LABOR RELATIONS Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
JURISDICTION & POWERS OF THE NLRC
1. Original Jurisdiction
a. Injunction in labor disputes to enjoin/ restrain any actual/ threatened
commission of any/all prohibited/ unlawful acts or to require the
performance of a particular act in any labor dispute, which if not restrained/
performed forthwith, may cause grave/ irreparable damage to any party;
b. Injunction in strikes/ lockouts (Art. 264, LC);
c. Labor disputes causing/ likely to cause a strike/ lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, certified to it by the SOLE for
compulsory arbitration
2. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
a. All cases decided by LA including contempt cases; and
b. Cases decided by RDs/ duly authorized Hearing Officers (Art. 129, LC)
involving recovery of wages, simple money claims, and other benefits not
exceeding P5,000 and not accompanied by a claim for reinstatement
What is the power to assume jurisdiction or certify “national interest” labor disputes to
NLRC?
When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike
or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the SOLE may assume
jurisdiction or certify the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
Procedure for Filing a Criminal Case for Illegal Acts Committed in a Strike
- In order for the criminal case to prosper, a complaint must first be filed with the
LA/NLRC with final judgment of ULP/IA
- Damages may be prayed for in the filing with LA/NLRC
- A positive determination that ULP/IA was committed will not be prejudicial to the
criminal proceeding filed in regular courts
- A negative finding with LA/NLRC does not bar filing of criminal case
- Under BP 70, the civil aspects of all cases involving ULP, which may include claims
for damages & other affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiters
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law
- Also under BP 70, recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall
bar recovery under the Civil Code
- During the pendency of the administrative proceeding, the running of the period of
prescription of the criminal offense is considered interrupted; provided, that the
final judgment therein shall not be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as
evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the requirements
- Art. 247, LC vests jurisdiction upon the LA over the civil aspects of ULP cases
including damages, attorneys’ fees, and other affirmative reliefs
- Art. 241, LC gives jurisdiction to ordinary courts both criminal and civil liabilities
arising from violations of the rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization.
- Under BP 70, in order for a criminal action for ULP to prosper, there must be a
positive finding in the administrative proceeding’s final decision of the commission
of the act
- However, for a criminal action to prosper as against illegal acts committed during
the illegal strike, what is required is only proof of filing of administrative complaint
for the illegal strike and commission of illegal acts therein
REQUISITES OF A VALID STRIKE/ LOCK-OUT
1. Valid and factual ground
Lawful purpose – economic/ CBA deadlock or ULP only
Invalid – CBA violations not gross in nature; intra/inter-union disputes; issues
assumed by SOLE/ certified to NLRC; issues before grievance machinery/
voluntary arbitration; issues before compulsory arbitration; issues involving
labor standards; issues involving implementation of wage orders
2. Notice of Strike or Lockout
1. Bargaining deadlocks - CEBA to file notice of strike at least 30 days before
the intended date with NCMB
2. ULP – at least 15 days before intended date
3. If no CEBA, any LLO may file on behalf of its members
4. Union-busting – 15-day cooling-off period inapplicable, union may act
immediately (strike vote needs to be submitted)
Page 1
 LABOR RELATIONS Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
3. Third Requisite – Notice to Hold Strike/ Lockout Vote
Notice to NCMB of the time, date, and place of voting, at least 24 hours
before (Capitol Medical Center case)
4. Fourth Requisite – Strike or Lockout vote
a. The strike/lockout shall be supported by a majority vote thru a secret
ballot in a meeting called for that purpose
b. In case of union-busting, strike vote is still required
5. Fifth Requisite – Strike/ Lockout Vote Report
a. A strike/lockout vote shall be reported to DOLE at least 7 days before
the intended strike
6. Sixth Requisite – Cooling-Off Period
a. CBA deadlock – 30 days
b. ULP – 15 days
c. Union busting – none
d. Counted from the time of filing of notice
7. Seventh Requisite – Waiting Period: 7-Day Strike Ban
a. Counted from the time the strike/lockout vote was submitted to the
NCMB
Cases Re: Definition of Industries Vital to the National Interest When the SOLE may
Assume Jurisdiction under Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code or Certify the Same to the NLRC
for Compulsory Arbitration
1. Phimco case: The labor dispute must seriously and deleteriously affect the national
interest for the SOLE to assume jurisdiction. The power is to be used sparingly and
only if national interest demands it because he must also respect labor’s right to
concerted acts.
2. PSBA v. Noriel: The administration of a school is of national interest because it is
engaged in the promotion of the physical, intellectual and emotional well-being of
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law
the country’s youth. Work stoppage at a school unduly prejudices the students and
entails great loss to all concerned in terms of time, effort, and money.
3. Sarmiento v. Tuico: An enterprise exporting 90% of its production and generating
more than USD12M/year was declared to be of national interest. Any disruption of
operations would have caused the delay of shipments of export consisting of
finished products previously committed to customers abroad, a delay that would
have hampered the economic recovery program pursued by the government.
4. Int’l. Pharmaceuticals v. SOLE: The manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals has
been declared to belong to the same classification.
5. PAL v. SOLE: The operation of an airline that services domestic routes has been
deemed to be imbued with national interest.
6. Philtread Workers Union: Company was considered to be indispensable to national
interest as it was responsible for 22% of the tire production in the Philippines and
disruption would not have only aggravated the already worsening
underemployment situation but also discouraged foreign and domestic
entrepreneurs from further investing in the country.
7. GTE Directories Corp.: The SOLE used his assumption powers impudently when it
took over a labor dispute involving a company producing telephone directories.
8. PHIMCO case, manufacturer of matches: While the case appears on its face not to
fall within the strict categorization of cases imbued with national interest, the SOLE
believed that circumstances warrant exercise of powers under Art. 263 (g) of the LC,
since the prolonged work disruption has adversely affected the workers and the
Company but also those directly and indirectly dependent upon the operations of
the Company for their means of livelihood and existence; the community where the
plant is situated has also been placed in jeopardy. If the dispute remains unabated,
possible loss of employment and consequent social problems might result,
compounding the unemployment problem of the country.
Assumption of Jurisdiction of the SOLE
- Automatic enjoinment of impending strikes or lifting of lockouts
- Co-exists with order for workers to return to work immediately and for employers to
readmit all workers under the same T&C prevailing before the strike or lockout
Page 2
 LABOR RELATIONS Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
- Other powers including jurisdiction over all incidents arising from the labor dispute
to avoid the undesirable result of diametrically opposed rulings being issued by SOLE
& the LA (i.e. Triumph case where SOLE refused to rule on the legality of the
dismissal of the union officers, etc. saying that this was to be decided by the LA)
- When GO No. 5 was repealed by the LC, there was no more listing of industries
indispensable to the national interest, the SOLE was given the discretion in
determining which industries would qualify as such but subject to judicial review
- Sec. 16 of DO 40-H-13 enumerates industries indispensable to national interest:
hospital sector, electric power industry, water supplies services (excluding small
water supply services i.e. bottling & refilling stations), air traffic control, and other
industries recommended by the Nat’l Tripartite Ind’l Peace Council (NTIPC)
- The above does not diminish the power of the President of the Philippines to
determine the industries indispensable to the national interest and from intervening
anytime and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute to settle or terminate
the same
No Strike, No Lockout Clause – Its Validity and When Applicable
1. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Greenfield case: A “no-strike, no lockout clause”
in the CBA is valid but may only be invoked by an employer when the strike is
economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions
from the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself. Such no
strike provision only bars strikes economic in nature but not those grounded on
unfair labor practice.
2. Panay Electric Company, Inc. case: When ULP is alleged, it is not essential that the
act has been in fact committed; it suffices that the striking workers have acted
honestly on an impression that the company has committed such ULP and the
surrounding circumstances could warrant such belief in good faith.
3. Interphil Lab. Case: The overtime boycott and work slowdown are constitutive of
illegal strike and in violation of the CBA which prohibits the union or employee to
stage a strike or engage in slowdown or interruption of work during the existence of
the CBA.
4. Filcon Mftg. Corp. case: A strike is illegal if in violation of a NSNL clause especially
when the CBA provided for conclusive arbitration clause.
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law
Effect of the Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator – Is it compulsory & immediately
executory that parties are compelled to follow?
1. The VA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following:
a. Grievances arising from interpretation & implementation of CBA after
exhaustion of grievance procedure;
b. Grievances arising from implementation & interpretation of company
personnel policies;
c. All other labor disputes, including unfair labor practices and bargaining
deadlocks upon agreement of the parties.
2. The VA’s decision is appealable by ordinary appeal under Rule 43 directly to the CA.
From the CA, the case may be elevated to SC by way of ordinary appeal by Rule 45.
3. IRR of Arts. 260-262 (b) of the LC, states that awards/ decisions of VA become final
and executory after 10 days from receipt of the decision by the parties, hence,
compulsory.
4. In enforcement of awards, both parties should comply voluntarily and faithfully with
the decision. In case of non-compliance, a motion to enforce/ execute may be filed
with the VA who may issue a writ of execution.
5. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the VA before the lapse of the 10-
day reglementary period. Likewise, an ordinary appeal under Rule 43 should be filed
with the CA within the 10-day period even if the rule provides for 15 days in which
to file the appeal. (PHILEC Case, 2004)
Check-Offs Re: Union Dues, Special Assessment, & Agency Fee
1. Holy Cross of Davao College case: A check-off is a process where Er on agreement
with the union deducts union dues and other fees from the Ee-member’s wages and
remits this directly to the union
2. Written authorization is needed for the deduction of union dues and special
assessment fees to fund the union’s activities. However, a resolution adopted by a
majority of the union members, an agreement signed in the union membership
form, and a provision contained in the CBA, will suffice for Er to deduct the
corresponding amount.
3. An agency fee is an amount equivalent to union dues and fees which is collected
from Ees who are not union members. No requirement of written authorization is
Page 3
 LABOR RELATIONS Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
imposed for non-union employees to effect the deduction. The Ee’s acceptance of
benefits resulting from CBA justifies this as they may not unjustly enrich themselves
by benefitting from employment conditions negotiated by the bargaining union
without payment of corresponding dues.
Substitutionary Doctrine
1. Benguet Consolidated Inc. Case: even during the effectivity of a CBA, Ees may
change bargaining agent but the CBA continues to bind them up to its expiration
date
2. Ees cannot revoke a validly executed CBA by the simple expedient of changing
bargaining agent but may negotiate with management the shortening of the period
of the CBA.
New Pacific Timber Case (GR 124224 – March 2000)
1. The CBA remains in full force and effect even beyond the stipulated term, in the
absence of a new CBA. The economic provisions continue to have legal effect.
2. The benefits under the CBA should be extended to Ees hired after 1984 or after the
CBA’s stipulated term. To exclude them will result in undue discrimination and
deprive them of monetary benefits they would otherwise be entitled to under a
new CBA.
3. T&C of a CBA continue to have force and effect beyond the stipulated term when no
new agreement is executed… to avoid the situation where no CBA at all would
govern between the company and its Ees.
4. Int’l Oil Factory Workers case: Even non-member Ees are entitled to the benefits of
the CBA. To accord its benefits only to members of the Union without any valid
reason would constitute undue discrimination against non-members.
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law
Procedural Requirements for Inter/Intra-Union Disputes
Re: Decisions of the RD/MA/BLR
1. The BLR has exclusive & original jurisdiction over:
a. Inter-union disputes or representation disputes i.e. petition for certification
election filed by a duly registered LO seeking to be recognized as the SEBA
of the R&F Ees in the appropriate bargaining unit of a company
b. Intra-union disputes or internal union disputes i.e. violations of/
disagreements over CBL of the union, violation of rights and conditions of
union membership provided by the LC
c. All disputes, grievances, or problems arising from or affecting labor
management relations in all workplaces, except those arising from the
interpretation of the CBA which are subject of grievance procedure and/or
voluntary arbitration
2. The BLR has the following administrative functions:
a. Registration of labor unions
b. Keeping of registry of labor unions
c. Maintenance and custody of CBAs
3. Dept. Order 40-30, Series of 2003(IRR of Book V, LC)
a. Complaints involving LU with independent registrations/ chartered
locals/workers’ associations shall be filed with the Reg’l Office which issued
certificate of registration/creation of chartered local
b. Complaints involving federations, national unions, & industry unions shall be
filed with the BLR
c. Petitions for cancellation of registration and for deregistration of CBA shall
be resolved by the RD or an appointed hearing officer.
d. Other inter/intra-union disputes and related labor relations disputes shall
be resolved by the MA.
e. When two or more petitions involving the same parties and the same
causes of action are filed, the same shall be automatically consolidated.
f. The complaint or petition shall be in writing, verified under oath, containing
the following:
i. Names & addresses of complainants & respondents
Page 4
 LABOR RELATIONS Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
ii. Nature of complaint/ petition
iii. Facts & circumstances surrounding the complaint
iv. Cause/s of action or specific violation/s committed
v. A statement that all administrative remedies have been exhausted,
or such remedies are not readily available to the petitioner thru no
fault of his own, or compliance with such remedies does not apply
vi. Reliefs prayed for
vii. Certificate of non-forum shopping
viii. Other relevant matters
g. Preliminary conferences and hearings will be conducted and pleadings to be
submitted and decision shall be rendered 20 days after the last hearing.
h. Pleadings and position papers shall be submitted within 25 days. No other
pleading shall be considered after the case is submitted for decision.
i. Decision of the MA/ RD shall be appealed to the BLR within 10 days from
receipt, copy furnished the opposing party.
j. The decision of the BLR Director in the exercise of his original jurisdiction
may be appealed to the SOLE also within 10 days from receipt of decision.
k. When no appeal is filed within the 10-day period, the MA/RD decision
become final and executor and shall cause the immediate implementation
l. Decision of the SOLE shall also become final and executor 10 days after
receipt unless an MR is filed. Only one MR is allowed for the decision of the
BLR or SOLE.
m. When decision of SOLE obtains finality, it shall be relayed to the RO of origin
for immediate implementation.
n. The decision of RD/MA shall be automatically stayed pending appeal with
the BLR.
o. The decision of the BLR in its appellate jurisdiction shall be immediately
executor upon issuance of entry of final judgment.
p. The decision of the BLR in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall
automatically be stayed pending appeal with the SOLE.
q. The decision of the SOLE shall be immediately executory upon issuance of
entry of final judgment.
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law
Effect of Merger/Corporate Sale on the CBA
1. BPI case re: merger of FEBTC & BPI- SC ruled that the closed shop clause of the
existing CBA of BPI applied to the FEBTC Ees who were absorbed by BPI (maintained
employment status, security of tenure, etc.); all assets & liabilities of FEBTC were
transferred to BPI as the surviving and successor corporation
2. In the dissent, there are levels of transfer of corporations:
a. Assets only level – affects only raw assets & properties; company as juridical
entity and employer remains
b. Business enterprise level – interest extends beyond assets and into the
whole business and earning capability; whole business is sold and purchased
but the parties retain respective juridical personalities; Er-Ee relations now
pass to the purchasing party
c. Equity level – the purchasing party buys underlying equity; control of
business transferred to purchasing corporation (like SME Bank case); selling
corporation continues to run the business
d. Total merger or consolidation – the merged corporation transfers
everything to the surviving corporation; the employment contracts of the
FEBTC Ees should be held as continuing, unless rejected by the parties
themselves, since BPI stepped into the shoes of FEBTC as Er. There was only
an internal change in the personality of the principal and not a new party
which would have novated the contract
When can a walkout be considered a stike? (PINA Case – Escario v. NLRC)
1. Union officers and 200 members walked out of PINA premises and proceeded to the
brgy. hall to support a union officer charged with oral defamation by PINA’s
personnel manager. The issue was settled and they all returned to work thereafter.
PINA suspended the union officers and terminated them a month after. PINA then
filed ULP against the union for the walkout as illegal strike. NLRC ruled the strike as
illegal.
2. Art. 212 of the LC define strike as “any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of the Ees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.
3. Art. 212 of the LC defines labor dispute as any controversy concerning T&C of
employment or any association of persons negotiating the same.
Page 5
 LABOR RELATIONS Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
Effect of Illegal Strike to Union Officers & Members
1. The mere declaration of the illegality of strike would result in the termination of the
union officers and deemed to have lost their employment status.
2. This adverse consequence does not apply to ordinary union members except when
they participated in the commission of illegal acts in the course of the strike, in
which case, they shall be deemed to have also lost their employment status.
Limitations on the Disciplinary Authority of the Employer Re: Illegal Strikes
1. The LC gives Ers the option to terminate union officers who participated in an illegal
strike and union members who committed illegal acts in an illegal strike.
2. Almira case: The Er cannot just declare the “wholesale termination” of all union
officers and union members who participated in the illegal strike. They must prove
that the officers were serving as officers during the duration of the strike and their
presence therein. As for ordinary union members, Er must identify the union
members who committed illegal acts during the illegal strike.
3. The declaration of the illegality of a strike does or the mere filing of charges against
an EE for illegal acts during a strike (Telefunken case) does not give Er the right to
immediately dismiss them from employment. Due process must still be followed by
the Er in dismissing the erring Ee following the twin-notice rule.
Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron
Peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of expression. From the time of Mortera
v. CIR (1947), this court has been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is part of
the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution.”
Free Telephone Workers Union v. PLDT
Courts of First Instance have no jurisdiction over claims for damages since recovery
of damages resulting from an illegal strike is an administrative aspect which remedies should
be exhausted first.
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law
Club Filipino Inc. v. Bautista
The strike was held as illegal by the lower courts since Union was unable to attach
the counter-proposal of CF. However, this was an impossibility since CF did not come to the
negotiating table at all. However, SC reversed this finding and said that the Union’s position
was correct, and that they do not need to attach the counter proposal since CF because
there was no counter proposal at all. The lRR of the LC provides that the attachments of the
questioned CBA proceedings must include documents in support of the bargaining
negotiations. The phrase “as far as practicable” is used in the IRR.
Allan Mendoza v. MWEU Officers
The SC pronounced in this case that indeed the nature of the issue was an intra-
union dispute, which is under the jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter. However, the union
officer’s repeated and gross violations of the CBL/CBA already amounted to an act of ULP
against Mendoza. Because of this, the issue comes within the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter.
The condition that gross violations of the CBA to be considered as coming under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter must only be violations of economic provisions, only apply
to cases against the employer. If the alleged ULP complaint is against the union, then this
condition is not applicable.
De La Salle v. De La Salle Employees’ Association
The SC pronounced that the withholding and non-remittance of DLSU of the
collected union dues, as well as its refusal to bargain with the union pending the results of
the certification election, was an act of ULP. Its defense of good faith cannot stand because
the reason of withholding the union dues was because it believed that there was a void in
the leadership of the union was invalid and not enough justification for its actions.
Even if it did release the union dues in 2003, the release was already belated since
the SOLE have already issued two memos of instruction before it finally acted upon such
directive. Notwithstanding its compliance, it had already committed an act of ULP by
interfering with the conduct of the affairs of the Union by favoring the request of one union
faction over another.
Page 6
 LABOR RELATIONS Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
T&H Shopfitters v. T&H Shopfitters Employees’ Union
The SC held that the employer committed ULP for the following acts committed,
pending a petition for certification election : (i) sponsored field trip for employees, excluding
union members before the CE; (ii) active campaign of sales officer against the union during
the field trip; (iii) escort of employees after the field trip to the polling center; (iv)
continuous hiring of subcontractors performing the functions of the union members; (v)
assigning union members to the Cabangan site to work as grass cutters; and (vi) assignment
of work on a rotational basis for union members.
These acts, taken together, were all orchestrated to restrict the employees’ free
exercise of the RSO. The employer’s actions prior and immediately before the scheduled
certification election, meddled in the affairs of its employees in selecting their exclusive
bargaining representative.
A certification election is the sole concern of the workers and, consequently, the
employer had no business persuading and/or assisting its employees in the process of
selecting their exclusive bargaining representative.
In so deciding the T&H Shopfitters case, the SC relied on jurisprudence that it had
established more than fifty (50) years ago in the Royal Interocean case, when it declared, for
the first time, that a complaint for ULP will prosper if, and only if, the act complained of is
related to union activities and directed against the use of the right to employ or discharge as
an instrument of discrimination, interference or oppression because of one’s labor or union
activities.
ULP Acts Enumerated in the Labor Code
Committed by the Employer
 Interference
 Yellow-dog contract
 Contracting out of services
 Company union
 Discrimination as to T&C of employment
 Dismissal for testimony under LC
 Violation of duty to bargain
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law
 Paid negotiations
 Gross violation of CBA (economic provisions only)
Committed by the Labor Organizations
 Restraint/ coercion
 Cause Er discrimination
 Refusal to bargain collectively
 Feather-bedding (money for services/negotiations)
 Ask/accept negotiation fee for dispute settlement
 Gross violation of CBA (in relation to RSO)
Is there an act of ULP which does not relate to employee’s right to self-organization?
None. From Royal Interocean to T&H Shopfitters, the Supreme Court has been
consistent in pronouncing that all acts of ULP must necessarily relate to the employee’s right
to self-organization. In the case of Baptista v. Villanueva, the SC opined that all acts of ULP
must materially relate to the employee’s right to self-organization.
Goya Case: Management Prerogative v. CBA Re: Contracting of Services
The provisions in the CBA on categories of employees must be read in conjunction
with the union security clause. The clear and unambiguous language of the CBA must be
given its literal meaning.
The exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited and is subject to the
limitations found in law, CBA, or the general principles of fair play and justice.
The presence of the specific CBA provision in this case places the contracting out of
services of Goya in violation of the CBA and an act of ULP.
Page 7