------------------------------------------------------------064 Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs.

Laguesma
G.R. No. 116194
February 2, 2000
Digest by: KAYELYN LAT
-------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner: Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc.
Respondent: HON. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
MED-ARBITER ACHILLES MANIT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 7, CEBU CITY,
AND SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. - ASSOCIATION OF
PROFESSIONAL, SUPERVISORY, OFFICE, AND TECHNICAL
EMPLOYEES UNION-TRADE UNIONS CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Ponente: J. Quisumbing
Topic: Certification Election Process (The Union as the initiating
party): Unorganized Establishment
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. (SRBI) is a dulyregistered banking institution with principle office in Cebu City
and a branch in Mandaue City
2. Private respondent SRBI-Association of Professional,
Supervisory, Office, and Technical Employees Union
(APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor organization affiliated with
the Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines (TUCP)
3. DOLE granted Certificate of Registration to APSOTEU-TUCP
(Union)
4. The Union filed a petition for certification election of the
supervisory employees of SRBI
- APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered
with the Labor Department;
- SRBI employed 5 or more supervisory employees;
- a majority of these employees supported the petition;

there was no existing collective bargaining agreement

(CBA) between any union and SRBI; and
- no certification election had been held in SRBI during the
past 12 months prior to the petition
5. Med-Arbiter gave due course to petition. Pre-certification
election conference between SRBI and Union was set
6. SRBI filed a motion to dismiss Unions petition
- Members of the Union were in fact managerial or
confidential employees thus disqualified from forming, or
assisting any labor organization
- ALU-TUCP was representing the union. Since the former
also sought to represent the rank-and-file employees of
SRBI, there was a violation of the principle of separation of
unions
7. Union filed its opposition to motion to dismiss
- Members as merely supervisory employees
8. Med-Arbiter denied petitioners motion to dismiss
9. SRBI appealed to SOLE; Certification election was ordered
10. DOLE denied SRBIs appeal for lack of merit
- APSOTEU-TUCP was a legitimate labor organization; as
such it was fully entitled to all the rights and privileges
granted by law to a legitimate labor organization, inc. the
right to file a petition for certification election
11. SRBI moved for reconsideration of DOLEs decision; denied
12. Hence, this instant petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not DOLE acted with grave abuse of
discretion and erred in holding that the LC requires the MedArbiter to conduct a certification election in any unorganized
establishment even when the petitioning union does not possess the
qualification for an appropriate bargaining agent
HELD: NO
RATIO:
One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article
242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive
representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for

purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the

requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union is a
legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the MedArbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization.
Nothing is said therein that prohibits such automatic conduct of the
certification election if the management appeals on the issue of the
validity of the union's registration. On this score, petitioner's appeal
was correctly dismissed.
Petitioner argues that giving due course to respondent union's petition
for certification election would violate the separation of unions
doctrine. Note that the petition was filed by APSOTEU- TUCP, a
legitimate labor organization. It was not, filed by ALU. Nor was it
filed by TUCP, which is a national labor federation of with which
respondent union is affiliated. Petitioner says that respondent union is
a mere alter ego of ALU. The records show nothing to this effect.
What the records instead reveal is that respondent union was initially
assisted by ALU during its preliminary stages of organization. A local
union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a larger
national federation. Petitioner alleges that ALU seeks to represent both
respondent union and the rank-and-file union. Again, we find nothing
in the records to support this bare assertion.
The law frowns on a union where the membership is composed of both
supervisors and rank-and-file employees, for fear that conflicts of
interest may arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining, and
strikes. However, in the present case, none of the members of the
respondent union came from the rank-and-file employees of the bank.
DISPOSITIVE: Respondent Union WON.
DOCTRINE: One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization
under Article 242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as
the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied
with the requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that respondent union

is a legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates

that a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the
Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor
organization. Nothing is said therein that prohibits such automatic
conduct of the certification election if the management appeals on the
issue of the validity of the union's registration. On this score,
petitioner's appeal was correctly dismissed.

074 Militante vs. NLRC

246 SCRA 365
Petitioner: Danilo Militante, et al.
Respondent: NLRC, Golden Taxi Cab Company, Lorenzo Zamora,
Dona Nena Zamora and Dona Pacing Zamora
Ponente: J. Quiason

Petitioners:
- Being members of the rival union PACIWU-TUCP, were
not aprties in the first case filed by GTEWU-ANGLO
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the LA and NLRC was
correct thus binding on petitioners
HELD: YES

Topic: Certification of Designated Majority Union

RATIO:
FACTS:
1. The Golden Taxi Employees and Workers Union ANGLO
(GTEWU-ANGLO), represented by Ernesto Serrano, as union
president, filed a case against respondent company and/or
Lorenza Zamora and Jose Zamora for illegal lock-out, violation
of BP Blg. 130, unfair labor practice, and payment of damages
and attys fees.
2. LA Libo-on: the closure of respondent was illegal, and ordered
private respondents to pay the members of the Union
separation pay and attys fees
3. Upon appeal, NLRC reversed the decision of LA and directed
respondents to pay, as financial assistances, the workers named
in the list
4. A complaint was filed by Danilo Militante against Zamoras for
illegal lock-out, illegal dismissal, non-remittance of SSS
deduction, deduction for burial benefits, non-payment of
premium pay for rest day, 13th month pay and separation pay
with a prayer for reinstatement, upgrading of SSS payments,
payment of sep pay, 13th month, and premium pay for rest day
5. Another complaint was filed by Miguel Salonga against
respondent company for the same
6. Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaints on
the grounds of res judicata and prescription
7. Another complaint was filed against respondent
8. LA Reyes issued an order dismissing the 3 consolidated cases
on the ground of bar by prior judgment
9. Upon appeal, NLRC rendered a decision dismissing the appeal
for lack of merit
10. Hence, this petition.

It is undisputed that the NLRC decision was decided on the merits and
has already become final.
The Labor Arbiters decision in the subsequent consolidated cases,
which was affirmed by NLRC, states:
It is not disputed that on May 27, 1990, the date the company filed its
notice of closure with the Department of Labor and Employment, copy
furnished the complaint Union, the said Union was already certified
(in fact more than a year earlier after winning the March 17, 1989
Consent election) as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and
file employees of respondent company. The effect of such a
certification brought about the legal mandate that hence forth,
complaint Union shall be the exclusive representative (Art. 225,
Labor Code) of all the rank and file employees (take note, not just the
union members) of respondent company not only for the purpose of
entering into a collective bargaining agreement on terms and
conditions of employment (Arts. 251, 252, ibid), but also in the matter
of rights, benefits and welfare (Art. 255, ibid) of the said represented
workers. (Rollo, p. 41)
In the first case (NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92), NLRC resolved two
issues insofar as the award is concerned: (1) the determination of the
employees who are to receive financial assistance; and (2) the amount
they are entitled to receive. In conclusion, NLRC took out those who
no longer worked with respondent company before its closure, and
favored only those who actively pursued the case. It limited the award
of financial assistance only to those mentioned in the list attached to its

decision resulting in the conclusion from the benefits of petitioners.

We cannot simply disregard these factual findings made by the labor
Arbiter, as well as the conclusion arrived at by NLRC, inasmuch as the
same are supported by the records of the case and in accord with law
and jurisprudence.
The legal conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC on the binding
effect of the judgment in the NLRC NCR CA No. 003194-92 on
petitioners finds support in Article 255 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended. Said article provides:
Exclusive bargaining representative and workers participation in
policy and decision making. The labor organization designated or
selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective
bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees
in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Inasmuch as GTEWU-ANGLO was certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent in the consent election conducted on March 17, 1989,
petitioners cannot now claim that they were not parties in the first case
filed by GTEWU-ANGLO, which represented not only PACIWUTUCP but also GTEWU-ANGLO. Hence, all the requisites of res
judicata being present, said principle should be made to apply, thus
barring any subsequent action such as the consolidated cases subject of
this petition.
DISPOSITIVE: Respondent WON.
DOCTRINE: The legal conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC on
the binding effect of the judgment in the NLRC NCR CA No. 00319492 on petitioners finds support in Article 255 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended. Said article provides:
Exclusive bargaining representative and workers participation in
policy and decision making. The labor organization designated or
selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective
bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees
in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

084 Union of Filipro Employees-Drug vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 158930-31
August 22, 2006
Petitioner: Union of Filipro Employees Drug, Food and Allied
Industries Unions Kilusang mayo Uno (UFE-DFA-KMU)
Respondent: Nestl Philippines, Inc.
Ponente: J. Chico-Nazario
Topic: Bargainable Issues
FACTS:
1. In consideration of the impending expiration of the existing
CBA between Nestl and UFE-DFA-KMU, Presidents of the
Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions of the Union, Pasco and
Fortuna, informed Nestl of their intent to open our new CB
Negotiation for the year 2001-2004 as early as June 2001
2. Nestl acknowledged receipt of the letter; also informed the
Union that it was preparing its counter-proposal and proposed
ground rules that shall govern the conduct of the CB
negotiations
3. In another letter addressed to Union Cabuyao Division, Nestle
underscored its position that unilateral grants, one-time
company grants, company-initiated policies and
programs, which include, but are not limited to the
Retirement Plan, Incidental Straight Duty Pay and
Calling Pay Premium, are by their very nature not
proper subjects of CBA negotiations and therefore
shall be excluded therefrom; clarified that with the
closure of the Alabang Plant, the CBA negotiations
will only be applicable to the covered employees of
the Cabuyao Plant; hence, the Cabuyao Division
became the sole bargaining unit involved
4. Dialogue between the company and union ensued
5. Nestl requested the NCMB to conduct preventive
mediation proceedings between it and the Union
6. Conciliation
proceedings
nevertheless
proved
ineffective.

7. Complaining, in essence, of bargaining deadlock

pertaining to economic issues, i.e., retirement
(plan), panel composition, costs and attendance, and
CBA, UFE-DFA-KMU filed a Notice of Strike ; One
week later, another strike was filed by the Union,
this time predicated on Nestls alleged unfair labor
practices i.e., bargaining in bad faith in that it was
setting pre-conditions in the ground rules by
refusing to include the issue of the Retirement Plan
in the CBA negotiations.
8. Nestl filed with the DOLE a Petition for Assumption
of Jurisdiction, praying that Secretary of DOLE
assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute
9. Sec. Sto. Tomas: assumed jurisdiction; strike
enjoined
10. Union sought reconsideration; denied
11. Despite efforts by NCMB, employee members of Union went
on strike (Cabuyao Plant)
12. Sec. Sto. Tomas issued yet another Order directing:
- the members of UFE-DFA-KMU to return-towork within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt
of such Order;
- Nestl to accept back all returning workers under
the same terms and conditions existing preceding
to the strike;
- both parties to cease and desist from committing
acts inimical to the on-going conciliation
proceedings leading to the further deterioration
of the situation; and
- the submission
of
their
respective position
papers within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
13. Nestl and Union filed their respective position papers
14. Union filed several pleadings; Eventually filed a petition for
certiorari with application for the issuance of TRO or a WPI
before CA
15. Then acting Sec of DOLE Brion came out with an order
recognizing that the present Retirement Plan at Cabuyao Plant
is a unilateral grant that the parties have expressly so

recognized; all union demands not covered by the provisions of

CBA are denied, etc.
16. Union moved to reconsider; denied
17. Both parties appealed
18. Hence, these petitions for review on certiorari
ISSUE: Whether or not the Retirement Plan is a proper subject to
be included in the CBA negotiations between the parties, hence,
negotiable
HELD: YES
RATIO:
In the case at bar, it cannot be denied that the CBA that
was about to expire at that time contained provisions
respecting the Retirement Plan. As the latter benefit was
already subject of the existing CBA, the members of UFEDFA-KMU were only exercising their prerogative to
bargain or renegotiate for the improvement of the terms of
the Retirement Plan just like they would for all the other
economic, as well as non-economic benefits previously
enjoyed by them. Precisely, the purpose of collective
bargaining is the acquisition or attainment of the best
possible covenants or terms relating to economic and noneconomic benefits granted by employers and due the
employees. The Labor Code has actually imposed as a
mutual obligation of both parties, this duty to bargain
collectively. The duty to bargain collectively is
categorically prescribed by Article 252 of the said code. It
states:
ART. 252. MEANING
OF DUTY TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY. The duty to bargain collectively means
the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and confer
promptly and expeditiously and in good faith for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages,
hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of
employment including proposals for adjusting any

grievances or questions arising under such agreement and

executing a contract incorporating such agreement if
requested by either party, but such duty does not compel
any party to agree to a proposal or to make any
concession.
ART. 253. DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
WHEN
THERE EXISTS A
COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT. The duty to bargain
collectively shall also mean that either party shall
not terminate nor modify such agreement during its
lifetime. However, either party can serve a written
notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least
sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall
be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and
to continue in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement during the sixty
day period and/or until a new agreement is reached
by the parties.
And, in demanding that the terms of the Retirement Plan
be opened for renegotiation, the members of UFE-DFAKMU are acting well within their rights as we have,
indeed, declared that the Retirement Plan is consensual in
character; and so, negotiable.
Contrary to the claim of Nestl that the categorical
mention of the terms unilateral agreement in the letter and
the MOA signed by the representatives of UFE-DFA-KMU,
had, for all intents and purposes worked to estop UFEDFA-KMU from raising it as an issue in the CBA
negotiations, our reading of the same, specifically
Paragraph 6 and subparagraph 6.2:
6. Additionally, the COMPANY agree to
extend the following unilateral grants which

shall not form part of the

Bargaining Agreement (CBA):

Collective

x x x x
6.2. Review for improvement of
the COMPANYs Retirement Plan
and
the
reference
on
the
Retirement Plan in the Collective
Bargaining
Agreement
signed
on 4
July
1995 shall
be
maintained.
hardly persuades us that the members of UFE-DFAKMU have agreed to treat the Retirement Plan as a
benefit the terms of which are solely dependent on
the inclination of the Nestl and remove the subject
benefit from the ambit of the CBA. The
characterization unilaterally imposed by Nestl on the
Retirement Plan cannot operate to divest the
employees of their vested and demandable right over
existing benefits voluntarily granted by their
employer. Besides, the contention that UFE-DFAKMU has abandoned or forsaken our earlier
pronouncement vis--vis the consensual nature of a
retirement plan is quite inconsistent with, nay, is
negated by its conduct in doggedly asking for a
renegotiation of said benefit.
DISPOSITIVE: Union WON.
DOCTRINE: The Labor Code has actually imposed as a
mutual obligation of both parties, this duty to bargain
collectively. The duty to bargain collectively is
categorically prescribed by Article 252 of the said code.