Progressive Development Corporation vs.

Secretary of Labor
G.R. No. 96425 February 4, 1992
Facts:
Respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa (KILUSAN) -TUCP filed with the DOLE a
petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is
a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive Development Employees Union, was
issued charter certificate. Kilusan claimed that there was no existing collective bargaining agreement
and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining unit. Petitioner PDC filed its
motion to dismiss contending that the local union failed to comply with Rule II Section 3, Book V of
the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the submission of: (a) the
constitution and by-laws; (b) names, addresses and list of officers and/or members; and (c) books of
accounts.
The Solicitor General, in behalf of the public respondent, avers that there was a substantial
compliance with the requirements for the formation of a chapter. Moreover, he invokes Article 257 of
the Labor Code which mandates the automatic conduct by the Med-Arbiter of a certification election in
any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agreement.

Issue: Whether or not a local or chapter of a federation may file a petition for certification election and
be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent.

Ruling:
The holding of a certification election is based on a statutory policy that cannot be
circumvented. The workers must be allowed to freely express their choice in a determination where
everything is open to their sound judgment and the possibility of fraud and misrepresentation is
eliminated.
But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of a
certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires that the petition for certification
election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. Article 242 enumerates the exclusive rights of
a legitimate labor organization among which is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative
of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
 Dollores Villar vs. Hon. Amado Inciong
G.R. No. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983
Facts:
Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, a duly registered labor
organization which, at the time of the present dispute, was the existing bargaining agent of the
employees in private respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. The Company and the Amigo Employees
Union-PAFLU had a collective bargaining agreement governing their labor relations, which agreement
was then about to expire. Within the last sixty (60) days of the CBA, events transpired giving rise to the
present dispute. Upon written authority of at least 30% of the employees in the company, including the
petitioners, the Federation of Unions of Rizal (hereinafter referred to as FUR) filed a petition for
certification election with the Med-Arbiter's Office. The petition was, however, opposed by PAFLU
with whom, as stated earlier, the Amigo Employees Union was at that time affiliated. PAFLU's
opposition cited the "Code of Ethics" governing inter-federation disputes among and between members
of the Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines.

Issue: Whether or not the security clause of a CBA is legal.

Ruling:
It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the
freedom of association ordained by the Constitution. But this Court has laid down the ruling that a
closed shop is a valid form of union security, and such provision in a collective bargaining agreement is
not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the case at bar, it appears as an undisputed fact that on February 15, 1977, the Company and
the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with a union
security clause provided for in Article XII thereof which is a reiteration of the same clause in the old
CBA. The quoted stipulation for closed-shop is clear and unequivocal and it leaves no room for doubt
that the employer is bound, under the collective bargaining agreement, to dismiss the employees, herein
petitioners, for non- union membership. Petitioners became non-union members upon their expulsion
from the general membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU on March 15, 1977 pursuant to
the Decision of the PAFLU national president.
 Tablante-Tungol Enterprises vs. Hon. Carmelo Noriel
G.R. No. L-47848 August 23, 1978
Facts:
Petitioner, resolute in its determination not to bargain collectively with private respondent,
Association of Democratic Labor Organization, has once again filed a certiorari proceeding against
respondents. The first attempt to set aside a resolution of respondent Noriel ordering a certification
election, was dismissed for lack of merit. The second petition for certiorari was filed, this time to
nullify a certification election held, wherein private respondent was unanimously chosen as the
collective bargaining representative. 5 For obvious lack of merit, it was likewise dismissed. In this
certiorari proceeding, it was alleged that public respondents should have cancelled the registration and
permit of private respondent labor organization as private respondent labor union had engaged in an
illegal strike.

Issue: Whether or not illegal strike is a ground for cancellation of registration.

Ruling:
The argument is false and misleading. For expediency, we quote in entirety the aforesaid Article
relied upon by the petitioner for cancellation of the registration and permit of the union: 'Article 239.
Ground for cancellation of union registration. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of
union registration: ... (e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise
engaging in any activity prohibited by law. Suppletory to the above provision is Section 6 (c) of Rule
II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended,
which reads as follows: 'Section 6. Denial of Registration of local unions-The Regional Office may
deny the application for registration on any of the following grounds: ... (c) Engaging in the "cabo "
system or other illegal practices.' It is a fact that [Association of Democratic Labor Organization] is not
a labor contractor or is it engaged in the 'cabo' system or is it otherwise engaged in any activity of such
nature which is prohibited by law. The above-quoted article should not be interpreted or construed to
include an illegal strike engaged into by any union. This is so because the phrase 'or otherwise
engaging in any activity prohibited by law' should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by a
union that partakes of the nature of a labor contractor or 'cabo' system. The law does not intend to
include in the said phrase illegally declared strike simply because strike per se is legal. Also, if the law
intends to include illegally declared strike, the same could have been expressly placed therein as had
been previously done in Presidential Decree No. 823." 11 Clearly, an awareness of the relevance of the
maxims noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis ought to have cautioned counsel for petitioner to shy
away from this approach.
 Benguet Consolidated, Inc. vs. BCI Employees and Workers Union
G.R. No. L-24711 April 30, 1968
Facts:
The Benguet-Balatoc Workers Union ("BBWU"), for and in behalf of all BENGUET employees
in its mines and milling establishment, entered into a Collective Bargaining Contract, with BENGUET.
Pursuant to its very terms, said CONTRACT became effective for a period of four and a half (4-)
years. It likewise embodied a No-Strike, No-Lockout clause. About 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. UNION obtained more than 50% of the total
number of votes, defeating BBWU, and accordingly, the Court of Industrial Relations certified 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. Subsequently, separate meetings were conducted. The result thereof was the approval by
UNION members of a resolution directing its president to file a notice of strike against BENGUET.
BENGUET had to incur expenses for the damage the strike caused.
In answer to BENGUET's complaint, defendants unions and their respective presidents put up
the following defenses: (1) they were not bound by the CONTRACT which BBWU, the defeated
union, had executed with BENGUET; (2) the strike was due, inter alia, 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.

Issue: Whether or not the Doctrine of Substitution is applicable.

Ruling:
The possible certification of a union different from that which signed the bargaining contract
was a mere contingency then since the elections were still to be held. Clearly, the Court was not called
upon to rule on possible effects of such proceedings on the bargaining agreement. BENGUET's 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' interest in the existing bargaining agreement. The agent's interest never entered the picture.
 LABOR RELATIONS
Case Digests

1. Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 96425, February 4,
1992
2. Dollores Villar vs. Hon. Amado Inciong, G.R. No. L-50283-84 , April 20, 1983
3. Tablante-Tungol Enterprises vs. Hon. Carmelo Noriel, G.R. No. L-47848, August 23, 1978
4. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. vs. BCI Employees and Workers Union, G.R. No. L-24711, April
30, 1968

Submitted by: Celina May R. Tang, Block A

Professor: Atty Mila Raquid-Arroyo