Article 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

Any Collective Bargaining

Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted
by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before
the date of expiry of such five-year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3)
years after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement entered into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other
provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day
immediately following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the
parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the
renegotiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties may exercise their rights
under this Code. (As amended by Section 21, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) vs.
Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General
Labor Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO), 606 SCRA 198, G.R. No. 176249 November 27,
2009

Facts:
Petitioner FVCLU-PTGWO signed a five-year collective bargaining agreement with the company,
which should originally run from February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003. At the end of the 3rd
year of the CBA, FVCLU-PTGWO and the company entered into the renegotiation of the CBA and
modified, among other provisions, the CBA’s duration. The renegotiated CBA extended the
original five-year period of the CBA by four months. On January 21, 2003, nine days before the
expiration of the originally-agreed five-year CBA term, the respondent SANAMA-SIGLO filed
before the DOLE a petition for certification election for the same rank-and-file unit covered by
the FVCLU-PTGWO CBA.

FVCLU-PTGWO moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the certification election
petition was filed outside the freedom period or outside of the 60 days before the expiration of
the CBA on May 31, 2003.

Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed outside the 60-day period
counted from the May 31, 2003 expiry date of the amended CBA. DOLE set aside the Med-
Arbiter’s decision. She ordered the conduct of a certification election in the company.

FVCLU-PTGWO moved for the reconsideration of the Secretary’s decision. The Acting Secretary
set aside the previous decision of the DOLE. The Acting Secretary held that the amended CBA
had been ratified by members of the bargaining unit some of whom later organized themselves
as SANAMA-SIGLO, the certification election applicant.

The CA found SANAMA-SIGLO’s petition meritorious on the basis of the applicable law and the
rules, as interpreted in the congressional debates. It set aside the challenged DOLE Secretary
decisions and reinstated her earlier ruling calling for a certification election.

Issue:
Whether or not the negotiated extension of the CBA term has legal effect on the FVCLU-
PTGWO’s exclusive bargaining representation status which remained effective only for five years
ending on the original expiry date of January 30, 2003.
Ruling:
No. While the parties may agree to extend the CBA’s original five-year term together with all
other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it
a change in the union’s exclusive collective bargaining status.

By express provision of the above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot
go beyond five years and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties
to agree upon. In other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five
years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining union’s exclusive
bargaining status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior
to the expiration of the CBA’s first five years.

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Confesor, 262 SCRA 81, G.R. No. 111262
September 19, 1996

Facts:
On June 28, 1990, petitioner-union San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO entered
into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with private respondent San Miguel Corporation
(SMC) to take effect upon the expiration of the previous CBA or on June 30, 1989.

This CBA provided, among others, that:

ARTICLE XIV
DURATION OF AGREEMENT

SECTION 1. This Agreement which shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their
respective successors-in-interest, shall become effective and shall remain in force
and effect until June 30, 1992.

SEC. 2. In accordance with Article 253-A of the Labor Code as amended, the term of
this Agreement insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, shall be for five
(5) years from July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1994. Hence, the freedom period for
purposes of such representation shall be sixty (60) days prior to June 30, 1994.

SEC. 3. Sixty (60) days prior to June 30, 1992 either party may initiate negotiations
of all provisions of this Agreement, except insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned. If no agreement is reached in such negotiations, this Agreement shall
nevertheless remain in force up to the time a subsequent agreement is reached by
the parties.

In keeping with their vision and long term strategy for business expansion, SMC management
informed its employees in a letter dated August 13, 1991 that the company which was composed
of four operating divisions namely: (1) Beer, (2) Packaging, (3) Feeds and Livestocks, (4) Magnolia
and Agribusiness would undergo a restructuring.

Effective October 1, 1991, Magnolia and Feeds and Livestock Division were spun-off and became
two separate and distinct corporations: Magnolia Corporation (Magnolia) and San Miguel Foods,
Inc. (SMFI). Notwithstanding the spin-offs, the CBA remained in force and effect.

After June 30, 1992, the CBA was renegotiated in accordance with the terms of the CBA and
Article 253-A of the Labor Code. Negotiations started sometime in July, 1992 with the two
parties submitting their respective proposals and counterproposals.
During the negotiations, the petitioner-union insisted that the bargaining unit of SMC should
still include the employees of the spun-off corporations: Magnolia and SMFI; and that the
renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be effective only for the remaining period of two years or
until June 30, 1994.

SMC, on the other hand, contended that the members/employees who had moved to Magnolia
and SMFI, automatically ceased to be part of the bargaining unit at the SMC. Furthermore, the
CBA should be effective for three years in accordance with Art. 253-A of the Labor Code.

Unable to agree on these issues with respect to the bargaining unit and duration of the CBA,
petitioner-union declared a deadlock on September 29, 1990.

Issue:
Petitioner-union contends that the duration for the non-representation provisions of the CBA
should be coterminous with the term of the bargaining agency which in effect shall be for the
remaining two years of the current CBA, citing a previous decision of the Secretary of Labor on
December 14, 1992 in the matter of the labor dispute at Philippine Refining Company. Is this
correct?

Ruling:
No.

Article 253-A is a new provision. This was incorporated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6715
(the Herrera-Veloso Law) which took effect on March 21, 1989. This new provision states that
the CBA has a term of five (5) years instead of three years, before the amendment of the law as
far as the representation aspect is concerned. All other provisions of the CBA shall be negotiated
not later than three (3) years after its exe-cution. The “representation aspect” refers to the
identity and majority status of the union that negotiated the CBA as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the appropriate bargaining unit concerned. “All other provisions” simply refers
to the rest of the CBA, economic as well as non-economic provisions, except representation.

In the instant case, it is not difficult to determine the period of effectivity for the non-
representation provisions of the CBA. Taking it from the history of their CBAs, SMC intended to
have the terms of the CBA effective for three (3) years reckoned from the expiration of the old
or previous CBA which was on June 30, 1989, as it provides:

SECTION 1. This Agreement which shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their
respective successors-in-interest, shall become effective and shall remain in force
and effect until June 30, 1992.

Article 254. Injunction prohibited. No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining

order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court
or other entity, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code. (As
amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1, 1982).

Ando vs. Campo, 643 SCRA 513, G.R. No. 184007 February 16, 2011

Facts:
Paquito Ando (petitioner) was the president of Premier Allied and Contracting Services,
Inc. (PACSI), an independent labor contractor. Andresito Campo and the other
respondents were hired by PACSI as pilers or haulers. Respondents were dismissed from
employment. Consequently filing a case for illegal dismissal and some money claims with
the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ruled in respondents’ favor. PACSI and Ando were directed
to pay a total of P422,702.28 (for separation pay and award of attorney’s fees). PACSI and
Ando appealed to NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Respondents moved
for its execution. To answer for the reward, the NLRC acting sheriff issued a Notice of Sale
on Execution of Personal Property over a property in the name of “Paquito V. Ando xxx
married to Erlinda S. Ando.” Prompting Ando to file an action for prohibition before the
RTC. Ando claims that the property belonged to him and his wife and not the corporation,
and hence, could not be the subject of the execution sale. RTC denied the prayer for TRO
and directed him to file a claim with the NLRC Sheriff. Instead, Ando filed a petition for
certiorari before the CA. Ando argued that the property to be levied belonged to him –
and his wife – in their personal capacity and thus the execution should not prosper. It was
likewise denied.

Issue:
Whether or not the RTC, or any regular court, may issue a TRO to prevent the execution
of the Notice of Sale on Execution of Personal Property.

Ruling:
No. The Court has long recognized that regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and
decide questions which arise from and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions,
orders, or awards rendered in labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of the
Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to sanction splitting of
jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.