Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-14656

November 29, 1960

PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU), petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.
Emilio Lumontad for petitioner.
Simeon S. Andres for respondent CIR.
Severino, Ferrer, Revira and Benigno for respondent AWA.
Hilado and Hilado for respondent San Carlos Milling Co.
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
This is a petition to review on certiorari an order of the Court of Industrial Relations
in Case No. 38 MC-Cebu certifying the Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines,
San Carlos Chapter, as the sole collective bargaining representative of the
employees of the San Carlos Milling Co., Inc.
The record shows that in said Case No. 38 MC-Cebu the Industrial Court on May 25,
1956 ordered the holding of a certification election to determine which of the two
contending labor unions therein, herein petitioner Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor
Union (PLASLU)or respondent Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines (AWA),
shall be the sole collective bargaining agent to the employees of the San Carlos
Milling Co. The pertinent portions of the court's order read as follows:
Considering the history of bargaining relations in this case where there has
only been one bargaining unit, and for purposes of effectuating the policies of
the Act, the same should be maintained. In other words, the appropriate
bargaining unit is the Employer unit composed of 602 employees including
some 200 piece work (pakiao) workers and stevedores appearing in the
Employer's payrolls during the milling and off the season minus the alleged
laborers and operators of farm tractors who are hired and paid by the sugar
cane planters. (Emphasis supplied.)
All the foregoing considered, the Court hereby directs the Department of
Labor to conduct a certification election in the premises of the San Carlos
Milling Company, Ltd. at San Carlos, Negros Occidental for the purpose of
determining, under existing rules and regulations on the matter, which of the

two (2) contending labor unions herein, the PLASLU or the AWA shall be the
sole collective bargaining agent in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Employer is hereby ordered to submit a list of employees appearing in its
payroll during milling season for the year 1955 to the Department of Labor
which, together with the "Exhibit X-Court" now part of the records of this case
shall be used as the list of eligible voters minus employees who are
performing functions of supervisors and security guards who are excluded
from participating in said election. (Emphasis supplied.)
SO ORDERED.
Prior to the holding of the election, respondent AWA filed an urgent motion to
exclude 144 employees from participating in the election. The motion, however, was
denied, the Industrial Court holding that the workers sought to be excluded were
eligible to vote since they were actual employees of good standing of the
respondent company during the milling season of 1955 and were included in the
company's payroll as of that date.
On September 21, 1956, the certification election was held in the premises of the
San Carlos Milling Co., PLASLU receiving 88 votes while AWA garnered 149, with 390
ballots recorded as challenged, 242 of them by the petitioner PLASLU and 148 by
the respondent AWA filed with the Industrial Court a petition contesting the election
on the ground of the ineligibility of the voters cast the 148 ballots is challenged by
PLASLU were cast by legitimate employee of the company, as they were the votes
of "piece work (pakiao) workers and stevedores appearing in the employer's payroll
during the milling and off-season" of 1955. PLSLU, on the other hand, in an urgent
motion filed on October 4, 1956, questioned the validity of the 242 ballots cast by
stevedores and piece workers. The motion was opposed by AWA on the ground that
as a protest of the election it was filed late. The Industrial Court, however,
considered the same as an answer to AWA'S petition, and on September 4, 1957,
after hearing the arguments of the parties, ordered that all the 390 challenged
ballots were opened. After the canvass, 148 votes challenged by AWA were counted
in favor of PLASLU. Of the 242 votes challenged by PLASLU, 3 were counted in its
favor, 228 credited in favor of AWA, and 11 declared either for no union or spoiled
ballots. Adding the votes to the results of the certification election, the final count
showed that respondent AWA garnered a total of 377 votes as against 239 for
PLASLU. Accordingly, said respondent was certified by the Industrial Court in its
order dated March 12, 1958 as the sole collective bargaining agent of the
employees of the San Carlos Milling Co. As its motion for reconsideration of the
order was denied by the court en banc with Judge Feliciano Tabigne dissenting -the petitioner PLASLU filed the present petition for review, contending that Industrial
Court erred in not excluding the 242 votes challenged by it from the total number of
votes credited to respondent AWA.

We find petitioner's contention to be meritorious.

In order of May 25, 1956 authorizing the certification election, the trial judge of the
Industrial Court directed the "list of employees appearing in its payroll during milling
season for the year 1955 ... together with the Exhibit "X-Court" now part of the
records of this case shall be used as the list of eligible voters minus employees who
are performing functions of supervisors and security guards who are excluded from
participating in said election." It being undisputed that the challenged votes were
cast by casual employees consisting of stevedores and piece workers who as
stated by Judge Tabigne in his dissent "were not included in the list of employees
appearing in the payroll of the company during the milling season for the year 1955
nor did they appear in the Exhibit "X-Court" which formed portion of the list of
personnel allowed to vote in this certification election", the said challenged votes
should have been excluded. Citing that the appropriate bargaining unit is the
employer's unit composed of 602 employees, including the piece workers and
stevedores whose votes were challenged by PLASLU, the respondent AWA argues
that the challenged votes were cast by employees eligible to vote. It will be noted,
however, that these employees whose votes were challenged were hired on
temporary or casual basis and had work of a different nature from those of the
laborers permitted to vote in the certification election. In the case of Democratic
Labor Union vs. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., et al. (G.R. No. L-10321, February 28,
1958) this Court had occasion to rule that in the determination of the proper
constituency of a collective bargaining unit, certain factors must be considered,
among them, the employment status of the employees to be affected, that is to say,
the positions and categories of work to which they belong, and the unity of the
employees' interest. And this is so because the basic test of a bargaining unit's
acceptability is whether it will best assure to all employees is whether it will be
assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. (See also
Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Co. vs. Alhambra Employee's
Association, 107 Phil., 23.) It appearing that the 242 stevedores and piece workers,
whose votes have been challenged, were employed on casual or day to day basis
and have no reasonable basis for continued or renewed employment for any
appreciable substantial time not to mention the nature of work they perform
they cannot be considered to have such mutuality of interest as to justify their
inclusion in a bargaining unit composed of permanent or regular employees.
There is nothing to the contention that the order complained of is merely
complementary to the order of the Industrial Court dated September 4, 1957, which
has become final and executory the same not having been appealed. It will be
observed that the said order of September 4, 1957, merely ordered the opening and
canvassing of the challenged ballots. Any appeal taken from said order would
therefore have been premature.

Disregarding the votes cast by stevedores and piece workers which were counted in
favor of the respondent AWA, the final results of the certification election show that
the petitioner PLASLU garnered a majority of the votes cast by eligible voters.
Consequently, said petitioner should be certified as the sole collective bargaining
representative of the employees of the San Carlos Milling Co.
Wherefore, the order complained of is reversed and the petitioner PLASLU is hereby
certified as the collective bargaining agent of the employees of the San Carlos
Milling Company. Without costs

G.R. No. L-24729 March 29, 1972

BOBOK LUMBER JACK ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENGUET
CONSOLIDATED, INCORPORATED, ET AL., defendants, BCI
EMPLOYEES WORKERS UNION-PAFLU, Defendant-Appellant.
Cipriano Cid & Associates for defendant-appellant.
A.A. Cosalan, P. Sanidad & Associates, for plaintiff-appellee.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City dated
November 23, 1964 in its Civil Case No. 1150. This case was considered
submitted for decision without appellee's brief.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroble s virtual law library

On May 26, 1955 the Benguet-Balatoc Workers Union, herein referred to as

BBWU, which was then the collective bargaining agent of the rank and file
workers of Benguet Consolidated, Inc., herein referred to as the Company,
entered into a bargaining agreement with the latter, containing the following
provision, among others, regarding union privileges:
XIII. UNION PRIVILEGES.

chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

C. 1. The company agrees to collect from all employees and workers in the
COMPANY'S employ (exclusive of the employees and workers specified in the
immediately preceding paragraph) in a collective bargaining unit for which
the UNION has been or may be certified as the representative of said
employees and workers in said unit, starting sixteen (16) days after the
effectivity of this Agreement, weekly compensation in the amount of twentyfive centavos (P0.25) per week, for each calendar week in which the
employees or workers have worked at least one 8-hour shift, such
compensation being in payment of services rendered by the UNION as the
certified exclusive representative of said employees and workers for

collective bargaining purposes; provided, that such compensation shall not

be deducted from any employee or worker who shall personally notify the
COMPANY through his Department Head in writing within the fifteen (15)
days immediately following the effectivity of this agreement that he refuses
such representation by the UNION;
On June 29, 1959, before the said bargaining agreement expired, BBWU and
the Company extended its effectivity, with the following stipulation:
XIV. UNION PRIVILEGES.

chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

C. 4. As of the date of the execution of this Agreement and so long as the

UNION continues to be the sole collective bargaining representative of all the
employeesand workers in the COMPANY's employ in Acupan, Balatoc and
Antamok and of such other bargaining unit or units within the COMPANY'S
mining and other directly associated operations in the Sub-province of
Benguet, Mountain Province, wherein the UNION may hereafter be certified,
the COMPANY agrees to continue to collect the weekly compensation
provided for in items (1), (2) and (3) hereof; provided however, that should
the UNION, for any reason whatsoever, cease to be the certified collective
bargaining representative of the employees and workers in any or all of the
above named bargaining units, the COMPANY'S obligation herein to collect
the weekly compensation in said unit or units shall automatically cease; ...
On August 18, 1962, after a certification election was held in CIR No. 761MC,the BCI Employees and Workers Union (appellant herein) was certified as
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the employess and
wokers in the Acupan, Balatok and Antamok mine camps of the Company.

chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroble s

virtual law library

On September 15, 1962 the Bobok Lumber Jack Association (appellee

herein), one of the participating unions in CIR Case No. 761-MC, filed the
instant case for"Declaratory Judgment with Preliminary Injunction," praying
that judgment be rendered declaring that Benguet Consolidated, Inc. and
herein appellant Union"cannot enter into an agreement continuing the
modified union shop in the aforementioned collective bargaining agreement,"
and that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the Company
from making deductions of union compensations from the wages of its
employees and workers in Acupan, Antamok and Balatoc and turning over
such deductions to appellant Union. On the same date the lower court issued
the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the complaint. In a
supplemental order dated September 18, 1962, "newly hired employees or
laborers or those who will be hired later on by the defendant company
provided they have the standing written authority signed and thumbmarked

by them and delivered accordingly to defendant company" were exempted

from the operation of the aforesaid writ.
chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On September 27 and 28, 1962, the Company and appelant Union,

respectively, filed motions to lift the preliminary injunction. At the hearing
thereof the parties, thru their respective counsel, mutually agreed that the
company resume deducting union compensation from all employees, the
same to be held in trust for disposition as the court might later on direct in
its resolution on the motions to lift the preliminary injunction. Pursuant to
said agreement the lower court issued an order on September 28, 1962, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the agreement of the parties made in open court in
order, the Court approves the same and hereby oders that, effective
beginning the work week of September 23, 1962, the Company resume
making deductions of union compensation from all employees heretofore
paying to the Benguet Balatoc WorkersUnion as well as from newly hired
employees, but to hold the same in trust to be disposed of in the manner
that this Court may direct in its resolution on the motions to lift the
preliminary injunction.
In two separate motions dated September 30, and November 7, 1962
appellant Union moved to dismiss the complaint on three grounds, namely:
(1) that the cause of action was barred by prior judgment: (2) that the
complaint stated no cause of action; (3) that the plaintiff had no legal
capacity to sue. These two motions were denied in an order dated
September 28, 1964.
chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On October 18, 1962 and October 7, 1964 the Company and appellant Union
filed their answers, respectively. Meanwhile, sometime in October 1962
BBWU filed a complaint in intervention, which was addmitted by the Court,
praying that the weekly deduction of P0.25 from the wages of its members,
being without their consent, be declared illegal and thereafter enjoined. After
trial, the lower court rendered its decision dated November 23, 1964, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, as it would appear that
neither the Benguet Balatoc Workers Union nor the BCI Employees Workers
Union-PAFLU is entitled to the weekly union compensation collected by the
defendant company during the period of September 2, 1962 thru September
12, 1964, both dates inclusive, now in the aggregate amount of P90,183.25,
the defendant Company is hereby ordered to return as soon as practicable,
upon this judgment having become final, to each of its individual employees
and workers the respective aggregate amount deducted from their weekly

wages or salaries as weekly union compensation, covering the period from

September 2, 1962 to September 12, 1964, both dates inclusive; without
pronouncement as to costs.
In resolving the issue of whether or not the collection of union dues and/or
union compensation by the Company after BBWU ceased to be the
bargaining agent by reason of the certification issued in favor of the BCI
Employees and Workers Union was justified, a number of circumstances
should be taken into consideration.
chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(1) Under the 1955 bargaining contract the deduction of a "weekly

compensation" of P0.25 from the pay of each employee was authorized, but
subject to the right of such employee to refuse representation by the Union
(BBWU) and thus veto the deduction by properly notifying the Company to
that effect within fifteen (15) days following the effectivity of the
contract.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroble s virtual law library

(2) When the said contract was renewed by the same parties in 1959 the
provision concerning the Union compensation was continued, but with two
provisos, namely: (a) with respect to those employees and workers who had
not theretofore been paying Union compensation the Company could collect
the same only upon their written authority; and (b) with respect to persons
who might thereafter be engaged by the Company, they should, before
entering their employment, "sign an authorization for check-off of Union
compensation."
chanroble s virtual law library

(3) Implicit in the different provisions of both of the 1955 and 1959
contracts was the understating that the collection by the Company of the
Union compensation was for the benefit of the then bargaining agent, that
is, BBWU. Thus in the 1935 contract (subsection XIII-C) "such compensation
(was) in payment of services rendered by the UNION as the certified
exclusive representative of said employees and workers for collective
bargaining purposes." In accordance with this provision the 1959 contract
stipulated that during its effectivity or any extension thereof "and as long as
the UNION remains the certified exclusive representative of all the
employees and workers ... the Company will continue to collect UNION
compensation ..." And it was further provided "that should the UNION, for
any reason whatsoever cease to be the certified collective bargaining
representative ...the COMPANY'S obligation herein to collect the weekly
compensation ... shall automatically cease.
chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is clear from the foregoing that the agreement concerning the Company's
obligation to deduct Union compensation from the pay of the workers was
for the benefit of BBWU alone; that the consent of the workers as to such

compensationwas given primacy - either by giving those who had already

been paying it prior to the 1955 agreement the right to express their refusal
to continue doing so within fifteen (15) days of the effectivity of said
agreement, or, pursuant to the 1959 contract, by requiring written
authorizations from workers who had not been paying theretofore as well as
from workers to be employed thereafter, as to whom such authorization was
made a condition for their employment; and that in any event the Union
compensation clause automatically expired when BBWU ceased to be the
collective bargaining agent as a result of the certification election held in
1962.
chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Noteworthy in this connection is the text of the check-off authorization

required of new employees in the 1959 contact, as follows:
As a condition precedent to my employment, I hereby execute this Check-off
authorization, authorizing you to deduct from wages or salary due me for
each calendar week in which I have worked at least one eight-hour shift the
sum of twenty-five centavos (P0.25) for UNION compensation in payment of
services rendered by the Benguet Balatoc Wokers Union as the certified
exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees and workers in the
unit where I am being employed. I hereby authorize you also to deliver the
said sum to the person who is authorized to receive such sums by the
Benguet Balatoc Workers Union.
chanroble svirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

"Being a condition precedent of my employment, I agree not to cancel this

authorization for the duration of my employment with you."
All the foregoing circumstances notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that
insofar as the Company's employees and workers who are members of
appellant Union are concerned, neither the Bobok Lumber Jack Association
nor intervenor BBWU has the right to represent or speak for them. If they
have any objection to the collection of dues by the company for the benefit
of their own union, as the certified bargaining agent, they should have raised
such objection in this case. Their failure to do so is an implied acquiescence
or consent. Indeed, as posed by appellants in their brief, without any
manifestation of disagreement by the other parties, "the only question that
needs to be resolved is the legality of the collection of "union compensation"
from non-members, that is, from the workers who do not belong to the BCI
Employees and Workers Union (PAFLU), the defendant Union in this case."
chanroble s virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified in the sense that only
the dues so far collected by appellant Company from its workers and
employees who are not members of appellant Union and who have not

otherwise expressly authorized such collection should be returned to them,

as directed in said judgment. No pronouncement as to costs.