Professional Documents
Culture Documents
196276 June 4, 2014 TAKATA (SALAMAT) is hereby delisted from the roll of legitimate
labor organization of this office.9
TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs. In revoking respondent's certificate of registration, the Regional
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and SAMAHANG LAKAS Director found that the 68 employees who attended the
MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT),Respondents. organizational meeting was obviously less than 20% of the total
number of 396 regular rank-and-file employees which respondent
sought to represent, hence, short of the union registration
DECISION
requirement; that the attendance sheet which contained the
signatures and names of the union members totalling to 68
PERALTA, J.: contradicted the list of names stated in the document
denominated as "Pangalan ng mga Kasaping Unyon." The
document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner
attached to the application for registration as it was only submitted
TAKATA Philippines Corporation assailing the Decision1 dated in the petition for certification election filed by respondent at a
December 22, 2010 and the Resolution2 dated March 28, 2011 of later date. The Regional Director also found that the proceedings
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112406.
in the cancellation of registration and certification elections are
two different and entirely separate and independent proceedings
On July 7, 2009, petitioner filed with the Department of Labor and which were not dependent on each other.
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office a Petition3for Cancellation of
the Certificate of Union Registration of Respondent Samahang Dissatisfied, respondent, through Bukluran ng Manggagawang
Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMA1) on the ground that Pilipino (BMP) Paralegal Officer, Domingo P. Mole, filed a Notice
the latter is guilty of misrepresentation, false statement and fraud
and Memorandum of Appeal10 with the Bureau of Labor Relations
with respect to the number of those who participated in the (BLR). However, on September 28,2009, respondent, through its
organizational meeting, the adoption and ratification of its counsels, Attys.
Constitution and By-Laws, and in the election of its officers. It
contended that in the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting of
respondent, only 68 attendees signed the attendance sheet, and Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Jehn Louie W. Velandrez, filed an
which number comprised only 17% of the total number of the 396 Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance11 to the
regular rank- and-file employees which respondent sought to Office of the DOLE Secretary, which the latter eventually referred
represent, and hence, respondent failed to comply with the 20% to the BLR. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Appeals 12 praying
minimum membership requirement. Petitioner insisted that the for their dismissal on the ground of forum shopping as respondent
document "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon" bore no filed two separate appeals in two separate venues; and for failing
signatures of the alleged 119 union members; and that to avail of the correct remedy within the period; and that the
employees were not given sufficient information on the certificate of registration was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation
documents they signed; that the document "Sama-Samang and falsification.
Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not submitted at the time of the filing of
respondent's application for union registration; that the 119 union
In its Answer,13 respondent claimed that there was no forum
members were actually only 117; and, that the total number of
shopping as BMP's Paralegal Officer was no longer authorized to
petitioner's employees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not 396
file an appeal on behalf of respondent as the latter's link with BMP
as respondent claimed.4
was already terminated and only the Union President was
authorized to file the appeal; and that it complied with Department
Respondent denied the charge and claimed that the 119 union Order No. 40-03.
members were more than the 20% requirement for union
registration. The document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi
On December 9, 2009, after considering respondent's Appeal
sa Unyon" which it presented in its petition for certification
Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance and petitioner's
election5 supported their claim of 119 members. Respondent also
Answer, the BLR rendered its Decision14 reversing the Order of
contended that petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal
the Regional Director, the decretal portion of which reads:
personality as it agreed to a certification election and actively
participated in the pre-election conference of the certification
election proceedings.6 Respondent argued that the union WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of
members were informed of the contents of the documents they Regional Director Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr., dated 27 August 2009,
signed and that the 68 attendees to the organizational meeting is hereby REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.
constituted more than 50% of the total union membership, hence,
a quo rumexisted for the conduct of the said meeting. 7
Accordingly, Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng TAKATA
(SALAMAT) shall remain in the roster of labor organizations.15
On August 27, 2009, DOLE Regional Director, Atty. Ricardo S.
Martinez, Sr., issued a Decision8 granting the petition for
In reversing, the BLR found that petitioner failed to prove that
cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration, the
respondent deliberately and maliciously misrepresented the
dispositive portion of which reads:
number of rank-and-file employees. It pointed out petitioner's
basis for the alleged noncompliance with the minimum
WHEREFORE, from the foregoing considerations, the petition is membership requirement for registration was the attendance of 68
hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the respondent Union Certificate members to the May 1, 2009 organizational meeting supposedly
of Registration No. RO400A-2009-05-01-UR-LAG, dated May 19, comprising only 17% of the total 396 regular rank-and-file
2009 is hereby REVOCKED (sic) and /or CANCELLED pursuant employees. However, the BLR found that the list of employees
to paragraph (a) & (b), Section 3, Rule XIV of Department Order who participated in the organizational meeting was a separate
No. 40-03 and the Samahang Lakas ng Manggagawa ng and distinct requirement from the list of the names of members
comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit;
and that there was no requirement for signatures opposite the SALAMAT and that BMP was duly informed that its services was
names of the union members; and there was no evidence already terminated. SALAMAT even submitted before the BLR its
showing that the employees assailed their inclusion in the list of "Resolusyon Blg. 01-2009" terminating the services of BMP and
union members. revoking the representation of Mr. Domingo Mole in any of the
pending cases being handled by him on behalf of the union. So,
considering that BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole was no
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by
longer authorized to file an appeal when it filed the Notice and
the BLR in a Resolution16 dated January 8, 2010.
Memorandum of Appeal to DOLE Regional Office No. IV-A, the
same can no longer be treated as an appeal filed by union
Undaunted, petitioner went to the CA via a petition for certiorari SALAMAT. Hence, there is no forum shopping to speak of in this
under Rule 65. case as only the Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of
Appearance filed by Atty. Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Atty.
Jehn Louie W. Velandrez is sanctioned by SALAMAT.18
After the submission of the parties' respective pleadings, the case
was submitted for decision.
Since Mole's appeal filed with the BLR was not specifically
authorized by respondent, such appeal is considered to have not
On December 22, 2010, the CA rendered its assailed decision
been filed at all. It has been held that "if a complaint is filed for
which denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the BLR. and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution complaint is not deemed filed.
dated March 29, 2011.
In Abbott, the appeal from the Regional Directors decision was Petitioner also insists that respondents registration as a
directly filed with the Office of the DOLE Secretary, and we ruled legitimate labor union should be cancelled. Petitioner posits that
that the latter has no appellate jurisdiction. In the instant case, the once it is determined that a ground enumerated in Article 239 of
appeal was filed by petitioner with the BLR, which, undisputedly, the Labor Code is present, cancellation of registration should
acquired jurisdiction over the case. Once jurisdiction is acquired follow; it becomes the ministerial duty of the Regional Director to
by the court, it remains with it until the full termination of the cancel the registration of the labor organization, hence, the use of
case.25 the word "shall." Petitioner points out that the Regional Director
has admitted in its decision that respondent failed to submit the
Thus, jurisdiction remained with the BLR despite the BLR required documents for a number of years; therefore, cancellation
Directors inhibition. When the DOLE Secretary resolved the of its registration should have followed as a matter of course.
appeal, she merely stepped into the shoes of the BLR Director
and performed a function that the latter could not himself perform. We are not persuaded.
She did so pursuant to her power of supervision and control over
the BLR.26
Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code read:
Expounding on the extent of the power of control, the Court, in
Araneta, et al. v. Hon. M. Gatmaitan, et al.,27pronounced that, if a ART. 238. CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION; APPEAL
certain power or authority is vested by law upon the Department
Secretary, then such power or authority may be exercised directly The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor organization,
by the President, who exercises supervision and control over the
whether national or local, shall be canceled by the Bureau if it has
departments. This principle was incorporated in the Administrative reason to believe, after due hearing, that the said labor
Code of 1987, which defines "supervision and control" as organization no longer meets one or more of the requirements
including the authority to act directly whenever a specific function
herein prescribed.34
is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate.28 Applying the
foregoing to the present case, it is clear that the DOLE Secretary,
as the person exercising the power of supervision and control ART. 239. GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION
over the BLR, has the authority to directly exercise the quasi- REGISTRATION.
judicial function entrusted by law to the BLR Director.
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union
It is true that the power of control and supervision does not give registration:
the Department Secretary unbridled authority to take over the
xxxx ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration.The
following may constitute grounds for cancellation of union
registration:
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau
within thirty (30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and
misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the (a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
financial report itself; 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
xxxx
part in the ratification;
As aptly ruled by respondent Bureau of Labor Relations Director On August 26, 2005, the Regional Director of DOLE IV-A issued
Noriel: "The rights of workers to self-organization finds general an Order granting the petition, revoking the registration of
and specific constitutional guarantees. x x x Such constitutional respondent, and delisting it from the roster of active labor unions.
guarantees should not be lightly taken much less nullified. A
healthy respect for the freedom of association demands that acts Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations
imputable to officers or members be not easily visited with capital (BLR).
punishments against the association itself."
In a Decision7 dated June 14, 2006, the BLR granted
At any rate, we note that on 19 May 2000, appellee had submitted respondents appeal and disposed as follows
its financial statement for the years 1996-1999. With this
submission, appellee has substantially complied with its duty to
submit its financial report for the said period. To rule differently WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal by Samahan ng
would be to preclude the union, after having failed to meet its Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-
periodic obligations promptly, from taking appropriate measures Independent) is hereby GRANTED, and the Decision dated 26
to correct its omissions. For the record, we do not view with favor August 2005 by DOLE-Region-IV-A Director Maximo B. Lim is
appellees late submission. Punctuality on the part of the union hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Samahan ng Manggagawa
and its officers could have prevented this petition.41 sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent), under
Registration Certificate No. RO400-200505-UR-002, remains in
the roster of legitimate labor organizations.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals
Decision dated May 30, 2005 and Resolution dated June 4, 2007
are AFFIRMED. SO DECIDED.8
SO ORDERED Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the BLR denied it
in a Resolution9 dated February 2, 2007.
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC., Petitioner, Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision was
vs. likewise denied, hence, this petition based on the following
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND grounds
EMPLOYMENT, CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR
Review of the Factual Findings of the Bureau of Labor Relations, general terms and sweeping in nature, but more importantly, it
adopted and confirmed by the Honorable Court of Appeals is was not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
warranted[;]
The second allegation ostensibly bares the affiants regret for
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred in ruling that the joining respondent union and expresses the desire to abandon or
affidavits of recantation cannot be given credence[;] renege from whatever agreement he may have signed regarding
his membership with respondent.
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred in ruling that
private respondent union complied with the 20% membership Simply put, through these affidavits, it is made to appear that the
requirement[; and] affiants recanted their support of respondents application for
registration.
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred when it ruled that
private respondent union did not commit misrepresentation, fraud In appreciating affidavits of recantation such as these, our ruling
or false statement.10 in La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Director of the Bureau
of Labor Relations11 is enlightening, viz.
The petition should be denied.
On the second issuewhether or not the withdrawal of 31 union
members from NATU affected the petition for certification election
The petitioner insists that respondent failed to comply with the
insofar as the 30% requirement is concerned, We reserve the
20% union membership requirement for its registration as a
Order of the respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor
legitimate labor organization because of the disaffiliation from the
Relations, it appearing undisputably that the 31 union members
total number of union members of 102 employees who executed
had withdrawn their support to the petition before the filing of said
affidavits recanting their union membership.
petition. It would be otherwise if the withdrawal was made after
the filing of the petition for it would then be presumed that the
It is, thus, imperative that we peruse the affidavits appearing to withdrawal was not free and voluntary. The presumption would
have been executed by these affiants. 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
The affidavits uniformly state
presumed voluntary unless there is convincing proof to the
contrary, whereas withdrawals made after the filing of the petition
Ako, _____________, Pilipino, may sapat na gulang, regular na are deemed involuntary.
empleyado bilang Rank & File sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc.,
Bo. San Antonio, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, matapos na The reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawal or
makapanumpa ng naaayon sa batas ay malaya at kusang loob na retraction is made before the filing of the petition, the names of
nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod: employees supporting the petition are supposed to be held secret
to the opposite party. Logically, any such withdrawal or retraction
1. Ako ay napilitan at nilinlang sa pagsapi sa Samahan shows voluntariness in the absence of proof to the contrary.
ng mga Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. Moreover, it becomes apparent that such employees had not
o SMMSC-Independent sa kabila ng aking pag- given consent to the filing of the petition, hence the subscription
aalinlangan[;] requirement has not been met.
2. Aking lubos na pinagsisihan ang aking pagpirma sa When the withdrawal or retraction is made after the petition is
sipi ng samahan, at handa ako[ng] tumalikod sa filed, the employees who are supporting the petition become
anumang kasulatan na aking nalagdaan sa kadahilanan known to the opposite party since their names are attached to the
na hindi angkop sa aking pananaw ang mga mungkahi petition at the time of filing. Therefore, it would not be unexpected
o adhikain ng samahan. that the opposite party would use foul means for the subject
employees to withdraw their support.12
SA KATUNAYAN NANG LAHAT, ako ay lumagda ng aking
pangalan ngayong ika-____ ng ______, 2005 dito sa Lalawigan In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were executed
ng Batangas, Bayan ng Sto. Tomas. 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
Nagsasalaysay union was made after the documents were submitted to the
DOLE, Region IV-A. The logical conclusion, therefore, following
Evidently, these affidavits were written and prepared in advance, jurisprudence, is that the employees were not totally free from the
and the pro forma affidavits were ready to be filled out with the employers pressure, and so the voluntariness of the employees
employees names and signatures. execution of the affidavits becomes suspect.
The first common allegation in the affidavits is a declaration that, It is likewise notable that the first batch of 25 pro forma affidavits
in spite of his hesitation, the affiant was forced and deceived into shows that the affidavits were executed by the individual affiants
joining the respondent union. It is worthy to note, however, that on different dates from May 26, 2005 until June 3, 2005, but they
the affidavit does not mention the identity of the people who were all sworn before a notary public on June 8, 2005.
allegedly forced and deceived the affiant into joining the union,
much less the circumstances that constituted such force and
deceit. Indeed, not only was this allegation couched in very
There was also a second set of standardized affidavits executed has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-
on different dates from May 26, 2005 until July 6, 2005. While organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for
these 77 affidavits were notarized on different dates, 56 of these cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the
were notarized on June 8, 2005, the very same date when the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and
first set of 25 was notarized. compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union
members.
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 In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that respondent
submit the second set of affidavits only on July 12, 2005. 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
Accordingly, we cannot give full credence to these affidavits,
bargaining unit is of no moment, especially as it was able to
which were executed under suspicious circumstances, and which
comply with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Even if
contain allegations unsupported by evidence. At best, these
the total number of rank-and-file employees of petitioner is 528,
affidavits are self-serving. They possess no probative value.
while respondent declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot
be denied that the latter would have more than complied with the
A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. registration requirement.
For this reason, retractions are looked upon with disfavor and do
not automatically exclude the original statement or declaration
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed December
based solely on the recantation. It is imperative that a
20, 2007 Decision and the June 6, 2008 Resolution of the Court
determination be first made as to which between the original and
of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
the new statements should be given weight or accorded belief,
applying the general rules on evidence. In this case, inasmuch as
they remain bare allegations, the purported recantations should SO ORDERED
not be upheld.13
G.R. No. 114974 June 16, 2004
Nevertheless, even assuming the veracity of the affidavits of
recantation, the legitimacy of respondent as a labor organization
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION
must be affirmed. While it is true that the withdrawal of support
(NUBE), petitioner,
may be considered as a resignation from the union, the fact
vs.
remains that at the time of the unions application for registration,
The Honorable MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, in her capacity as
the affiants were members of respondent and they comprised
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; and the
more than the required 20% membership for purposes of
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, respondents.
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 DECISION
the 20% minimum membership requirement all throughout its
existence.141avvphi1
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
In the succeeding meetings, the Union made the following Group Hospitalization Insurance
proposals:
From: 60,000.00 per year
Wage Increase:
To : 50,000.00 per year
1st Year Reduced from 45% to 40%
Dental:
2nd Year - Retain at 20%
Temporary Filling/ 150.00
Total = 60%
Tooth Extraction
Group Hospitalization Insurance:
Permanent Filling 200.00
Prophylaxis 250.00 dispute at the Bank. The complaint for ULP filed by the Bank
before the NLRC was consolidated with the complaint over which
the SOLE assumed jurisdiction. After the parties submitted their
Root Canal From 2,000 per tooth
respective position papers, the SOLE issued an Order on October
29, 1993, the dispositive portion of which is herein quoted:
To: 1,800.00 per tooth
WHEREFORE, the Standard Chartered Bank and the
Death Assistance: Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union NUBE
are hereby ordered to execute a collective bargaining
agreement incorporating the dispositions contained
For Employees: From 45,000.00 to 40,000.00
herein. The CBA shall be retroactive to 01 April 1993
and shall remain effective for two years thereafter, or
For Immediate Family Member: From 25,000.00 to until such time as a new CBA has superseded it. All
20,000.00.22 provisions in the expired CBA not expressly modified or
not passed upon herein are deemed retained while all
new provisions which are being demanded by either
The Unions original proposals, aside from the above-quoted, party are deemed denied, but without prejudice to such
remained the same. agreements as the parties may have arrived at in the
meantime.
Another set of counter-offer followed:
The Banks charge for unfair labor practice which it
originally filed with the NLRC as NLRC-NCR Case No.
Management Union 00-06-04191-93 but which is deemed consolidated
herein, is dismissed for lack of merit. On the other
Wage Increase hand, the Unions charge for unfair labor practice is
similarly dismissed.
1st Year 1,050.00 40%
2nd Year - 850.00 19.0%23 Let a copy of this order be furnished the Labor Arbiter in
whose sala NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-06-04191-93 is
pending for his guidance and appropriate action.29
Diokno stated that, in order for the Bank to make a better offer,
the Union should clearly identify what it wanted to be included in The SOLE gave the following economic awards:
the total economic package. Umali replied that it was impossible
to do so because the Banks counter-proposal was unacceptable.
He furthered asserted that it would have been easier to bargain if 1. Wage Increase:
the atmosphere was the same as before, where both panels
trusted each other. Diokno requested the Union panel to refrain a) To be incorporated to present salary rates:
from involving personalities and to instead focus on the
negotiations.24 He suggested that in order to break the impasse,
the Union should prioritize the items it wanted to iron out. Fourth year : 7% of basic monthly salary
Divinagracia stated that the Bank should make the first move and
make a list of items it wanted to be included in the economic Fifth year : 5% of basic monthly salary based
package. Except for the provisions on signing bonus and on the 4th year adjusted salary
uniforms, the Union and the Bank failed to agree on the remaining
economic provisions of the CBA. The Union declared a
deadlock25 and filed a Notice of Strike before the National b) Additional fixed amount:
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on June 21, 1993,
docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-06-380-93.26
Fourth year : 600.00 per month
On the other hand, the Bank filed a complaint for Unfair Labor
Fifth year : 400.00 per month
Practice (ULP) and Damages before the Arbitration Branch of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Manila,
docketed as NLRC Case No. 00-06-04191-93 against the Union 2. Group Insurance
on June 28, 1993. The Bank alleged that the Union violated its
duty to bargain, as it did not bargain in good faith. It contended
a) Hospitalization : 45,000.00
that the Union demanded "sky high economic demands,"
indicative of blue-sky bargaining.27 Further, the Union violated its
no strike- no lockout clause by filing a notice of strike before the b) Life : 130,000.00
NCMB. Considering that the filing of notice of strike was an illegal
act, the Union officers should be dismissed. Finally, the Bank
c) Accident : 130,000.00
alleged that as a consequence of the illegal act, the Bank suffered
nominal and actual damages and was forced to litigate and hire
the services of the lawyer.28 3. Medicine Allowance
On July 21, 1993, then Secretary of Labor and Employment Fourth year : 5,500.00
(SOLE) Nieves R. Confesor, pursuant to Article 263(g) of the
Labor Code, issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the labor
Fifth year : 6,000.00
4. Dental Benefits EVIDENCE OF RECORD AND ADMISSIONS
PROVING THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
CHARGED.33
Provision of dental retainer as proposed by the Bank,
but without diminishing existing benefits
B. RESPONDENT HONORABLE SECRETARY
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
5. Optical Allowance
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN
FAILING TO RULE ON OTHER UNFAIR LABOR
Fourth year: 2,000.00 PRACTICES CHARGED.34
The Union, did not, as the Labor Code requires, send a written We, likewise, do not agree that the Union is guilty of ULP for
request for the issuance of a copy of the data about the Banks engaging in blue-sky bargaining or making exaggerated or
rank and file employees. Moreover, as alleged by the Union, the unreasonable proposals.59 The Bank failed to show that the
fact that the Bank made use of the aforesaid guestimates, economic demands made by the Union were exaggerated or
amounts to a validation of the data it had used in its presentation. unreasonable. The minutes of the meeting show that the Union
based its economic proposals on data of rank and file employees
and the prevailing economic benefits received by bank employees
No Grave Abuse of Discretion
from other foreign banks doing business in the Philippines and
other branches of the Bank in the Asian region.
On the Part of the Public Respondent
In sum, we find that the public respondent did not act with grave
The special civil action for certiorari may be availed of when the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial when it issued the questioned order and resolutions. While the
functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and there approval of the CBA and the release of the signing bonus did not
is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the estop the Union from pursuing its claims of ULP against the Bank,
ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling the we find the latter did not engage in ULP. We, likewise, hold that
proceeding.56 Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious the Union is not guilty of ULP.
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the October 29, 1993 Order
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility which
and December 16, 1993 and February 10, 1994 Resolutions of
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of
then Secretary of Labor Nieves R. Confesor are AFFIRMED. The
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or
Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
to act at all in contemplation of law. Mere abuse of discretion is
not enough.57
SO ORDERED
While it is true that a showing of prejudice to public interest is not
a requisite for ULP charges to prosper, it cannot be said that the
public respondent acted in capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof.
G.R. Nos. 158930-31 March 3, 2008
Neither was it shown that the public respondent exercised its
power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion
or personal hostility. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES UNIONS - KILUSANG MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA-
KMU), petitioner,
Estoppel not Applicable
vs.
NESTL PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, respondent.
In the Case at Bar
x------------------------------------------x
The respondent Bank argues that the petitioner is estopped from
raising the issue of ULP when it signed the new CBA.
G.R. Nos. 158944-45 March 3, 2008
Subsequent thereto, Nestl Philippines, Incorporated (Nestl) CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, this Office hereby
filed a Motion for Clarification2 on 20 September 2006; while assumes jurisdiction over the labor dispute at the
Union of Filipro Employees Drug, Food and Allied Industries Nestl Philippines, Inc. (Cabuyao Plant) pursuant to
Union Kilusang Mayo Uno (UFE-DFA-KMU), on 21 September Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended.
2006, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration3 of the foregoing
Decision.
Accordingly, any strike or lockout is hereby enjoined.
The parties are directed to cease and desist from
The material facts of the case, as determined by this Court in its committing any act that might lead to the further
Decision, may be summarized as follows: deterioration of the current labor relations situation.
UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of The parties are further directed to meet and convene
the rank-and-file employees of Nestl belonging to the latters for the discussion of the union proposals and company
Alabang and Cabuyao plants. On 4 April 2001, as the existing counter-proposals before the National Conciliation and
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Nestl and UFE- Mediation Board (NCMB) who is hereby designated as
DFA-KMU4 was to end on 5 June 2001,5 the Presidents of the the delegate/facilitator of this Office for this purpose.
Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions of UFE-DFA-KMU informed The NCMB shall report to this Office the results of this
Nestl of their intent to "open [our] new Collective Bargaining attempt at conciliation and delimitation of the issues
Negotiation for the year 2001-2004 x x x as early as June within thirty (30) days from the parties receipt of this
2001."6 In response thereto, Nestl informed them that it was also Order, in no case later than December 31, 2001. If no
preparing its own counter-proposal and proposed ground rules to settlement of all the issues is reached, this Office shall
govern the impending conduct of the CBA negotiations. thereafter define the outstanding issues and order the
filing of position papers for a ruling on the merits.
On 29 May 2001, in another letter to the UFE-DFA-KMU
(Cabuyao Division only)7, Nestl reiterated its stance that UFE-DFA-KMU sought reconsideration16 of the above but
"unilateral grants, one-time company grants, company-initiated nonetheless moved for additional time to file its position paper as
policies and programs, which include, but are not limited to the directed by the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order.
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."8 On 14 January 2002, Sec. Sto. Tomas denied said motion for
reconsideration.
We are unconvinced still. Herein, the union merely bases its claim of refusal to bargain on a
letter28 dated 29 May 2001 written by Nestl where the latter laid
down its position that "unilateral grants, one-time company
The duty to bargain collectively is mandated by Articles 252 and
grants, company-initiated policies and programs, which include,
253 of the Labor Code, as amended, which state 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." But as we have stated in this Courts Decision, said labor organization or shall withdraw from one
letter is not tantamount to refusal to bargain. In thinking to exclude to which he belongs;
the issue of Retirement Plan from the CBA negotiations, Nestl,
cannot be faulted for considering the same benefit as unilaterally
(c) To contract out services or functions being
granted, considering that eight out of nine bargaining units have
performed by union members when such will
allegedly agreed to treat the Retirement Plan as a unilaterally
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in
granted benefit. This is not a case where the employer exhibited
the exercise of their right to self-organization;
an indifferent attitude towards collective bargaining, because the
negotiations were not the unilateral activity of the bargaining
representative. Nestls desire to settle the dispute and proceed (d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise
with the negotiation being evident in its cry for compulsory interfere with the formation or administration
arbitration is proof enough of its exertion of reasonable effort at of any labor organization, including the giving
good-faith bargaining. of financial or other support to it or its
organizers or supporters;
In the case at bar, Nestle never refused to bargain collectively
with UFE-DFA-KMU. The corporation simply wanted to exclude (e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours
the Retirement Plan from the issues to be taken up during CBA of work, and other terms and conditions of
negotiations, on the postulation that such was in the nature of a employment in order to encourage or
unilaterally granted benefit. An employers steadfast insistence to discourage membership in any labor
exclude a particular substantive provision is no different from a organization. Nothing in this Code or in any
bargaining representatives perseverance to include one that they other law shall stop the parties from requiring
deem of absolute necessity. Indeed, an adamant insistence on a membership in a recognized collective
bargaining position to the point where the negotiations reach an bargaining agent as a condition for
impasse does not establish bad faith.[fn24 p.10] It is but natural employment, except those employees who
that at negotiations, management and labor adopt positions or are already members of another union at the
make demands and offer proposals and counter-proposals. On time of the signing of the collective bargaining
account of the importance of the economic issue proposed by agreement.
UFE-DFA-KMU, Nestle could have refused to bargain with the
former but it did not. And the managements firm stand against
the issue of the Retirement Plan did not mean that it was Employees of an appropriate collective
bargaining in bad faith. It had a right to insist on its position to the bargaining unit who are not members of the
point of stalemate. recognized collective bargaining agent may
be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to
the dues and other fees paid by members of
The foregoing things considered, this Court replicates below its the recognized collective bargaining agent, if
clear disposition of the issue: such non-union members accept the benefits
under the collective agreement. Provided,
That the individual authorization required
The concept of "unfair labor practice" is defined by the
under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code
Labor Code as:
shall not apply to the nonmembers of the
recognized collective bargaining agent; [The
ART. 247. CONCEPT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE article referred to is 241, not 242. CAA]
AND PROCEDURE FOR PROSECUTION THEREOF.
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of
(f) To dismiss, discharge, or otherwise
workers and employees to self-organization, are
prejudice or discriminate against an
inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and
employee for having given or being about to
management, including their right to bargain collectively
give testimony under this Code;
and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of
freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace
and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor- (g) To violate the duty to bargain
management relations. collectively as prescribed by this Code;
As to the point of clarification on the resumption of All told, in consideration of the points afore-discussed and the fact
negotiations respecting the Retirement Plan: that no substantial arguments have been raised by either party,
this Court remains unconvinced that it should modify or reverse in
any way its disposition of herein cases in its earlier Decision. The
As for the supposed confusion or uncertainty of the dispositive labor dispute between the Nestle and UFE-DFA-KMU has
part of this Courts Decision, Nestle moves for clarification of the dragged on long enough. As no other issues are availing, let this
statement "The parties are directed to resume negotiations Resolution write an ending to the protracted labor dispute
respecting the Retirement Plan and to take action consistent with between Nestl and UFE-DFA-KMU (Cabuyao Division).
the discussion hereinabove set forth. No costs." The entire fallo of
this Courts Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the basic issues of the case
having been passed upon and there being no new arguments
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition in availing, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED
G.R. No. 158930-31 seeking that Nestl be declared to WITH FINALITY for lack of merit. Let these cases be remanded
have committed unfair labor practice in allegedly setting to the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment for
a precondition to bargaining is DENIED. The Petition in proper disposition, consistent with the discussions in this Courts
G.R. No. 158944-45, however, is PARTLY GRANTED Decision of 22 August 2006 and as hereinabove set forth. No
in that we REVERSE the ruling of the Court of Appeals costs.
in CA G.R. SP No. 69805 in so far as it ruled that the
Secretary of the DOLE gravely abused her discretion in
failing to confine her assumption of jurisdiction power SO ORDERED
over the ground rules of the CBA negotiations; but the
ruling of the Court of Appeals on the inclusion of the
Retirement Plan as a valid issue in the collective
bargaining negotiations between UFE-DFA-KMU and
Nestl is AFFIRMED. The parties are directed to G.R. Nos. 75700-01 August 30, 1990
resume negotiations respecting the Retirement Plan
and to take action consistent with the discussions
LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION, petitioner,
hereinabove set forth. No costs.
vs.
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, PHILIPPINE LABOR
Nestle interprets the foregoing as an order for the parties to UNION ASSOCIATION (PLUA-NACUSIP) and NATIONAL
resume negotiations by themselves respecting the issue of LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
retirement benefits due the employees of the Cabuyao Plant.
Otherwise stated, Nestle posits that the dispositive part of the
Sicangco, Diaz, Ortiz and Lapak for petitioner.
Decision directs the parties to submit to a voluntary mode of
dispute settlement.
Reynaldo J. Gulmatico for private respondents.
A read-through of this Courts Decision reveals that the ambiguity
is more ostensible than real. This Courts Decision of 22 August
2006 designated marked boundaries as to the implications of the
assailed Orders of the Secretary of the DOLE. We said therein
FELICIANO, J.:
that 1) the Retirement Plan is still a valid issue for herein parties
collective bargaining negotiations; 2) the Court of Appeals
In this Petition, petitioner Lopez Sugar Corporation seeks reversal cost reduction. Now that there is hope in the
of the Decision dated 2 July 1986 of public respondent National price of sugar the applicant is again faced
labor Relations Commission ("NLRC") which affirmed the decision with two major economic problems, i.e., the
of the Labor Arbiter dated 30 September 1983. The Labor Arbiter stoppage of its railway operation and the
(a) had denied petitioner's application to retrench some of its spiralling cost of production.
employees and (b) had ordered the reinstatement of twenty-seven
(27) employees and to pay them full backwages from the time of
The Applicant was forced to stop its railway
termination until actual reinstatement.
operation because the owners of the land
upon which the Applicant's railway lines
Petitioner, allegedly to prevent losses due to major economic traverse are no longer willing to allow the
problems, and exercising its privilege under Article XI, Section 2 Applicant to make further use of portions of
of its 1975-1977 Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") their lands. . . .
entered into between petitioner and private respondent Philippine
Labor Union Association ("PLUA-NACUSIP"), caused the
The other economic problem that confronted
retrenchment and retirement of a number of its employees.
the Applicant is the rising cost of labor,
materials, supplies, equipment, etc. These
Thus, on 3 January 1980, petitioner filed with the Bacolod District two major economic problems the rising cost
Office of the then Ministry of Labor and Employment ("MOLE") a of production and the stoppage of its railway
combined report on retirement and application for clearance to facilities, put together pose a very serious
retrench, dated 28 December 1979, 1 affecting eighty six (86) of threat against the economic survival of the
its employees. This was docketed as NLRC Case Ne. A-217-80. Applicant. In view of this, the Applicant was
Of these eighty-six (86) employees, fifty-nine (59) were retired constrained to touch on the last phase of its
effective 1 January 1980 and twenty-eight (27) were to be cost reduction program which is the reduction
retrenched effective 16 January 1980 "in order to prevent losses." of its workforce.
Also, on 3 January 1980, private respondent Federation of Free xxx xxx xxx
Workers ("FFW"), as the certified bargaining agent of the rank-
and-file employees of petitioner, filed with the Bacolod District
The Applicant as a business proposition must
Office of the MOLE a complaint dated 27 December 1979 for
be allowed to earn income in order to survive.
unfair labor practices and recovery of union dues docketed as
This is the essence of private enterprise.
NLRC Case No. A-198-80. In said complainant, FFW claimed that
Being plagued with two major economic
the terminations undertaken by petitioner were violative of the
problems, the applicant is not expected to
security of tenure of its members and were intended to "bust" the
remain immobile. It has to react accordingly.
union and hence constituted an unfair labor practice. FFW
As many other business firms have resorted
claimed that after the termination of the services of its members,
to reduction of force in view of the present
petitioner advised 110 casuals to report to its personnel office.
economic crisis obtaining here and abroad,
FFW further argued that to justify retrenchment, serious business
the applicant was likewise compelled to do
reverses must be "actual, real and amply supported by sufficient
the same as a last alternative remedy for
and convincing evidence." FFW prayed for reinstatement of its
survival. 3
members who had been retired or retrenched.
Petitioner is mistaken. As to the first requisite, there is no question that the CBA between
PRI and respondents included a union security clause,
specifically, a maintenance of membership as stipulated in
The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via
Sections 6 of Article II, Union Security and Check-Off. Following
Rule 65 or Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in
the same provision, PRI, upon written request from the Union, can
our decision in St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor
indeed terminate the employment of the employee who failed to
Relations Commission.11 This Court held that the proper vehicle
maintain its good standing as a union member.
for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that this action should be filed
in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the Secondly, it is likewise undisputed that NAMAPRI-SPFL, in two
hierarchy of courts.12 Moreover, it is already settled that under (2) occasions demanded from PRI, in their letters dated May 16
Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic and 23, 2000, to terminate the employment of respondents due to
Act No. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court their acts of disloyalty to the Union.
of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary
However, as to the third requisite, we find that there is no
Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals pursuant to
sufficient evidence to support the decision of PRI to terminate the
the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions
employment of the respondents.
for Certiorari is specifically given the power to pass upon the
evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues. 13
PRI alleged that respondents were terminated from employment
based on the alleged acts of disloyalty they committed when they
We now come to the main issue of whether there was just cause
signed an authorization for the Federation of Free Workers (FFW)
to terminate the employment of respondents.
to file a Petition for Certification Election among all rank-and-file
employees of PRI. It contends that the acts of respondents are a
PRI argued that the dismissal of the respondents was valid and violation of the Union Security Clause, as provided in their
legal. It claimed to have acted in good faith at the instance of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
incumbent union pursuant to the Union Security Clause of the
CBA.
We are unconvinced.
14
Citing Article 253 of the Labor Code, PRI contends that as
We are in consonance with the Court of Appeals when it held that
parties to the CBA, they are enjoined to keep thestatus quo and
the mere signing of the authorization in support of the Petition for
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the
Certification Election of FFW on March 19, 20 and 21, or before
existing CBA during the 60-day period and/or until a new
the "freedom period," is not sufficient ground to terminate the
agreement is reached by the parties.
employment of respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was
actually filed during the freedom period. Nothing in the records
Petitioner's argument is untenable. would show that respondents failed to maintain their membership
in good standing in the Union. Respondents did not resign or
withdraw their membership from the Union to which they belong.
"Union security" is a generic term, which is applied to and
Respondents continued to pay their union dues and never joined
comprehends "closed shop," "union shop," "maintenance of
the FFW.
membership," or any other form of agreement which imposes
upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union
membership as a condition affecting employment. There is union Significantly, petitioner's act of dismissing respondents stemmed
shop when all new regular employees are required to join the from the latter's act of signing an authorization letter to file a
union within a certain period as a condition for their continued petition for certification election as they signed it outside the
employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when freedom period. However, we are constrained to believe that an
employees, who are union members as of the effective date of the "authorization letter to file a petition for certification election" is
agreement, or who thereafter become members, must maintain different from an actual "Petition for Certification Election."
union membership as a condition for continued employment until Likewise, as per records, it was clear that the actual Petition for
they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit, or the Certification Election of FFW was filed only on May 18,
agreement is terminated. A closed shop, on the other hand, may 2000.17 Thus, it was within the ambit of the freedom period which
be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the commenced from March 21, 2000 until May 21, 2000. Strictly
employer and his employees or their representatives, no person speaking, what is prohibited is the filing of a petition for
may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the certification election outside the 60-day freedom period.18 This is
enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of not the situation in this case. If at all, the signing of the
the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union authorization to file a certification election was merely preparatory
entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a to the filing of the petition for certification election, or an exercise
part.15 of respondents right to self-organization.
However, in terminating the employment of an employee by Moreover, PRI anchored their decision to terminate respondents
enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs to employment on Article 253 of the Labor Code which states that "it
determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and
applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions
of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or of a new agreement will not apply. Otherwise, it will create an
until a new agreement is reached by the parties." It claimed absurd situation where the union members will be forced to
that they are still bound by the Union Security Clause of the CBA maintain membership by virtue of the union security clause
even after the expiration of the CBA; hence, the need to terminate existing under the CBA and, thereafter, support another union
the employment of respondents. when filing a petition for certification election. If we apply it, there
will always be an issue of disloyalty whenever the employees
exercise their right to self-organization. The holding of a
Petitioner's reliance on Article 253 is misplaced.
certification election is a statutory policy that should not be
circumvented,23 or compromised.1avvphi
The provision of Article 256 of the Labor Code is particularly
enlightening. It reads:
Time and again, we have ruled that we adhere to the policy of
enhancing the welfare of the workers. Their freedom to choose
Article 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. - who should be their bargaining representative is of paramount
In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning importance. The fact that there already exists a bargaining
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed representative in the unit concerned is of no moment as long as
before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty- the petition for certification election was filed within the freedom
day period before the expiration of a collective bargaining period. What is imperative is that by such a petition for
agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election certification election the employees are given the opportunity to
by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the make known of who shall have the right to represent them
written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the thereafter. Not only some, but all of them should have the right to
employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the do so. What is equally important is that everyone be given a
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid democratic space in the bargaining unit concerned. 24
election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must
have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the
We will emphasize anew that the power to dismiss is a normal
valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining
prerogative of the employer. This, however, is not without
agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which
limitations. The employer is bound to exercise caution in
provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a
terminating the services of his employees especially so when it is
majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be
made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective
conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest
Bargaining Agreement. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and
number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all
capricious. Due process must be observed in dismissing an
contending unions is at least fifty per cent (50%) of the number of
employee, because it affects not only his position but also his
votes cast.
means of livelihood. Employers should, therefore, respect and
protect the rights of their employees, which include the right to
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall labor.25
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election
An employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to the twin
is filed.19
reliefs of full backwages and reinstatement. If reinstatement is not
viable, separation pay is awarded to the employee. In awarding
Applying the same provision, it can be said that while it is separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu of
incumbent for the employer to continue to recognize the majority reinstatement, the amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to
status of the incumbent bargaining agent even after the expiration one month salary for every year of service. Under Republic Act
of the freedom period, they could only do so when no petition for No. 6715, employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to
certification election was filed. The reason is, with a pending full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, or their
petition for certification, any such agreement entered into by monetary equivalent, computed from the time their actual
management with a labor organization is fraught with the risk that compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their
such a labor union may not be chosen thereafter as the collective actual reinstatement. But if reinstatement is no longer possible,
bargaining representative.20 The provision for statusquo is the backwages shall be computed from the time of their illegal
conditioned on the fact that no certification election was filed termination up to the finality of the decision. Moreover,
during the freedom period. Any other view would render nugatory respondents, having been compelled to litigate in order to seek
the clear statutory policy to favor certification election as the redress for their illegal dismissal, are entitled to the award of
means of ascertaining the true expression of the will of the attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.26
workers as to which labor organization would represent them. 21
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July
In the instant case, four (4) petitions were filed as early as May 25, 2003 and the Resolution dated October 23, 2003 of the Court
12, 2000. In fact, a petition for certification election was already of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71760, which set aside the
ordered by the Med-Arbiter of DOLE Caraga Region on August Resolutions dated October 8, 2001 and April 29, 2002 of the
23, 2000.22 Therefore, following Article 256, at the expiration of National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CA No. M-
the freedom period, PRI's obligation to recognize NAMAPRI- 006309-2001, are AFFIRMED accordingly. Respondents are
SPFL as the incumbent bargaining agent does not hold true when hereby awarded full backwages and other allowances, without
petitions for certification election were filed, as in this case. qualifications and diminutions, computed from the time they were
illegally dismissed up to the time they are actually reinstated. Let
this case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for proper
Moreover, the last sentence of Article 253 which provides for computation of the full backwages due respondents, in
automatic renewal pertains only to the economic provisions of the
accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code, as expeditiously
CBA, and does not include representational aspect of the CBA. as possible.
An existing CBA cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for
certification election. When there is a representational issue,
the statusquo provision in so far as the need to await the creation SO ORDERED