoc v. Torres 239 scra 546;
13) Pier 8 v. Roldan-confesor 241 scra 294;
14) Metrolab v. Roldan-confesor 254 scra 182;
15) Arizala v. CA 189 scra 584;
16) Camporedondo v. NLRC, Aug 6, 1999.
17) Cooperative rural bank v Calleja Sept 26, 1988;
18) Republic v. Asiapro coop. Nov 23, 2007;
19) Intl Catholic v. Calleja 190 scra 130;
20) German agency v. CA April 16, 2009;
21) Heritage hotel v. National union, Jan 12, 2011;
22) S.S. Ventures v. S.S. Ventures union 559 scra 435;
23) Toyota v. Toyota union 268 scra 571;
24) Tagaytay highlands v. Tagaytay union 395 scra 699;
25) Mariwasa v. Sec of labor g.r.no. 183317 dec 21, 2009;
26) Eagle ridge v. CA GR No. 178989 mar 18, 2010;
27) Heritage hotel v. Piglas GR No. 177024 Oct 30, 2009;
28) Liberty cotton v. Liberty cotton Mills 66 scra 512;
29) Associated labor v. NLRC 188 scra 123;
30) Benguet v. BCI union 3 scra 471
LADJIMAN
SUMMARY:
In the determination of the basic issue raised
in the "control test" earlier laid down
in Investment Planning Corp. vs. Social
Security System, 21 SCRA 924, and in Social
Security System vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and
Shriro (Phils.) Inc., 37 SCRA 579 are
authoritative and controlling.
4 fold-test:
(1) the selection and engagement of the
employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power to control the employees'
conduct-although the latter is the most
important element.
Factors to determine existence of
independent contract relationship.
An independent contractor is one who
exercises independent employment and
contracts to do a piece of work according to
his own methods and without being subject to
control of his employer except as to the result
of the work. '
Among the factors to be considered are
whether the contractor is carrying on an
independent business;
G.R. No. L-55674 July 25, 1983

LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE
FACTORY,
vs. DIR. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,
THE LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE
FACTORY PROVINCIAL (Luzon) AND
METRO MANILA SALES FORCE
ASSOCIATION-NATU, and THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS, .
ISSUE: Whether the employees of petitioner
company in which case they should be
included in the 30% jurisdictional
requirement necessary to support the petition
for certification election, or independent
contractors and hence, excluded therefrom
whether the work is part of the

employer's general business; the nature
and extent of the work; the skill
required; the term and duration of the
relationship;
the right to assign the performance of
the work to another; the power to
terminate the relationship;
the existence of a contract for the
performance of a specified piece of
work;
the control and supervision of the work;
the employer's powers and duties with
respect to the hiring, firing, and
payment of the contractor's servants;
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C AS E S - M S U |2
the control of the premises; the duty to

supply the premises, tools, appliances,
material and labor, and the mode,
manner, and terms of payment.'
whether the employer controls or has reserved

the right to control the employee not only as to
the result of the work to be done but also as to
the means and methods by which the same is
to be accomplished.
FACTS:
On 1979, the La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette
Factory Provincial (Luzon) and Metro Manila
Sales Force Association (union) for and was
granted chapter status by the National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU).
Thereafter, 31 local members signed a joined
letter withdrawing their membership from
NATU.
On April 18, 1979, the local union and NATU
filed a petition for direct certification or
certification election which alleged among
others, that forty-eight of the sixty sales
personnel of the Company were members of
the local union; that the petition is supported
by no less than 75% of the sales force; that
there is no existing recognized labor union in
the Company representing the said sales
personnel; that there is likewise no existing
collecting bargaining agreement; and that
there had been no certification election in the
last twelve months preceding the filing of the
petition.
Companys argument: No EE-ER relationship
Filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
ground that it is not supported by at least
30% of the members of the proposed
bargaining unit because (a) of the alleged
forty-eight (48) members of the local union,
thirty-one (31) had withdrawn prior to the
filing of the petition; and (b) fourteen (14) of
the alleged members of the union were not
employees of the Company but were
independent contractors.
NATU & unions: argument:
NATU and the local union opposed the

Company's motion to dismiss alleging that the
fourteen dealers are actually employees of the
Company because they are subject to its
control and supervision.
On August 29, 1979, the Med-Arbiter issued
an order dismissing the petition for lack of
merit as the fourteen dealers who joined the
union should not be counted in determining
the 30% consent requirement because they
are not employees but independent
contractors and the withdrawal of the 31
salesmen from the union prior to the filing of
the petition for certification election was
uncontroverted by the parties.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the 14 dealers are employees or
independent contractors. Yes,
Independent Contractor.
2. W/N the withdrawal of 31 union
members from the NATU affected the
petition for certification election insofar
as the thirty per cent requirement is
concerned; Yes. While there might be
force or duress of withdrawal, this
must be proven.
3. W/N the withdrawal of the petition for
certification election by the NATU,
through its President and legal counsel,
was valid and effective.
RULING:
We hold and rule that the 14 members of
respondent local union are dealers or
independent contractors. They are not
employees of petitioner company. With the
withdrawal by 31 members of their support to
the petition prior to or before the filing thereof,
making a total of 45, the remainder of 3 out of
the 48 alleged to have supported the petition
can hardly be said to represent the union.
Hence, the dismissal of the petition by the
Med-Arbiter was correct and justified.
Respondent Director committed grave abuse of
discretion in reversing the order of the MedArbiter.
Failure to establish this juridical
relationship between the union members
LAB OR R ELAT IONS C AS ES - MS U |3

and the employer affects the legality of the
union itself. It means the ineligibility of
the union members to present a petition
for certification election as well as to vote
therein
It is important in the determination of who
shall be included in a proposed bargaining
unit because it is the sine qua non, the
fundamental and essential condition that a
bargaining unit be composed of employees.
Corollarily, when a petition for certification
election is supported by 48 signatories in a
bargaining unit composed of 60 salesmen, but
14 of the 48 lacks employee status, the
petition is vitiated thereby. Herein lies the
importance of resolving the status of the
dealers in this case.
Status thereby created is one of
independent contractorship, pursuant to
the first rule in the interpretation of the
signed Dealership contracts
It is likewise immediately noticeable that no
such words as "to hire and employ" are
present. The Dealership Agreement uses the
words "the factory has accepted the
application of (name of applicant) and
therefore has appointed him as one of its
dealers"; whereas the Dealership
Supplementary Agreement is prefaced with the
statement: "For and in consideration of the
mutual covenants and agreements made
herein, by one to the other, the COMPANY and
the DEALER by these presents, enter into this
Supplementary Agreement whereby the
COMPANY will avail of the services of the
DEALER to handle the sale and distribution of
the cigarette products". Nothing in the terms
and conditions likewise reveals that the
dealers were engaged as employees.
No Mention of Wage payment- Indication of
non-existence of EE-ER relationship
'Wage' paid to any employee shall mean the
remuneration or earnings, however
designated, capable of being expressed in
terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained
on a time, task, piece, commission basis, or
other method of calculating the same, which is
payable by an employer under a written or
unwritten contract of employment for work

done or to be done or for services rendered or
to be rendered, and includes the fair and
reasonable value, as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other
facilities customarily furnished by the
employer to the employee ...
Precisely, there was need to change the
contract of employment because of the change
of relationship, from an employee to that of an
independent dealer or contractor. The
employees were free to enter into the new
status, to sign or not to sign the new
agreement. As in the Mafinco case, the
respondents therein as in the instant case,
were free to reject the terms of the dealership
but having signed it, they were bound by its
stipulations and the consequences thereof
under existing labor laws. The fact that the 14
local union members voluntarily executed
with La Suerte formal dealership agreements
which indicate the distribution and sale of La
Suerte cigarettes signifies that they were
acting as independent businessmen.
It is not disputed that under the dealership
agreement, the dealer purchases and sells the
cigarettes manufactured by the company
under and for his own account. The dealer
places his order for the purchase of cigarettes
to be sold by him in a particular territory by
filling up an Issuance Slip. The dealers do not
devote their full time in selling company
products. They are likewise engaged in other
livelihood and businesses while selling
cigarettes manufactured by the company.
We agree with the petitioner. We hold further
that the terms and conditions for the
termination of the contract are the usual and
common stipulations in independent
contractorship agreements. In any event, the
contention that the totality of the powers
expressly reserved to the company establish
company control over the manner and details
of performance is merely speculative and
conjectural.
G.R. Nos. 64821-23 January 29, 1993
UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY
UNION
vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and UNIVERSITY OF
PANGASINAN
and that, since there were "no complainants

for the alleged nonpayment of extra loads for
two days," the issue had become academic.
ISSUE: Locus standi of the union President as

the holder of Registration Certificate
ISSUES:
1. W/N the filing of mandamus is proper
in this case. NO.
FACTS:
In the instant petition
for mandamus and certiorari, petitioner union
seeks to enjoin the respondent National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) to resolve, or
direct the Labor Arbiter to hear and decide,
the merits of three of petitioner's unresolved
complaints, and to annul and set aside the
resolution of the NLRC affirming the decision
of the Executive Labor Arbiter dismissing the
petitioner's complaints for violation of certain
labor standards laws but requiring respondent
university to integrate the cost of living
allowance into the basic pay of the covered
employees and reminding it to pay its
employees at intervals not exceeding sixteen
(16) days.
The uncontroverted facts show that on various
dates, petitioner union filed the following 7
complaints (which was later on limited by the
Labor Arbiter into 4) against the University
before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in
Dagupan City of ECOLAS and salary
differentials in certain dates from Oct- June
1890,
On the complaint regarding integration of
COLA, the LA ruled that because at the time
P.D. No. 1123 took effect on May 1, 1977, the
University had not increased its tuition fees,
there was of "nothing to integrate." 4 However,
from June 16, 1979 when the University
increased its tuition fees, it was obligated to
cause the integration of the across-the-board
increase of P60.00 in emergency allowance
into the basic pay as mandated by P.D. Nos.
1123 and 1751.
On the alleged nonpayment of extra loads
handled by the employees on February 12 and
13, 1981 when classes were suspended,
Tumang stated that Consuelo Abad, the
petitioner's president, had no cause to
complain because her salary was fully paid
While the labor arbiter is duty bound to

resolve all complaints referred to him for
arbitration and, therefore, he may be
compelled by mandamus to decide them
(although not in any particular way or in
favor of anyone), 8 we find that the peculiar
circumstances in this case do not merit the
issuance of the writ of mandamus. The facts
on the verified petition was not stated with
certainty
It should be added that under Art. 217(b) of
the Labor Code, the NLRC has "exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
the Labor Arbiters." Needless to say, the NLRC
could not have acted on matters outside of the
cases appealed to it.
2. W/N the cases filed by the union Pres
Consuelo Abad should affect not only
herself but all the other union
members. W/N she has locus standi to
file. YES. She holds a Registration
Certificate.
Petitioner's contention that the cases filed by
Consuelo Abad as its president should affect,
not only herself, but all the other union
members similarly situated as she was, is well
taken. The uncontroverted allegation of the
petitioner is that it is the holder of
Registration Certificate No. 9865-C, having
been registered with the then Ministry of
Labor and Employment on February 16, 1978.
As such, petitioner possessed the legal
personality to sue and be sued under its
registered name. 16 Corollarily, its president,
Consuelo Abad, correctly filed the complaints
even if some of them involved rights and
interest purely or exclusively appertaining to
individual employees, it appearing that she
signed the complaints "for and in behalf of the
University of Pangasinan Faculty Union." 17

interest of the individual worker can be
better protected on the whole by a strong
union aware of its moral and legal
obligations to represent the rank and file
faithfully and secure for them the best
wages and working terms and conditions.
The University's contention that petitioner had
no legal personality to institute and prosecute
money claims must, therefore, fail. To quote
then Associate Justice Teehankee in Heirs of
Teodelo M. Cruz v. CIR, 18 "[w]hat should be
borne in mind is that the interest of the
individual worker can be better protected on
the whole by a strong union aware of its moral
and legal obligations to represent the rank
and file faithfully and secure for them the best
wages and working terms and conditions. . . .
Although this was stated within the context of
collective bargaining, it applies equally well to
cases, such as the present wherein the union,
through its president, presented its individual
members' grievances through proper
proceedings. While the complaints might
nothave disclosed the identities of the
individual employees claiming monetary
benefits, 19 such technical defect should not
be taken against the claimants, especially
because the University appears to have failed
to demand a bill of particulars during the
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.
G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1999
UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU),etal vs.
Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR.
of the Bureau of Labor Relations, MedArbiter TOMAS F. FALCONITIN of The
National Capital Region, Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE),
etal,respondents.
-On conducting Election of Union Members
outside its by-laws.
- Union Election vs Certificate Election
ISSUE: W/N there is interference in the
exercise by USTFU members of their right to
self-organization.
SUMMARY:
There is a right way to do the right thing at
the right time for the right reasons, 1 and in
the present case, in the right forum by the

right parties. While grievances against union
leaders constitute legitimate complaints
deserving appropriate redress, action thereon
should be made in the proper forum at the
proper time and after observance of proper
procedures. Similarly, the election of union
officers should be conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the union's constitution
and bylaws, as well as the Philippine
Constitution and the Labor Code. Specifically,
while all legitimate faculty members of the
University of Santo Tomas (UST) belonging to
a collective bargaining unit may take part in a
duly convened certification election, only bona
fide members of the UST Faculty Union
(USTFU) may participate and vote in a legally
called election for union officers. Mob hysteria,
however well-intentioned, is not a substitute
for the rule of law.
FACTS:
Private respondents Marino et.al, are duly
elected officers of the UST Faculty Union
(USTFU). The union has a subsisting five-year
Collective Bargaining Agreement with its
employer, the University of Santo Tomas
(UST). The CBA was registered with the
Industrial Relations Division, DOLE-NCR, on
20 February 1995. It is set to expire on 31
May 1998.
On 21 September 1996, appellee Collantes, in
her capacity as Secretary General of USTFU,
posted a notice addressed to all USTFU
members announcing a general assembly to
be held on 05 October 1996. Among others,
the general assembly was called to elect
USTFU's next set of officers. Through the
notice, the members were also informed of the
constitution of a Committee on Elections
(COMELEC) to oversee the elections. (Annex
"B", petition)
On 01 October 1996, some of herein
appellants filed a separate petition with the
Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, directed against
herein appellees and the members of the
COMELEC. Petition alleged that the
COMELEC was not constituted in accordance
with USTFU's constitution and by-laws (CBL)

and that no rules had been issued to govern
the conduct of the 05 October 1996 election.
The Assailed Ruling
Agreeing with the med-arbiter that the USTFU
officers' purported election held on October 4,
1994 was void for having been conducted in
violation of the union's Constitution and
Bylaws (CBL), Public Respondent Bitonio
rejected petitioners' contention that it was a
legitimate exercise of their right to selforganization. He ruled that the CBL, which
constituted the covenant between the union
and its members, could not be suspended
during the October 4, 1996 general assembly
of all faculty members, since that assembly
had not been convened or authorized by the
USTFU.
ISSUE:
1. W/N there is interference in the
exercise by USTFU members of their
right to self-organization. YES!
The participation of non-union members in
the election aggravated its irregularity
2. Whether the Collective Bargaining Unit
of all the faculty members in that
General Faculty Assembly had the right
in that General Faculty Assembly to
suspend the provisions of the
Constitution and By-Laws of the
USTFU regarding the elections of
officers of the union[.]
3. Whether the suspension of the
provisions of the Constitution and ByLaws of the USTFU in that General
Faculty Assembly is valid pursuant to
the constitutional right of the Collective
Bargaining Unit to engage in "peaceful
concerted activities" for the purpose of
ousting the corrupt regime of the
private respondents[.].
RULING:
Right to Self-Organization
and Union Membership
Self-organization is a fundamental right
guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution
and the Labor Code. Employees have the

right to form, join or assist labor organizations
for the purpose of collective bargaining or for
their mutual aid and protection. 12 Whether
employed for a definite period or not, any
employee shall be considered as such,
beginning on his first day of service, for
purposes of membership in a labor union. 13
Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to
join, affiliate with or assist a labor
union. 14 Therefore, to become a union
member, an employee must, as a rule, not
only signify the intent to become one, but also
take some positive steps to realize that intent.
The procedure for union membership is
usually embodied in the union's constitution
and bylaws. 15 An employee who becomes a
union member acquires the rights and the
concomitant obligations that go with this new
status and becomes bound by the union's
rules and regulations.
When a man joins a labor union (or almost
any other democratically controlled group),
necessarily a portion of his individual
freedom is surrendered for the benefit of all
members. He accepts the will of the
majority of the members in order that he
may derive the advantages to be gained
from the concerted action of all.
On joining a labor union, the constitution
and by-laws become a part of the member's
contract of membership under which he
agrees to become bound by the
constitution and governing rules of the
union so far as it is not inconsistent with
controlling principles of law. The
constitution and by-laws of an unincorporated
trade union express the terms of a contract,
which define the privileges and rights secured
to, and duties assumed by, those who have
become members. The agreement of a member
on joining a union to abide by its laws and
comply with the will of the lawfully constituted
majority does not require a member to submit
to the determination of the union any question
involving his personal rights. 16
Petitioners' frustration over the
performance of private respondents, as well
as their fears of a "fraudulent" election to
be held under the latter's supervision,
could not justify the method they chose to
impose their will on the union. Director
Bitonio aptly elucidated: 17
The constitutional right to selforganization is better understood
in the context of ILO Convention
No. 87 (Freedom of Association
and Protection of Right to
Organize), to which the
Philippines is signatory. Article 3
of the Convention provides that
workers' organizations shall have
the right to draw up their
constitution and rules and to elect
their representatives in full
freedom, free from any
interference from public
authorities. The freedom
conferred by the provision is
expansive; the responsibility
imposed on union members to
respect the constitution and rules
they themselves draw up equally
so.
Union affairs and elections cannot be
decided in a non-union activity.
Union Election vs.Certification Election
(included just in case asked.)
is held pursuant to
the union's
constitution and
bylaws, and the right
to vote in it is enjoyed
only by
union members. A
union election should
be distinguished from
a
which is the process

of determining,
through secret ballot,
the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of
the employees in the
appropriate
bargaining unit, for
purposes of collective
bargaining
PURPOSE: is to
ascertain whether or
not a majority of the
employees wish to be
represented by a labor
organization and, in
the affirmative case,
by which particular
labor organization
all employees
belonging to the
appropriate
bargaining unit can
vote. 20 Therefore,
a unionmember who
likewise belongs to
the appropriate
bargaining unit is
entitled to vote in said
election. However, the
reverse is not always
true; an employee
belonging to the
appropriate
bargaining unit but
who is not a member
of the union cannot
vote in the union
election, unless
otherwise authorized
by the constitution
and bylaws of the
union.
Union affairs and
elections cannot be
decided in a nonunion activity.
October 4, 1996 election cannot properly
be called a union election, because the
procedure laid down in the USTFU's CBL for
the election of officers was not followed. It
could not have been a certification election
either, because representation was not the
issue, and the proper procedure for such
election was not followed. The participation
of non-union members in the election
aggravated its irregularity.
USTFU's Constitution and
By Laws Violated
The importance of a union's constitution and
bylaws cannot be overemphasized. They
embody a covenant between a union and its
members and constitute the fundamental law
governing the members' rights and
obligations. 21 As such, the union's
constitution and bylaws should be upheld, as
long as they are not contrary to law, good
morals or public policy.

BENJAMIN VICTORIANO vs ELIZALDE
ROPE WORKERS UNION, GR No. 25246,
September 12, 1974
enforce terms of contracts and at the same

time it recognizes the workers right to join or
not to join union. RA 3550 recognizes as well
the primacy of a constitutional right over a
contractual right.
FACTS:
Benjamin Victoriano, an Iglesia ni Cristo (INC)
member, has been an employee of the Elizalde
Rope Factory (ERF) since 1958. He was also a
member of the EPWU (Elizalde Rope Workers
Union). Under the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) between ERF and EPWU, a
close shop agreement is being enforced which
means that employment in the factory relies
on the membership in the EPWU; that in order
to retain employment in the said factory one
must be a member of the said Union.
In 1962, Victoriano tendered
his resignation from EPWU claiming that as
per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the close
shop agreement by virtue of his being a
member of the INC because apparently in the
INC, one is forbidden from being a member of
any labor union. It was only in 1974 that
his resignation from the Union was acted
upon by EPWU which notified ERF about it.
ERF then moved to terminate Victoriano due
to his non-membership from the EPWU.
EPWU and ERF reiterated that he is not
exempt from the close shop agreement
because RA 3350, which provides that close
shop agreements shall not cover members of
any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of
their members in any such labor organization,
is unconstitutional and that said law violates
the EPWUs and ERFs legal/contractual
rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is
unconstitutional.
HELD: No. Right to religion prevails over
contractual or legal rights. As such, an INC
member may refuse to join a labor union and
despite the fact that there is a close shop
agreement in the factory where he was
employed, his employment could not be validly
terminated for his non-membership in the
majority therein. Further, the right to join a
union includes the right not to join a union.
The law is not unconstitutional. It recognizes
both the rights of unions and employers to
BPI vs BPI Employees Union DavaoChapter, August 10, 2010E CASTRO, J.]
FACTS:
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the
Articles of Merger executed by and between
BPI, herein petitioner, and Far East Bank and
Trust Company (FEBTC) and was approved by
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Articles of Merger and Plan of Merger
did not contain any specific stipulation with
respect to the employment contracts of
existing personnel of the non-surviving entity
which is FEBTC. Pursuant to the said Article
and Plan of Merger, all the assets and
liabilities of FEBTC were transferred to and
absorbed by BPI as the surviving
corporation. FEBTC employees, including
those in its different branches across the
country, were hired by petitioner as its own
employees, with their status and tenure
recognized and salaries and benefits
maintained.
ISSUE
Whether or not employees are ipso
jure absorbed in a merger of the two
corporations.
RULING
NO. [H]uman beings are never embraced in
the term assets and liabilities.Moreover,
BPIs absorption of former FEBTC employees
was neither by operation of law nor by legal
consequence of contract. There was no
government regulation or law that compelled
the merger of the two banks or the absorption
of the employees of the dissolved corporation
by the surviving corporation. Had there been
such law or regulation, the absorption of
employees of the non-surviving entities of the
merger would have been mandatory on the
surviving corporation. In the present case, the
merger was voluntarily entered into by both

banks presumably for some mutually
acceptable consideration. In fact, the
Corporation Code does not also mandate
the absorption of the employees of the nonsurviving corporation by the surviving
corporation in the case of a merger.
[The] Court cannot uphold the reasoning that
the general stipulation regarding transfer of
FEBTC assets and liabilities to BPI as set forth
in the Articles of Merger necessarily includes
the transfer of all FEBTC employees into the
employ of BPI and neither BPI nor the FEBTC
employees allegedly could do anything about
it. Even if it is so, it does not follow that
the absorbed employees should not be
subject to the terms and conditions of
employment obtaining in the surviving
corporation.
Furthermore, [the] Court believes that it is
contrary to public policy to declare the former
FEBTC employees as forming part of the
assets or liabilities of FEBTC that were
transferred and absorbed by BPI in the
Articles of Merger. Assets and liabilities, in
this instance, should be deemed to refer only
to property rights and obligations of FEBTC
and do not include the employment contracts
of its personnel. A corporation cannot
unilaterally transfer its employees to another
employer like chattel. Certainly, if BPI as an
employer had the right to choose who to retain
among FEBTCs employees, FEBTC employees
had the concomitant right to choose not to be
absorbed by BPI. Even though FEBTC
employees had no choice or control over the
merger of their employer with BPI, they had a
choice whether or not they would allow
themselves to be absorbed by BPI. Certainly
nothing prevented the FEBTCs employees
from resigning or retiring and seeking
employment elsewhere instead of going along
with the proposed absorption.
Employment is a personal consensual
contract and absorption by BPI of a former
FEBTC employee without the consent of
the employee is in violation of an
individuals freedom to contract.
It would have been a different matter if there
was an express provision in the articles of
merger that as a condition for the merger, BPI

was being required to assume all the
employment contracts of all existing FEBTC
employees with the conformity of the
employees. In the absence of such a provision
in the articles of merger, then BPI clearly had
the business management decision as to
whether or not employ FEBTCs employees.
FEBTC employees likewise retained the
prerogative to allow themselves to be absorbed
or not; otherwise, that would be tantamount
to involuntary servitude.
[Note: The decision as to absorption of
employees upon merger is reversed in the
Resolution of MR dated October 19, 2011]
BALBOA
NATU VS TORRES, G.R. No. 93468
December 29, 1994
FACTS:
NATU filed a petition for certification election
to determine the exclusive bargaining
representative of respondent Bank's
employees occupying supervisory positions.
Bank moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that the supposed supervisory
employees were actually managerial and/or
confidential employees thus ineligible to join,
assist or form a union, and that the petition
lacked the 20% signatory requirement under
the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
WON the Department Managers, Assistant
Managers, Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers
and Controllers of respondent Bank are
managerial and/or confidential employees
hence ineligible to join or assist the union of
petitioner.
RULING
YES, but only the Branch Managers/OICs,
Cashiers and Controllers of respondent
Republic Planters Bank are ineligible to
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 10
join or assist petitioner National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU)Republic Planters Bank Supervisors
Chapter, or join, assist or form any other
labor organization.
Art 212 (m) of the Labor Code
explicitly stated that A managerial
employee is (a) one who is vested with
powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies, or to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline
employees; or (b) one who is vested with
both powers or prerogatives. A
supervisory employee is different from a
managerial employee in the sense that
the supervisory employee, in the
interest of the employer, effectively
recommends such managerial actions, if
the exercise of such managerial
authority is not routinary in nature but
requires the use of independent
judgment.
It is the nature of the employee's
functions, and not the nomenclature or
title given to his job, which determines
whether he has rank-and-file, supervisory
or managerial status.
Among the general duties and responsibilities
of a Branch Manager is "[t]o discharge his
duties and authority with a high sense of
responsibility and integrity and shall at all
times be guided by prudence like a good father
of the family, and sound judgment in
accordance with and within the limitations of
the policy/policies promulgated by the Board of
Directors and implemented by the Management
until suspended, superseded, revoked or
modified". Similarly, the job summary of a
Controller states: "Supervises the Accounting
Unit of the branch; sees to the compliance by
the Branch with established procedures,
policies, rules and regulations of the Bank and
external supervising authorities; sees to the
strict implementation of control procedures.
The job description of a Cashier does not
mention any authority on his part to lay down
policies, either.
Subject employees do not participate in policymaking but are given approved and
established policies to execute and standard
practices to observe, leaving little or no
discretion at all whether to implement said
policies or not. Neither do the Branch
Managers, Cashiers and Controllers have the
power to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees. The
Senior Manager of the Human Resource
Management Department of respondent Bank,
in her affidavit, stated that Mr. Renato A.
Tuates, the Officer-in-Charge/Branch Cashier
of the Bank's Dumaguete Branch, placed
under preventive suspension and thereafter
terminated the teller of the same branch . . . .
Likewise, on February 22, 1989, Mr. Francis
D. Robite, Sr., the Officer-in-Charge of
International Department, assigned the cable
assistant of the International Department as
the concurrent FCDU Accountable Forms
Custodian."
While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out
managerial employees as ineligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization, under
the doctrine of necessary implication,
confidential employees are similarly
disqualified.
RATIONALE of RULE:
In the collective bargaining process,
managerial employees are supposed to be on
the side of the employer, to act as its
representatives, and to see to it that its
interests are well protected. The employer is
not assured of such protection if these
employees themselves are union members.
Similarly, if confidential employees could
unionize in order to bargain for advantages for
themselves, then they could be governed by
their own motives rather than the interest of
the employers. Moreover, unionization of
confidential employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining would mean the
extension of the law to persons or individuals
who are supposed to act "in the interest of"
the employers. It is not farfetched that in the
course of collective bargaining, they might
jeopardize that interest which they are dutybound to protect.
SAN MIGUEL VS LAGUESMA, G.R. No.
100485 September 21, 1994
duties of the parties under the collective

bargaining provisions of the law." 5
FACTS
Fundamental factors in determining the

appropriate collective bargaining unit:
(1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);
(2) affinity and unity of the employees'
interest, such as substantial similarity of work
and duties, or similarity of compensation and
working conditions (Substantial Mutual
Interests Rule);
(3) prior collective bargaining history; and
(4) similarity of employment status.
The North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union

(respondent union for brevity) filed with the
Department of Labor a petition for certification
election among all the regular sales personnel
of Magnolia Dairy Products in the North Luzon
Sales Area. 1
Petitioner opposed the petition and questioned
the appropriateness of the bargaining unit
sought to be represented by respondent
union. It claimed that its bargaining history in
its sales offices, plants and warehouses is to
have a separate bargaining unit for each sales
office.
Petitioner was represented by Atty. Alvin
Batalla who withdrew petitioner's opposition
to a certification election and agreed to
consider all the sales offices in northern Luzon
as one bargaining unit. Mediator-Arbiter
Benalfre J. Galang certified respondent union
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for
all the regular sales personnel in all the sales
offices of Magnolia Dairy Products in the
North Luzon Sales Area.
Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor.
It claimed that
Atty. Batalla was only authorized to agree to
the holding of certification elections subject to
the following conditions: (1) there would only
be one general election; (2) in this general
election, the individual sales offices shall still
comprise separate bargaining units.
ISSUE:
WON respondent union represents an
appropriate bargaining unit
RULING: YES.
A bargaining unit is a "group of employees of
a given employer, comprised of all or less than
all of the entire body of employees, consistent
with equity to the employer, indicate to be the
best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and
Existence of a prior collective bargaining

history is neither decisive nor conclusive
in the determination of what constitutes
an appropriate bargaining unit. 8
Test of grouping:
mutuality or commonality of interests.
The employees sought to be represented by
the collective bargaining agent must have
substantial mutual interests in terms of
employment and working conditions as
evinced by the type of work they perform.
In this case, commonality of interest among
the North Luzon Sales area cannot be
gainsaid. There is similarity of employment
status for only the regular sales personnel in
the north Luzon area covered. They have the
same duties and responsibilities and
substantially similar compensation and
working conditions.
Furthermore, petitioner insists that each of
the sales offices in northern Luzon should be
considered as a separate bargaining unit for
negotiations would be more expeditious.
Petitioner obviously chooses to follow the path
of least resistance. It is not, however, the
convenience of the employer that constitutes
the determinative factor in forming an
appropriate bargaining unit. Equally, if not
more important, is the interest of the
employees.
TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA VS ASIA
BREWERY, G.R. No. 162025, August 3,
2010
FACTS:
Respondent entered into a Collective Bargainig
Agreement with Bisig at
LakasngmgaManggagawasa Asia-Independent
(BLMA-INDEPENDENT). Subsequently, a
dispute arose when ABIs management
stopped deducting union dues from eighty-one
(81) employees, believing that their
membership in BLMA-INDEPENDENT violated
the CBA. Eighteen (18) of these affected
employees are QA Sampling
Inspectors/Inspectresses and Machine Gauge
Technician who formed part of the Quality
Control Staff. Twenty (20) checkers are
assigned at the Materials Department of the
Administration Division, Full Goods
Department of the Brewery Division and
Packaging Division. The rest are
secretaries/clerks directly under their
respective division managers.
As the parties failed to amicably settle the
controversy, BLMA-INDEPENDENT lodged a
complaint before the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB).
In the meantime, a certification election was
held on August 10, 2002 wherein petitioner
Tunayna Pagkakaisang Manggagawasa Asia
(TPMA) won. As the incumbent bargaining
representative of ABIs rank-and-file
employees, petitioner filed with the CA an
omnibus motion for reconsideration of the
decision and intervention.
ISSUE
(1) WON the 81 employees are excluded

from and are not eligible to for
inclusion in the bargaining unit as
defined in the CBA and that their
membership is violative of the CBA;
(2) WON respondent committed unfair

labor practice by violating the 81
employees right to self-organization
RULING:
Jurisprudence has extended prohibition of

joining unions to confidential employees or
those who by reason of their positions or
nature of work are required to assist or act in
a fiduciary manner to managerial employees
and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and
highly confidential records. Having access to
confidential information, confidential
employees may also become the source of
undue advantage. Said employees may act as
a spy or spies of either party to a collective
bargaining agreement.
In the present case, the CBA expressly
excluded Confidential and Executive
Secretaries from the rank-and-file bargaining
unit, for which reason ABI seeks their
disaffiliation from petitioner.However, perusal
of the job descriptions of these
secretaries/clerks reveals that their assigned
duties and responsibilities involve routine
activities of recording and monitoring, and
other paper works for their respective
departments while secretarial tasks such as
receiving telephone calls and filing of office
correspondence appear to have been
commonly imposed as additional
duties.Respondent failed to indicate who
among these numerous secretaries/clerks
have access to confidential data relating to
management policies that could give rise to
potential conflict of interest with their Union
membership.
With respect to the Sampling
Inspectors/Inspectresses and the Gauge
Machine Technician, there seems no dispute
that they form part of the Quality Control
Staff. But the same does not go with the 20
checkers. Again, the job descriptions of these
checkersshowed that they perform routine
and mechanical tasks preparatory to the
delivery of the finished products. No evidence
was presented by the respondent to prove that
these daily-paid checkers actually form part of
the companys Quality Control Staff who as
such were exposed to sensitive, vital and
confidential information about the products or
have knowledge of mixtures of the products,
their defects, and even their formulas which
are considered trade secrets.
PEPSI VS SECRETARY OF LABOR, G.R. No.

96663, August 10, 1999
Confidential employees are defined as those

who
Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF

(PCEU) filed a petition for certification election
with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the
exclusive bargaining agent of supervisors of
Pepsi-Cola Philippines (Pepsi). The petition
was granted, but with the explicit statement
that PCEU was affiliated with Union de
Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) and 2
other rank-and-file unions, the PCLU and the
PEUP.
(1) assist or act in a confidential capacity,

(2) to persons who formulate, determine, and
effectuate management policies in the field of
labor relations.
The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both
must be met if an employee is to be considered
a confidential employee.
There is no showing in this case that the
secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or
acted in a confidential capacity to managerial
employees and obtained confidential
information relating to labor relations policies.
FACTS
Pepsi then filed a petition for cancellation with

the BLR against PCEU, on the grounds that:
(a) the members of PCEU were managers and
(b) a supervisors' union cannot affiliate with a
federation whose members include the rank
and file union of the same company. It also
filed an urgent ex-parte motion to suspend the
certification election.
Anent the second issue, unfair labor practice

refers to acts that violate the workers right to
organize. The prohibited acts are related to the
workers right to self organization and to the
observance of a CBA. For a charge of unfair
labor practice to prosper, it must be shown
that ABI was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or
fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs, or
public policy.
PCEU argued that Art. 245 of the Labor Code,

as amended by RA 6715, did not prohibit a
local union composed of supervisory
employees from being affiliated to a federation
which has local unions with rank-and-file
members as affiliates. Furthermore, Book V,
Rule II, Section 7 of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code provides the
grounds for cancellation of the registration
certificate of a labor organization, and the
inclusion of managerial employees is not one
of the grounds.
Considering that the herein dispute arose
However, on 1992, or before the SC decision,

the PCEU issued a resolution withdrawing
from the UOEF.
from a simple disagreement in the

interpretation of the CBA provision on
excluded employees from the bargaining unit,
respondent cannot be said to have committed
unfair labor practice that restrained its
employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization, nor have thereby demonstrated
an anti-union stance.
ISSUE
WON a supervisors union can affiliate with the
same Federation of which two (2) rank and file
unions are likewise members, without
violating Article 245 of the Labor Code (PD
442), as amended, by Republic Act 6715.
RULING
The case is already moot and academic
because PCEU has already withdrawn from
the case. But for the guidance of others
similarly situated, the Court ruled No.
FACTS
If the intent of the law is to avoid a situation

where supervisors would merge with the rankand-file or where the supervisors labor
organization would represent conflicting
interests, then a local supervisors union
should not be allowed to affiliate with the
national federation of union of rank-and-file
employees where that federation actively
participates in union activity in the company.
The Court emphasizes that the limitation is
not confined to a case of supervisors wanting
to join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition
extends to a supervisors local union applying
for membership in a national federation the
members of which include local unions of
rank and file employees. The intent of the law
is clear especially where, as in this case, the
supervisors will be co-mingling with those
employees whom they directly supervise in
their own bargaining unit.
The Court finds merit in the submission of the
OSG that Route Managers, Chief Checkers
and Warehouse Operations Managers are
supervisors while Credit & Collection
Managers and Accounting Managers are
highly confidential employees. Designation
should be reconciled with the actual job
description of subject employees. A careful
scrutiny of their job description indicates that
they dont lay down company policies. Theirs
is not a final determination of the company
policies since they have to report to their
respective superior. The mere fact that an
employee is designated manager does not
necessarily make him one.
Petitioner Philips Industrial Development, Inc.

(PIDI) seeks to set aside the Decision and
Resolution of the NLRC on the ground that it
committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding
that service engineers, sales representatives
and confidential employees of PIDI are
qualified to be included in the existing
bargaining unit.
PIDI had a total of six (6) collective bargaining
agreements (CBAs) with private respondent
Philips Employees Organization-FFW (PEOFFW), a registered labor union and the
certified bargaining agent of all the rank and
file employees of PIDI. In the sixth CBA
covering the years 1987 to 1989, it was agreed
upon, among others, that the subject of
inclusion or exclusion of service engineers,
sales personnel and confidential employees in
the coverage of the bargaining unit would be
submitted for arbitration. As the parties failed
to agree on a voluntary arbitrator, the BLR
endorsed the petition to the Executive Labor
Arbiter of the National Capital Region for
compulsory arbitration pursuant to Article
228 of the Labor Code. It ordered the
respondent to conduct a referendum to
determine the will of the service engineers,
sales representatives as to their inclusion or
exclusion in the bargaining unit. Furthermore,
it declared that the Division Secretaries and
all Staff of general management, personnel
and industrial relations department,
secretaries of audit, EDP, financial system are
confidential employees and as such are hereby
deemed excluded in the bargaining unit. PEOFFW appealed from the decision to the NLRC
in which the NLRC set aside the Executive
Labor Arbiters decision.
What is essential is the nature of the

employees function and not the nomenclature
or title given to the job which determines
whether the employee has rank and file or
managerial status, or whether he is a
supervisory employee.
ISSUE
PHILIPS VS NLRC, G.R. No. 88957 June 25,

1992
RULING
WON service engineers, sales engineers and

confidential employees are qualified to be part
of the existing bargaining unit of the rankand-file employees of PIDI.
In holding that they are included in the
bargaining unit for the rank and file
employees of PIDI, the NLRC practically forced
them to become members of PEO-FFW or to
be subject to its sphere of influence, it being
the certified bargaining agent for the subject
bargaining unit. This violates, obstructs,
impairs and impedes the service engineers'
and the sales representatives' constitutional
right to form unions or associations and to
self-organization.
The decision then of the Executive Labor
Arbiter in merely directing the holding of a
referendum "to determine the will of the
service engineers, sales representatives as to
their inclusion or exclusion in (sic) the
bargaining unit" is the most appropriate
procedure that conforms with their right to
form, assist or join in labor union or
organization. However, since this decision was
rendered before the effectivity of R.A. No.
6715, it must now be stressed that its future
application to the private parties in this case
should, insofar as service engineers and sales
representatives holding supervisory positions
or functions are concerned, take into account
the present Article 245 20 of the Labor Code
which, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, now
reads:
ARTICLE 245. Ineligibility of managerial
employees to join any labor organization;
right of supervisory employees.
Managerial employees are not eligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization.
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of the rankand-file employees but may join, assist or form
separate labor organizations of their own.
GARCIA
Golden Farms Inc. vs. Calleja

FACTS:
Petitioner is a corporation and its employees
represented by the private respondent union
(National Federation Labor) filed a petition for
Certification Election before the office of the
Ministry of Labor and Employment. The

petition declared that the employees belonged
to rank-and-file. The petition was opposed by
the petitioner on the grounds that some of the
employees supporting the said petition are
performing managerial functions or
confidential positions. The petition was
dismissed by a resolution establishing that a
collective bargaining unit between the
petitioner and private respondent was
inexistence at the time of the filing and the
present filing of the petition. Herein public
respondent released a decision in favor of the
private respondent union stating that the
employees are classified as rank and file
employees. Hence this petition seeks the
reversal of the resolution made by public
respondent.
ISSUE:
WON supervisors, cashiers, foremen, and
employees holding confidential/managerial
function are allowed to enter into a collective
bargaining agreement with the petitioner
corporation.
RULING:
NO. The SC stated in a case, if these
managerial employees would belong to or be
affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be
assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of
evident conflict of interests or that the Union
can be company- dominated with the presence
of managerial employees in Union
membership. A managerial employee is
defined under Art. 212 (k) of the new Labor
Code as "one who is vested with powers or
prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees, or to effectively
recommend such managerial actions. All
employees not falling within this definitions
are considered rank-and-file employees for
purposes of this Book." This rationale also
serves confidential employees. To allow the
confidential employees to join the existing
Union of the rank-and-file would be in
violation of the terms of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement wherein this kind of
employees by the nature of their
functions/positions are expressly excluded.
Hence, to the company foremen while in the
performance of their supervisory functions,
they may be the extension of the management,
and shall be prohibited to join. Petition
dismissed.
National Association of Trade Unions
vs.Hon. Torres
employees, there is no legalprohibition against

confidential employees who are notperforming
managerial functions to form and join a
union.A confidential employee is one
entrusted with confidenceon delicate matters,
or with the custody, handling, or careand
protection of the employer's property. While
Art. 245of the Labor Code singles out
managerial employees asineligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization,under
thedoctrine of necessary
implication,confidential employees are
similarly disqualified
Pier 8 Arrastre v. Roldan-Confessor
FACTS:
Petitioner NATU filed a petition for certification
election to determine the exclusive bargaining
representative of respondents bank
employees occupying supervisory positions.
The Bank moved to dismiss on the ground
thatsaid supervisory employees were
actuallymanagerial/confidential employees,
thus, they are ineligible to join, assist or form
a union. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition
and directed the holding of the certification
election. The Bank appealed to the Secretary
of Labor. Said court partially granted the
appeal ruling thatthe Department Managers,
Assistant Managers, Branch Managers,
Cashiers and Controllers are declared
managerial employees and cannot join the
union of the supervisors.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Department Managers,
Assistant Managers, Branch Managers/OICs,
Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Bank
are managerial or confidential employees are
ineligible to join the union.
RULING:
Petitioner concludes that subject employees
are not managerial employees but supervisors.
Even assumingthat they are confidential
FACTS:
The corporation and private respondent union
enetered into a collective bargaining
agreement. During the freedom period, NAFLU
questioned the majority status of the union by
filing for a petition for certification election
(CE). The private respondent union won the
CE and was certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank and file
employees. However, the negotiations for the
CBA collapsed. The Sec. of Labor took over the
dispute and resolved the bargaining deadlock
and ordered that the position of foremen,
secretaries, and timekeepers were lumped
together as part of the rank-and-file.
The petitioner contended that supervisors
(foremen) and the legal secretary should be
excluded from the bargaining unit.
ISSUE: WON the foremen and secretaries
should be excluded from the rank and file
bargaining unit
RULING:
Yes.
Art. 245 of the Labor Code applies. The
foremen and are supervisory employees and
therefore cannot be part of the rank and file.
Legal secretaries are neither managers or
supervisors but confidential workers hence,
they cannot be part of the ran and file as well.
With respect to the timekeepers, they should
not be excluded from the bargaining unit of
the rank and file. The test of supervisory or
managerial status is whether an employee
possesses authority to act in the interest of
his employer, and such authority is not
merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment.
What determines the nature of the
employment is not the title bu the job
description.
Metrolab Industries Inc. vs. Roldan
Confesor
WON executive secretaries must be included

as part of the bargaining unit of rank and file
employees.
RULING:
NO. By recognizing the expanded scope of the
right to self-organization, the intent of the
court was to delimit the types of employees
excluded from the close shop provisions, not
from the bargaining unit.
FACTS:
Herein petitioner Metrolab Industries
represented by the private respondent Metro
Drug Corp. a labor organization representing
the petitioners employees. After the CBA
between the parties expired, negotiations for
new CBA ended into deadlock. Both parties
failed to settle their dispute hence the order
issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment that any strike or acts that might
exacerbate the situation is ceased and ordered
the parties to execute a new CBA. Later, the
petitioner moved two lay-off acts to its rank
and file employees and was opposed by the
union. Petitioner assailed that the move was
temporary and exercise of its management
prerogative. Herein public respondent
declared that the petitioners act illegal and
issued two resolution of cease and desist
stating that the move exacerbate and caused
conflict to the case at bar. Included on the last
resolution issued by the public respondent
which states that executive secretaries are
excluded from the closed-shop provision of the
CBA, not from the bargaining unit.
A petition for certiorari seeking the annulment
of the Resolution and Omnibus Resolution of
Roldan-Confesor on grounds that they were
issued with grave abuse of discretion and
excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
The executive secretaries of General Manager

and the Management Committees should not
only be exempted from the closed-shop
provision but should not be permitted to join
in the bargaining unit of the rank and file
employees as well as on the grounds that the
executive secretaries are confidential
employees , having access to vital labor
information.
As stated in several cases, confidential
employees are prohibited and disqualified to
join any bargaining unit since the very nature
of the functions are to assist and act in a
confidential capacity, or to have access to
confidential matters of, persons who exercise
managerial functions in the field of labor
relations.
Finally, confidential employees cannot be
classified as rank and file from the very nature
of their work. Excluding confidential
employees from the rank and file of bargaining
unit, therefore, is not tantamount to
discrimination.
Therefore, executive secretaries of petitioners
General Manager and its Management
Committee are permanently excluded from the
bargaining unit of petitioners rank and file
employees.
Arizala vs. CA
FACTS:
Under the Industrial Peace Act, governmentowned or controlled corporations has the duty
to bargain collectively and were otherwise
subject to the obligations and duties of
employers in the private sector. The Act also
prohibited supervisors to become or continue
to be members of labor organizations
composed of rank and file employees.
Under the regime of the said act that GSIS
became bound by a CBA executed between it
and the the labor organization representing
the majority of its employees, the GSIS
Employees Association.
The petitioner occupied supervisory positions
in the GSIS and demand were made on all the
petitioners to resign to the labor organizations
since they handle supervisory positions. The
petitioners declined to do so hence criminal
cases for violation of the Industrial Act were
filed against them resulting to their
conviction.
Petitioners argued that when the so called
1973 Constitution took effect their cases
were still pending on two different courts.
Since the provision of that constitution and of
the Labor Code subsequently promulgated,
repealing the Industrial Act- placed employees
of all categories in government-owned or
controlled corporations employment were to
be governed by the Civil Service Law and
hence, no longer subject of collective
bargaining. The appellants ceased to fall
within the coverage of the Industrial Peace Art
and should thus no longer be prosecuted.
They pointed that criminal sanction in the
said act is no longer found in the Labor Code.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners criminal liability

of the Industrial Peace Act may be deemed
obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation
and provision of the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions.
RULING: YES.
The right to self-organization and collective
bargaining had been withdrawn by the Labor
Code from government employees including
those government-owned or controlled
corporations chiefly for the reason that the
terms and conditions of government
employment, all embraced in the civil service,
may not be modified by collective bargaining
because set by law. It is therefore immaterial,
they say, whether supervisors are members of
rank-and-file union or not. After all, the
possibility of the employers control of the
members of the union thru supervisors thus
rendering collective bargaining illusory, which
is the main reason for the prohibition, is no
longer of any consequence.
AMISTAD
16. Camporedondo v. NLRC, Aug 6, 1999.

17. Cooperative rural bank v Calleja Sept 26,
1988;
18. Republic v. Asiapro coop. Nov 23, 2007;
19. Intl Catholic v. Calleja 190 scra 130;
20. German agency v. CA April 16, 2009;
CEDENIO
HERITAGE HOTEL VS NATIONAL UNION
FACTS: Respondents petition for certification
election was granted and ordered the holding
of a certification election. On appeal, the
DOLE Secretary affirmed the order and
remanded the holding of a pre-election
conference.
Subsequently, petitioner discovered that
respondent had failed to submit to the Bureau
of Labor Relations (BLR) its annual financial
report for several years and the list of its
members since it filed its registration papers
in 1995. Consequently, petitioner filed a
Petition for Cancellation of Registration of
respondent, on the ground of the nonsubmission of the said documents. Petitioner
prayed that respondents Certificate of
Creation of Local/Chapter be cancelled and its
name be deleted from the list of legitimate
labor organizations. It further requested the
suspension of the certification election
proceedings.
Petitioner also insists that respondents
registration as a legitimate labor union should
be cancelled. Petitioner posits that once it is
determined that a ground enumerated in
Article 239 of the Labor Code is present,
cancellation of registration should follow; it
becomes the ministerial duty of the Regional
Director to cancel the registration of the labor
organization. Petitioner points out that the
Regional Director has admitted in its decision
that respondent failed to submit the required
documents for a number of years; therefore,
cancellation of its registration should have
followed as a matter of course. The
appellee/respondent however submitted its
financial statement for the years 1996-1999.
The latter argued that the submission had
substantially complied with its duty to submit
its financial report for the said period.
ISSUE: W/N the noncompliance with the
requirements under Article 239 of the Code is
a sufficient ground for the cancellation of the
unions registration.
HELD: NO. It is undisputed that appellee
failed to submit its annual financial reports
and list of individual members in accordance
with Article 239 of the Labor Code. However,
the existence of this ground should not
necessarily lead to the cancellation of union
registration. Article 239 recognizes the
regulatory authority of the State to exact
compliance with reporting requirements. Yet
there is more at stake in this case than merely
monitoring union activities and requiring
periodic documentation thereof.
The more substantive considerations involve
the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
association and right of workers to selforganization. Also involved is the public policy
to promote free trade unionism and collective
bargaining as instruments of industrial peace
and democracy. An overly stringent

interpretation of the statute governing
cancellation of union registration without
regard to surrounding circumstances cannot
be allowed. Otherwise, it would lead to an
unconstitutional application of the statute and
emasculation of public policy objectives.
Worse, it can render nugatory the protection
to labor and social justice clauses that
pervades the Constitution and the Labor
Code.
Moreover, submission of the required
documents is the duty of the officers of the
union. It would be unreasonable for this Office
to order the cancellation of the union and
penalize the entire union membership on the
basis of the negligence of its officers. In
National Union of Bank Employees vs.
Minister of Labor, L-53406, 14 December
1981, 110 SCRA 296, the Supreme Court
ruled:
As aptly ruled by respondent Bureau of Labor
Relations Director Noriel: "The rights of
workers to self-organization finds general and
specific constitutional guarantees. x x x Such
constitutional guarantees should not be lightly
taken much less nullified. A healthy respect
for the freedom of association demands that
acts imputable to officers or members be not
easily visited with capital punishments
against the association itself."
At any rate, we note that appellee had
submitted its financial statement. With this,
respondent has substantially complied with
its duty to submit its financial report for the
said period. To rule differently would be to
preclude the union, after having failed to meet
its periodic obligations promptly, from taking
appropriate measures to correct its omissions.
For the record, we do not view with favor
appellees late submission. Punctuality on the
part of the union and its officers could have
prevented this petition.
S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS.
S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION (SSVLU)
FACTS:
Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc.
(Ventures), a PEZA- registered export firm with
principal place of business at Phase I-PEZABataan Export Zone, Mariveles, Bataan, is in
the business of manufacturing sports shoes.
Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union
(Union) is a labor organization registered with
the DOLE.
March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLERegion III a petition for certification election in
behalf of the rank-and-file employees
August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to
cancel the Unions certificate of registration
alleging that the Union deliberately and
maliciously included the names of more or
less 82 former employees no longer connected
with Ventures in its list of members who
attended the organizational meeting and in
the adoption/ratification of its constitution
and by-laws; that No organizational meeting
and ratification actually took place; and the
Unions application for registration was not
supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file
employees of Ventures.
Regional Director of DOLE- Region III favored
Ventures and resolved to Cancel the
Certificate of the union. On appeal, the BLR
Director granted the Unions appeal and
reversing the decision of RD. Ventures went to
the CA. The CA dismissed Ventures petition
as well as the MR. Hence, this petition for
review.
ISSUE: W/N the registration of the Union
must be cancelled.
RULING: NO. The right to form, join, or assist
a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII,
Section 3 of the Constitution and such right,
according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution
and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be
abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a
union is considered a legitimate labor
organization endowed with the right and
privileges granted by law to such organization.
While a certificate of registration confers a
union with legitimacy with the concomitant
right to participate in or ask for certification
election in a bargaining unit, the registration
may be canceled or the union may be
decertified as the bargaining unit, in which
case the union is divested of the status of a
legitimate labor organization. Among the
grounds for cancellation is the commission of

any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a) of
the Labor Code, such as fraud and
misrepresentation in connection with the
adoption or ratification of the unions
constitution and like documents. The Court,
has in previous cases, said that to decertify a
union, it is not enough to show that the union
includes ineligible employees in its
membership. It must also be shown that there
was misrepresentation, false statement, or
fraud in connection with the application for
registration and the supporting documents,
such as the adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto and the minutes of ratification of the
constitution or by-laws, among other
documents.
The evidence presented by Ventures consist
mostly of separate hand-written statements of
82 employees who alleged that they were
unwilling or harassed signatories to the
attendance sheet of the organizational
meeting. However these evidence was
presented seven months after the union filed
its petition for cancellation of registration.
Hence these statements partake of the nature
of withdrawal of union membership executed
after the Unions filing of a petition for
certification election on March 21, 2000. We
have said that the employees withdrawal from
a labor union made before the filing of the
petition for certification election is presumed
voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of
such petition is considered to be involuntary
and does not affect the same. Now then, if a
withdrawal from union membership done after
a petition for certification election has been
filed does not vitiate such petition, it is but
logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot
work to nullify the registration of the union.
The Court is inclined to agree with the CA that
the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor
gravely err when it concluded that the
affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had
no evidentiary weight.
The registration or the recognition of a labor
union after it has submitted the
corresponding papers is not ministerial on the
part of the BLR. It becomes mandatory for the
BLR to check if the requirements under Art.
234 of the Labor Code have been sedulously
complied with. If the unions application is
infected by falsification and like serious
irregularities, especially 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 Union of Certificate of
Registration, in the case at bar, necessarily
implies that its application for registration and
the supporting documents thereof are prima
facie free from any vitiating irregularities.
The relevance of the 82 individuals active
participation in the Unions organizational
meeting and the signing ceremonies thereafter
comes in only for purposes of determining
whether or not the Union, even without the
82, would still meet what Art. 234(c) of the
Labor Code requires to be submitted,
requiring that the union applicant must file
the names of all its members comprising at
least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees
in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate.
In its union records on file with this Bureau,
respondent union submitted the names of 542
members. This number easily complied with
the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202
employees in the establishment. Even
subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves
460 union members, still within 440 or 20% of
the maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file
employees of the employer Venture.
Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have
with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is
better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion
proceedings during a pre-election conference.
The issue surrounding the involvement of the
82 employees is a matter of membership or
voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel
union registration.
For fraud and misrepresentation to be
grounds for cancellation of union registration
under Article 239, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and
compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members
Toyota vs Toyota Union
FACTS:
Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor

Union (TMPCLU) filed a petition for
certification election with the Department of
Labor, National Capital Region, for all rankand-file employees of the Toyota Motor
Corporation. The Med-Arbiter dismissed
respondent union's petition for certification
election for lack of merit. The latter found that
the labor organization's membership was
composed of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in violation of Article 245 of the
Labor Code.
On appeal, the Office of the Secretary of
Labor, set aside the Med-Arbiter's Order and
directed the holding of a certification election
among the regular rank-and-file employees of
Toyota Motor Corporation contending that the
Med-Arbiter should have not dismissed the
petition for certification election based on the
ground that the proposed bargaining unit is a
mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees. The petition and the other
documents submitted by respondent will
readily show that what the former really seeks
to represent are the regular rank-and-file
employees in the company numbering about
1,800 more or less, a unit which is obviously
appropriate for bargaining purposes. This
being the case, CA believed that the mere
allegation of respondent-appellee that there
are about 42 supervisory employees in the
proposed bargaining unit should have not
caused the dismissal of the instant petition.
Petitioner filed this special civil action
contends that "the Secretary of Labor and
Employment committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in reversing, contrary to law and
facts the findings of the Med-Arbiters to the
effect that, the inclusion of the prohibited mix
of rank-and file and supervisory employees in
the roster of members
ISSUE: W/N the respondents inclusion of
supervisory Employees in the union violates
the Labor Code requirements.
HELD: Inclusion of supervisory employees
violates The Code. Art. 245 - Ineligibility of
managerial employees to join any labor
organization; right of supervisory employees. - Managerial Employees are not eligible to
join, assist or form any labor organization.
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of the
rank-and-file employees but may join, assist
or form separate labor organizations of their
own.
Clearly, based on this provision, a labor
organization composed of both rank-and-file
and supervisory employees is no labor
organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or
purpose, be a legitimate labor organization.
Not being one, an organization which carries a
mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees cannot possess any of the rights of
a legitimate labor organization, including the
right to file a petition for certification election
for the purpose of collective bargaining. It
becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the
granting of an order allowing a certification
election, to inquire into the composition of any
labor organization whenever the status of the
labor organization is challenged on the basis
of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL
GOLF CLUB INC VS TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS
EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO
FACTS:
October 16, 1997 Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union(THEU), Philippine Transport
and General Workers Organization (PTGWO),
Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor
organization said to represent majority of the
rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a
petition for certification election before the
DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional
Branch No. IV.
November 27, 1997, petitioner filed a petition
opposing the filing of certification election
because the list of union members submitted
by it was defective and fatally flawed as it
included the names and signatures of
supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent
without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as
employees of The Country Club, Inc., a
corporation distinct and separate from
THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to
the petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file
employees of THIGCI. Also, some of the
signatures in the list of union members were
secured through fraudulent and deceitful

means, and submitted copies of the
handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of
its employees from participating in the
petition.
The union asserted that it complied with all
the requirements for valid affiliation and
inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations pursuant to DOLE Department
Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account of
which it was duly granted a Certification of
Affiliation by DOLE on October 10, 1997; and
that Section 5, Rule V of said Department
Order provides that the legitimacy of its
registration cannot be subject to collateral
attack, and for as long as there is no final
order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy the
rights accorded to a legitimate organization.
Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant
to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section
11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No.
09, automatically order the conduct of a
certification election.
On January 28, 1998, DOLE Med-Arbiter
ordered the holding of a certification election.
Further, DOLE set aside the Resolution
dismissing the petition for certification
election. MFR denied.
CA denied THIGCIs Petition for Certiorari and
affirmed the DOLE Resolution of dismissal. It
held that while a petition for certification
election is an exception to the innocent
bystander rule, hence, the employer may pray
for the dismissal of such petition on the basis
of lack of mutuality of interests of the
members of the union as well as lack of
employer-employee relationship and petitioner
failed to adduce substantial evidence to
support its allegations.
ISSUE: W/N the withdrawal of some union
members from the certification election will
affect the result
HELD: NO. As for petitioner s allegation that
some of the signatures in the petition for
certification election were obtained through
fraud, false statement and misrepresentation,
the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for
it to file a petition for cancellation of the
certificate of registration, and not to intervene
in a petition for certification election.
Regarding the alleged withdrawal of union
members from participating in the certification
election, this Courts following ruling is
instructive:
T]he best forum for determining whether
there were indeed retractions from some of the
laborers is in the certification election itself
wherein the workers can freely express their
choice in a secret ballot. Suffice it to say that
the will of the rank-and-file employees should
in every possible instance be determined by
secret ballot rather than by administrative or
quasi-judicial inquiry. Such representation
and certification election cases are not to be
taken as contentious litigations for suits but
as mere investigations of a non-adversary,
fact-finding character as to which of the
competing unions represents the genuine
choice of the workers to be their sole and
exclusive collective bargaining representative
with their employer.
MARIWASA VS SEC. OF LABOR
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Union Registration against respondent,
claiming that the latter violated Article 2345 of
the Labor Code and that it committed massive
fraud and misrepresentation in violation of
Article 2396 of the same code. That
respondent failed to comply with the 20%
union membership requirement for its
registration as a legitimate labor organization
because of the disaffiliation from the total
number of union members of 102 employees
who executed affidavits recanting their union
membership. Regional Director of DOLE IV-A
issued an Order granting the petition,
revoking the registration of respondent, and
delisting it from the roster of active labor
unions.
Respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) and the latter granted the
respondents appeal based on insufficiency of
evidence. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but the BLR denied it.
Petitioner sought recourse from affirmation of
the Court of Appeals (CA) of the BLR decision
through a Petition for Certiorari contending

that; the CA seriously erred in ruling that the
affidavits of recantation cannot be given
credence, seriously erred in ruling that private
respondent union complied with the 20%
membership requirement and erred when it
ruled that private respondent union did not
commit misrepresentation, fraud or false
statement. However, the CA denied it.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent violated the
percentage requirement of union members
under Article 2345 of the Labor Code and
committed massive fraud and
misrepresentation.
HELD: Evidently, these affidavits were written
and prepared in advance, and the pro forma
affidavits were ready to be filled out with the
employees names and signatures.
The first common allegation in the affidavits is
a declaration that, in spite of his hesitation,
the affiant was forced and deceived into
joining the respondent union. The affidavit
does not mention the identity of the people
who allegedly forced and deceived the affiant
into joining the union, circumstances
constituted such force and deceit. Indeed, not
only was this allegation couched in very
general terms and sweeping in nature, but
more importantly, it was not supported by any
evidence whatsoever.
Second allegation ostensibly bares the affiants
regret for joining respondent union and
expresses the desire to abandon or renege
from whatever agreement he may have signed
regarding his membership with respondent.
Simply put, through these affidavits, it is
made to appear that the affiants recanted
their support of respondents application for
registration.
In the case of La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette
Factory v. Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, The presumption would arise that
the withdrawal was procured through duress,
coercion or for valuable consideration. In
other words, the distinction must be that
withdrawals made before the filing of the
petition are presumed voluntary unless there
is convincing proof to the contrary, whereas
withdrawals made after the filing of the
petition are deemed involuntary.
The reason for such distinction is that if the
withdrawal or retraction is made before the
filing of the petition, the names of employees
supporting the petition are supposed to be
held secret to the opposite party. Logically,
any such withdrawal or retraction shows
voluntariness in the absence of proof to the
contrary. Moreover, it becomes apparent that
such employees had not given consent to the
filing of the petition, hence the subscription
requirement has not been met.
When the withdrawal or retraction is made
after the petition is filed, the employees who
are supporting the petition become known to
the opposite party since their names are
attached to the petition at the time of filing.
Therefore, it would not be unexpected that the
opposite party would use foul means for the
subject employees to withdraw their support.
In the instant case, the affidavits of
recantation were executed after the identities
of the union members became public, i.e.,
after the union filed a petition for certification
election on May 23, 2005, since the names of
the members were attached to the petition.
The purported withdrawal of support for the
registration of the union was made after the
documents were submitted to the DOLE,
Region IV-A. The logical conclusion, therefore,
following jurisprudence, is that the employees
were not totally free from the employers
pressure, and so the voluntariness of the
employees execution of the affidavits becomes
suspect.
It is likewise notable that the first batch of 25
pro forma affidavits shows that the affidavits
were executed by the individual affiants on
different dates from May 26, 2005 until June
3, 2005, but they were all sworn before a
notary public on June 8, 2005.
There was also a second set of standardized
affidavits executed on different dates from May
26, 2005 until July 6, 2005. While these 77
affidavits were notarized on different dates, 56
of these were notarized on June 8, 2005, the
very same date when the first set of 25 was
notarized.
Considering that the first set of 25 affidavits

was submitted to the DOLE on June 14, 2005,
it is surprising why petitioner was able to
submit the second set of affidavits only on
July 12, 2005.
Accordingly, we cannot give full credence to
these affidavits, which were executed under
suspicious circumstances, and which contain
allegations unsupported by evidence. At best,
these affidavits are self-serving. They possess
no probative value.
Nevertheless, even assuming the veracity of
the affidavits of recantation, the legitimacy of
respondent as a labor organization must be
affirmed. While it is true that the withdrawal
of support may be considered as a resignation
from the union, the fact remains that at the
time of the unions application for registration,
the affiants were members of respondent and
they comprised more than the required 20%
membership for purposes of registration as a
labor union. Article 234 of the Labor Code
merely requires a 20% minimum membership
during the application for union registration.
It does not mandate that a union must
maintain the 20% minimum membership
requirement all throughout its existence.
For the purpose of de-certifying a union such
as respondent, it must be shown that there
was misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto; the minutes of
ratification; or, in connection with the election
of officers, the minutes of the election of
officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit
these documents together with the list of the
newly elected-appointed officers and their
postal addresses to the BLR.
The bare fact that two signatures appeared
twice on the list of those who participated in
the organizational meeting would not, to our
mind, provide a valid reason to cancel
respondents certificate of registration. The
cancellation of a unions registration doubtless
has an impairing dimension on the right of
labor to self-organization. For fraud and
misrepresentation to be grounds for
cancellation of union registration under the
Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and
compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members.
In this case, we agree with the BLR and the
CA that respondent could not have possibly
committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false
statements. The alleged failure of respondent
to indicate with mathematical precision the
total number of employees in the bargaining
unit is of no moment, especially as it was able
to comply with the 20% minimum
membership requirement.
COSEP
G.R. No. 178989
March 18, 2010
EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB,

vs. CA and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES
UNION (EREU)
for the cancellation of the said Reg. Cert.

Eagle Ridges petition ascribed
misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud to
EREU in connection with the adoption of its
constitution and by-laws, the numerical
composition of the Union, and the election of
its officers.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Union
possesses bona fide compliance of the
registration requirements under Art. 234 of
the Code, explaining the seeming
discrepancies between the number of
employees who participated in the
organizational meeting and the total number
of union members at the time it filed its
registration, as well as the typographical error
in its certification which understated by one
the number of union members who ratified
the unions constitution and by-laws.
RULING: Yes, it does.
FACTS:
On December 6, 2005, at least 20% of Eagle
Ridges rank-and-file employees (with 26
employees of Eagle Ridge attending) had a
meeting where they organized themselves into
an independent labor union, named "Eagle
Ridge Employees Union" (EREU or
Union), elected a set of officers, and ratified
their constitution and by-laws.
On December 19, 2005, the Union formally
filed its formal application for registration
before the DOLE Regional Office IV, indicating
a total of 30 union members with the
inclusion of four additional members. In time,
DOLE RO IV granted the application and
issued EREU Registration Certificate (Reg.
Cert.) No. RO400-200512-UR-003. The EREU,
on January 10, 20016, then filed a petition for
certification election in Eagle Ridge Golf &
Country Club.
On February 13, 2006, Eagle Ridge opposed
this petition, followed by its filing of a petition
Before their amendment by Republic Act No.

948140 on June 15, 2007, the then governing
Art. 234 (on the requirements of registration of
a labor union) and Art. 239 (on the grounds
for cancellation of union registration) of the
Labor Code respectively provided as follows:
Article 234, REQUIREMENTS OF
REGISTRATION states that Any applicant
labor organization, association or group of
unions or workers shall acquire legal
personality and shall be entitled to the rights
and privileges granted by law to legitimate
labor organizations upon issuance of the
certificate of registration based on the
following requirements:
(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
(b) The names of its officers, their addresses,
the principal address of the labor
organization, the minutes of the organizational
meetings and the list of workers who
participated in such meetings;
(c) The names of all its members comprising at
least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees
in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate;
(e) Four copies (4) of the constitution and bylaws of the applicant union, minutes of its
adoption or ratification and the list of the
members who participated in it.
The Union submitted the required documents
attesting to the facts of the organizational
meeting on December 6, 2005, the election of
its officers, and the adoption of the Unions
constitution and by-laws. It submitted before
the DOLE Regional Office with its Application
for Registration and the duly filled out BLR
Reg. Form No. I-LO, s. 1998.
Evidently, as the Union persuasively argues,
the withdrawal of six member-employees from
the Union will affect neither the Unions
registration nor its petition for certification
election, as their affidavits of retraction were
executed after the Unions petition for
certification election had been filed. The initial
five affidavits of retraction were executed on
February 15, 2006; the sixth, on March 15,
2006. Indisputably, all six were executed way
after the filing of the petition for certification
election on January 10, 2006.
Additionally, Article 239, GROUNDS FOR
CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION
provides that the following shall constitute
grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statements or
fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification, and the list of members who took
part in the ratification;
xxxx
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or
fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers,
the list of voters, or failure to submit these

documents together with the list of the newly
elected/appointed officers and their postal
addresses within thirty (30) days from
election. (Emphasis supplied.)
A scrutiny of the records fails to show any
misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud
committed by EREU to merit cancellation of
its registration. Twenty percent (20%) of 112
rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge would
require a union membership of at least 22
employees (112 x 205 = 22.4). When the EREU
filed its application for registration on
December 19, 2005, there were clearly 30
union members. Thus, when the certificate of
registration was granted, there is no dispute
that the Union complied with the mandatory
20% membership requirement.
Besides, it cannot be argued that the six
affidavits of retraction retroact to the time of
the application of registration or even way
back to the organizational meeting. Prior to
their withdrawal, the six employees in
question were bona fide union members. More
so, they never disputed affixing their
signatures beside their handwritten names
during the organizational meetings. While they
alleged that they did not know what they were
signing, it bears stressing that their affidavits
of retraction were not re-affirmed during the
hearings of the instant case rendering them of
little, if any, evidentiary value.
With the withdrawal of six union members,
there is still compliance with the mandatory
membership requirement under Art. 234(c),
for the remaining 24 union members
constitute more than the 20% membership
requirement of 22 employees.
G.R. No. 177024
October 30, 2009
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED

AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL
CORPORATION) Petitioner,
vs. PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG
MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA
(PIGLAS-HERITAGE), Respondent.
FACTS:
Sometime in 2000, certain rank and file
employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila
formed and was later issued a certificate of
registration for the "Heritage Hotel Employees
Union". Subsequently, the HHE union filed a
petition for certification election that the
petitioner company opposed even though the
Med-Arbiter granted the HHE unions petition
for certification election. The company alleged
that the HHE union misrepresented itself to
be an independent union, when it was, in
truth, a local chapter of the National Union of
Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied
Industries (NUWHRAIN). Thus, the company
also filed a petition for the cancellation of the
HHE unions registration certificate.
On October 12, 2001, the Court of Appeals
issued a writ of injunction against the holding
of the HHE unions certification election. The
decision of the Court of Appeals became final
when the HHE union withdrew the petition for
review that it filed with this Court. On
December 10, 2003, certain rank and file
employees of the company formed another
union, the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at
Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila
(the PIGLAS union). This union applied for
and was granted the registration on February
9, 2004. Two months later, the members of
the first union, the HHE union, adopted a
resolution for its dissolution. The HHE union
then filed a petition for cancellation of its
union registration. On September 4, 2004,
respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for
certification election that petitioner company
also opposed, alleging that the new unions
officers and members were also those who
comprised the old union.
On December 6, 2004 petitioner company filed
a petition to cancel the union registration of
respondent PIGLAS union. The company
claimed that the documents submitted with

the unions application for registration bore
many false information.
ISSUE: Whether or not "dual unionism" is a
ground for cancelling a unions registration.
RULING: No, it is not.
The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS
unions members were also members of the
old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not
a ground for cancelling the new unions
registration. The right of any person to join an
organization also includes the right to leave
that organization and join another one.
Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to
exist and its certificate of registration had
already been cancelled. Thus, petitioners
arguments on this point may also be now
regarded as moot and academic.
G.R. No. L-33987 September 4, 1975
LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS
UNION, RAFAEL NEPOMUCENO, MARIANO
CASTILLO, NELLY ACEVEDO, RIZALINO
CASTILLO and RAFAEL
COMBALICER, petitioners,
vs. LIBERTY COTTON MILLS, INC.,
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR
UNION (PAFLU) and the COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
FACTS:
The Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union
adopted its Constitution and By-laws on
January 1, 1959. On October 1, 1959, a
Collective Bargaining Agreement 2 was
entered into by and between the Company and
the Union represented by PAFLU. On March
13, 1964, while the Collective Bargaining
Agreement was in full force, Marciano Castillo
and Rafael Nepomuceno, President and VicePresident, respectively, of the local union,
wrote PAFLU, its mother federation,
complaining about the legal counsel assigned
by the PAFLU to assist them in a ULP case
(Case No. 4001) they filed against the
Company. In said letter, the local union
expressed its dissatisfaction and loss of
confidence in the PAFLU lawyers, claiming
that PAFLU never lifted a finger regarding this
particular complaint.
On May 17, 1964, thirty two (32) out of the 36
members of the local union disaffiliated
themselves from respondent PAFLU pursuant
to their local union's Constitution and ByLaws. A copy of the signed resolution of
disaffiliation was furnished the Company as
well as the Bureau of Labor Relations. The
following day, the local union wrote the
Company and required the turn-over of the
checked-off dues directly to its Treasurer.
On May 29,1964, PAFLU wrote the Company
for the second time, this time quoting en
toto Article III of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement on "Union Security" and requesting
the termination of the employment of Rafael
Nepomuceno, Marciano Castillo, Nelly
Acevedo, Enrique Managan, Rizalino Castillo
and Rafael Combalicer, all petitioners herein.
PAFLU at the same time expelled the
aforementioned workers from their' union
membership in the mother federation for
allegedly "instigating union disaffiliation."
On May 30,1964, the Company terminated the
employment of the members expelled by the
PAFLU. On the last day of May, 1964, counsel
for the ousted workers wrote the Company
requesting their reinstatement. This was
denied by the Company; hence the complaint
for unfair labor practice filed with the Court of
Industrial Relations.
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the
complaining employees was justified or not.
RULING: It is claimed by PAFLU that the local
union could not have validly disaffiliated from
it as the Union Security Clause so provided.
The courts cannot agree with both the stand

of PAFLU and the respondent court. For while
it is correct to say that a union security clause
did exist, this clause was limited by the
provision in the Unions' Constitution and ByLaws, which states:
That the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers UnionPAFLU shall be affiliated with the PAFLU, and
shall remain an affiliate as long as ten (10) or
more of its members evidence their desire to
continue the said local unions affiliation.
Record shows that only four (4) out of its
members remained for 32 out of the 36
members of the Union signed the resolution of
disaffiliation on May 17, 1964, triggered by
the alleged negligence of PAFLU in attending
to the needs of its local union, particularly its
failure to assign a conscientious lawyer to the
local to attend to the ULP case they filed
against the Company. The disaffiliation was,
therefore, valid under the local's Constitution
and By-Laws which, taken together with the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, is
controlling.
Considering that the dispute revolved around
the mother federation and its local, with the
company dismissing the workers at the
instance of the mother federation, it is
believed that the company's liability should be
limited to the immediate reinstatement of the
workers.
G.R. No. 74841 December 20, 1991
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS-VIMCONTU,
THE CEBU OIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
represented by its Acting President,
MIGUEL C. ALIVIADO, and THE MOBIL
DAVAO/ COTABATO CHAPTER-ALU,
represented by its President, DAVID C.
ONDEVILLA, petitioners,
vs.
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC), MOBIL OIL
PHILIPPINES, INC., JEAN PIERRE
BAILLEUX, CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC.,
and MOBIL PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.
FACTS:
A collective bargaining agreement was entered
into between the complainants and the
respondent Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. for a
period of three years starting from April 1,
1982 to March 31, 1985. On August 5, 1983,
respondent J.P. Bailiux, President of Mobil Oil
Philippines, Inc. sent letters to the employees,
notifying of the termination of their services
effective August 31, 1983 because of the sale
of the respondent firm. On September 13,
1983, complainant employee accepted their
checks for separation pay and signed quitclaims under protest and subject to the
outcome of this case.
Caltex Philippines, Inc. was impleaded as
additional respondent because of its
acquisition of the entire marketing and
distribution assets of Mobil Oil Philippines.
Mobil Philippines, Inc. was also made a
respondent in view of a metropolitan daily
newspaper announcement that Mobil Oil
Philippines, Inc. will continue to do business
under the corporate name of Mobil
Philippines, Inc. and that this newly formed
company will market chemicals and special
products such as solvents, process products,
waxes and industrial asphalt, fuels and
lubricants for the international marine and
aviation industries.
Complainants charge respondent Mobil Oil
Philippines, Inc. and J.P. Bailiux with unfair
labor practice for violating their collective
bargaining agreement which, among others,
states that "this Agreement shall be binding
upon the parties hereto and their successors
and assigns, and may be assigned by the
company without the previous approval of the
Union. However, the latter will be notified of
such assignment when it occurs." In this case,
the complainant unions were not notified

officially of such assignment to Caltex
Philippines and respondent Mobil Oil
Philippines made announcement in major
dailies that the company shall continue to
operate its business.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents Caltex
and MOPI bound by the provisions of the CBA.
RULING:
Yes, the Commission finds that although
Caltex is bound by the said agreement under
Section I thereof, the rights and interests or
benefits that may have been earned during the
remaining term of the CBA have been satisfied
by MOPI when herein complainants accepted
their respective checks and executed quitclaim
from and in favor of the firm.
In G.R. No. 74841, petitioners assail the above
decision and contend that the NLRC
committed serious errors of law and grave
abuse of discretion when it ruled to justify the
termination that : (a) petitioners had
knowledge of the impending sale to Caltex and
closure of the company in a series of
negotiations/meetings by considering it as a
sufficient notice of termination; (b) the
situation was one of closure and not
redundancy; (c) the rights and interests or
benefits that may have been earned during the
remaining term of the CBA have been satisfied
by MOPI when complainants accepted their
respective checks and executed quitclaim from
and in favor of the firm; (d) the benefits
granted by respondent MOPI were far above
the benefits provided by law; and (e) as
regards the liability of Mobil Philippines, Inc.,
there is no concrete evidence to establish or
prove complainants' allegation that MOPI will
continue its business.
G.R. No. L-24711,; Apr 30, 1968
BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. vs. BCI
EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU,
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR
UNIONS, CIPRIANO CID and JUANITO
GARCIA
FACTS:
On June 23, 1959, the Benguet-Balatoc
Workers Union (BBWU), for and in behalf of
all Benguet Consolidated, Inc (Benguet)
employees in its mines and milling
establishment located at Balatoc, Antamok
and Acupan, Mt. Province, entered into a
Collective Bargaining Contract with Benguet.
The contract was stipulated to be effective for
a period of 4-1/2 years, or from June 23,
1959 to December 23, 1963. It likewise
embodied a No-Strike, No-Lockout clause.
Three years later, a certification election was
conducted by the Department of Labor among
all the rank and file employees of Benguet in
the same collective bargaining units. BCI
EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION (Union)
obtained more than 50% of the total number
of votes, defeating BBWU. The Court of
Industrial Relations certified the UNION as the
sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent
of all BENGUET employees as regards rates of
pay, wages, hours of work and such other
terms and conditions of employment allowed
them by law or contract.
Later on, the UNION filed a notice of strike
against BENGUET. UNION members who were
BENGUET employees in the mining camps at
Acupan, Antamok and Balatoc, went on strike.
The strike was attended by violence, some of
the workers and executives of the BENGUET
were prevented from entering the premises
and some of the properties of the BENGUET
were damaged as a result of the strike.
Eventually, the parties agreed to end the
dispute. BENGUET and UNION executed the
AGREEMENT. PAFLU placed its conformity
thereto. About a year later or on January 29,
1964, a collective bargaining contract was
finally executed between UNION-PAFLU and
BENGUET.
Meanwhile, BENGUET sued UNION, PAFLU

and their Presidents to recover the amount the
former incurred for the repair of the damaged
properties resulting from the strike. BENGUET
also argued that the UNION violated the
CONTRACT which has a stipulation not to
strike during the effectivity thereof.
Defendants unions and their presidents
defended that: (1) they were not bound by the
CONTRACT which BBWU, the defeated union,
had executed with BENGUET; (2) the strike
was due, among others, to unfair labor
practices of BENGUET; and (3) the strike was
lawful and in the exercise of the legitimate
rights of UNION-PAFLU under Republic Act
875.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on the
ground that the CONTRACT, particularly the
No-Strike clause, did not bind defendants.
BENGUET interposed the present appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Collective Bargaining
Contract executed between Benguet and
BBWU on June 23, 1959 and effective until
December 23, 1963 automatically bound
UNION-PAFLU upon its certification, on
August 18, 1962, as sole bargaining
representative of all Benguet employees.
RULING: No.
Benguet erroneously invokes the so-called
Doctrine of Substitution referred to in
General Maritime Stevedores Union v. South
Sea Shipping Lines where it was ruled that:
We also hold that where the bargaining
contract is to run for more than two years, the
principle of substitution may well be adopted
and enforced by the CIR to the effect that after
two years of the life of a bargaining agreement,
a certification election may be allowed by the
CIR, that if a bargaining agent other than the
union or organization that executed the
contract, is elected, said new agent would
have to respect said contract, but that it may
bargain with the management for the
shortening of the life of the contract if it
considers it too long, or refuse to renew the
contract pursuant to an automatic renewal
clause.
Since defendants were not contractually

bound by the no-strike clause in the
CONTRACT, for the simple reason that they
were not parties thereto, they could not be
liable for breach of contract to plaintiff.
Benguets reliance upon the Principle of

Substitution is totally misplaced. This
principle, formulated by the NLRB as its initial
compromise solution to the problem facing it
when there occurs a shift in employees union
allegiance after the execution of a bargaining
contract with their employer, merely states
that even during the effectivity of a collective
bargaining agreement executed between
employer and employees thru their agent, the
employees can change said agent but the
contract continues to bind them up to its
expiration date. They may bargain however for
the shortening of said expiration date.
In formulating the substitutionary doctrine,
the only consideration involved was
the employees (principal) interest in the
existing bargaining agreement. The agents
(union) interest never entered the picture. The
majority of the employees, as an entity under
the statute, is the true party in interest to the
contract, holding rights through the agency of
the union representative. Thus, any exclusive
interest claimed by the agent is defeasible at
the will of the principal. The substitutionary
doctrine only provides that the employees
cannot revoke the validly executed collective
bargaining contract with their employer by the
simple expedient of changing their bargaining
agent. And it is in the light of this that the
phrase said new agent would have to respect
said contract must be understood. It only
means that the employees, thru their new
bargaining agent, cannot renege on their
collective bargaining contract, except of course
to negotiate with management for the
shortening thereof.

Labrel Digests - Set 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labrel Digests - Set 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR RELATIONS CASES-MSU |1

G.R. No. L-55674 July 25, 1983

whether the work is part of the

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

the control of the premises; the duty to

whether the employer controls or has reserved

NATU and the local union opposed the

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

LAB OR R ELAT IONS C AS ES - MS U |3

unwritten contract of employment for work

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

and that, since there were "no complainants

ISSUE: Locus standi of the union President as

While the labor arbiter is duty bound to

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

LAB OR R ELAT IONS C AS ES - MS U |5

the present case, in the right forum by the

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

LAB OR R ELAT IONS C AS ES - MS U |6

and the Labor Code. Employees have the

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

which is the process

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

LAB OR R ELAT IONS C AS ES - MS U |8

enforce terms of contracts and at the same

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

LAB OR R ELAT IONS C AS ES - MS U |9

merger that as a condition for the merger, BPI

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

duties of the parties under the collective

Fundamental factors in determining the

The North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union

Existence of a prior collective bargaining

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

(1) WON the 81 employees are excluded

(2) WON respondent committed unfair

Jurisprudence has extended prohibition of

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

PEPSI VS SECRETARY OF LABOR, G.R. No.

Confidential employees are defined as those

Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF

(1) assist or act in a confidential capacity,

Pepsi then filed a petition for cancellation with

Anent the second issue, unfair labor practice

PCEU argued that Art. 245 of the Labor Code,

Considering that the herein dispute arose

However, on 1992, or before the SC decision,

from a simple disagreement in the

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

If the intent of the law is to avoid a situation

Petitioner Philips Industrial Development, Inc.

What is essential is the nature of the

PHILIPS VS NLRC, G.R. No. 88957 June 25,

WON service engineers, sales engineers and

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

Golden Farms Inc. vs. Calleja

Ministry of Labor and Employment. The

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

employees, there is no legalprohibition against

BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN

WON executive secretaries must be included

The executive secretaries of General Manager