LA = awarded $90,000.00 usd minus the construction of CBAs. As such, the more
20k already paid to Joven. Also ruled that specific provisions should apply.
the proximate cause of Nelsons death was
not work-related. Also, in order to further justify its ruling,
the Court cited the provisions of the CBA
NLRC = affirmed the LA decision as itself which provides that any dispute or
regards death benefits but held the cause conflict in the interpretation of its
of death to be work-related. provisions is to be settled through
negotiation, conciliation or voluntary
CA = referred that petition to the National arbitration. The CBA, being a contract
Conciliation and Mediation Board for the between the deceased and GCI, is the law
designation of the Voluntary Arbitrator or between the parties. It is settled that
the constitution of a panel of Voluntary when the parties have validly agreed on a
Arbitrators. Being that the petition procedure for resolving grievances and to
required the interpretation of the CBA, submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration
then the Voluntary Arbitrator and not the then that procedure should be strictly
Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. observed.
Labor Arbiters of the National Labor The Commission, its Regional Offices and
Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the Regional Directors of the Department
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to of Labor and Employment shall not
hear and decide, within ninety (90) entertain disputes, grievances or matters
calendar days after filing of the complaint, under the exclusive and original
the claims arising out of an employer- jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or
employee relationship or by virtue of any panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall
law or contract involving Filipino workers immediately dispose and refer the same
for overseas deployment including claims to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary
for actual, moral, exemplary and other Arbitration provided in the Collective
forms of damages. Bargaining Agreement.
Article 217(c) of the Labor Code: Section 29 of the POEA standard contract.
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation Dispute Settlement Procedures:
or implementation of collective
bargaining agreements and those arising In cases of claims and disputes arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of from this employment, the parties
company personnel policies shall be covered by a collective bargaining
disposed by the Labor Arbiter by referring agreement shall submit the claim or
the same to the grievance machinery and dispute to the original and exclusive
voluntary arbitration as may be provided jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or
in said agreements. panel of arbitrators. If the parties are not
covered by a collective bargaining
Article 261 of the Labor Code. Jurisdiction agreement, the parties may at their option
of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of submit the claim or dispute to either the
Voluntary Arbitrators: original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Commission
The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of (NLRC), pursuant to Republic Act (RA)
Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant
and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
decide all unresolved grievances arising 1995 or to the original and exclusive
from the interpretation or jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or
implementation of the Collective panel of arbitrators. If there is no
Bargaining Agreement and those arising provision as to the voluntary arbitrators
from the interpretation or enforcement of to be appointed by the parties, the same
company personnel policies referred to in shall be appointed from the accredited
the immediately preceding article. voluntary arbitrators of the National
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Conciliation and Mediation Board of the
Bargaining Agreement, except those Department of Labor and Employment.
which are gross in character, shall no
longer be treated as unfair labor practice
and shall be resolved as grievances under
the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For
purposes of this article, gross violations of
Collective Bargaining Agreement shall
mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to
comply with the economic provisions of
such agreement.
Law 114 Labor II gdreyes
Private respondents appealed to the NLRC involving a monetary award in labor cases
and posted a surety bond (P244,891.93). may be perfected "only upon the posting
But herein petitioners filed an omnibus of a cash or surety bond. (see Art. 223 of
motion to dismiss on the ground of late the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715).
appeal, claiming that insufficient bond Also, the perfection of an appeal within
was filed by NEECO I only on January 5, the reglementary period and in the
1993. The bond excluded the award of manner prescribed by law is
moral and exemplary damages, attorneys' jurisdictional, and noncompliance with
fees and costs of litigation. -Respondent such legal requirement is fatal and
NLRC denied the motion and instead gave effectively renders the judgment final and
due course to the appeal, and later executory.
modified the decision, by deleting the
awards of moral and exemplary damages, However, in a number of cases, this Court
attorney's fees and cost of litigation; and relaxed the rule to resolve controversies
ruling that the amounts of retirement on the merits, specifically, when there are
benefits received by the individual special meritorious circumstances and
complainants are to be applied to the issues, such as when there was substantial
backwages that may be due to them. compliance with the rule, so that on
balance, SC made technical considerations
Meanwhile, petitioners were reinstated by to give way to equity and justice.
NEECO I pending appeal. Erdie Javate
withdrew his complaint and opted to In this case, the decision of the labor
receive his retirement benefits arbiter was issued on Dec 21, 1992.
(P42,114.09).-Both parties filed MFRs, Respondents filed their appeal on Dec
which were both denied, Hence this 28,1992 barely seven days from receipt
special civil action under Rule 65 of the thereof. The bonding company issued the
Revised Rules of Court, by the petitioners. bond dated Jan 4,1993 the last day for
filing an appeal. However, it was
ISSUES: forwarded to NLRC only on the following
1. WON the appeal taken by the NEECO I day, Jan 5,1993. Considering these and the
from the NLRC-RAB- III DOLE to NLRC holiday season, SC finds it equitable to
Manila was perfected within the ease the rules.
reglementary period. NO
2. WON NLRC acted without or in excess As to the amount of bond, we note that
of jurisdiction when it resolved to delete there had been changes in the Rules
en toto moral damages, exemplary promulgated by the NLRC. Previously the
damages, attorney's fees and costs of computation of the cash or surety bond to
litigation the factual basis of which were be posted by an employer who wishes to
ascertained by the labor arbiter below. appeal contained in the original rules was
YES "exclusive of moral and exemplary
3. WON the order to apply and deduct damages and attorney's fees". It was later
receivable backwages from received deleted sometime in 1991 and 1992, then
benefits is unrealistic and arbitrary. NO restored on Nov20,93. It may be noted
that while NLRC in its Resolution No. 11-
HELD: 01-91 dated Nov7,91 deleted the phrase
1. NO, but there was substantial "exclusive of moral and exemplary
compliance.Indisputable is the legal damages as well as attorney's fees" in the
doctrine that the appeal of a decision determination of the amount of the bond,
Law 114 Labor II gdreyes
it provided a safeguard against the the damages awarded by the labor arbiter,
imposition of excessive bonds providing to our mind, are excessive. In determining
"(T)he Commission may, in meritorious the amount of damages recoverable, the
cases and upon Motion of the Appellant, business, social and financial position of
reduce the amount of the bond." the offended parties and the business and
financial position of the offender are
The unreasonable and excessive amount taken into account. It is our view that
of bond would be oppressive and unjust herein private respondents had not fully
and would have the effect of depriving a acted in good faith. However, we are
party of his right to appeal. Besides, cognizant that a cooperative promotes the
private respondents stress that the welfare of its own members. The
petitioners were paid their retirement economic benefits filter to the cooperative
benefits and that the cooperative has members. Either equally or
sufficient assets from which the other proportionally, they are distributed
claims for damages and attorney's fees among members in correlation with the
may be obtained. resources of the association utilized.
Cooperatives help promote economic
2. YES. But the award given by the Labor democracy and support community
Arbiter, being excessive, is reduced. development. Under these circumstances,
we deem it proper to reduce the award for
To warrant an award of moral damages, it moral and exemplary damages.
must be shown that the dismissal of the
employee was attended to by bad faith, or 3. NO.-Having been illegally dismissed,
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or individual petitioners are entitled to
was done in a manner contrary to morals, reinstatement from the time they were
good customs or public policy. The Labor illegally dismissed, until they were
Arbiter ruled that there was unfair labor reinstated on March 16, 1993. For that
practice. period they are likewise entitled to
backwages minus the amount petitioners
Unfair labor practices violate the were forced to receive as "retirement"
constitutional rights of workers and pay. A recomputation is therefore proper
employees to self-organization, are and in the event that the amount of
inimical to the legitimate interests of "retirement" pay received by an
both labor and management, including individual petitioner exceeds the amount
their right to bargain collectively and of his backwages, the excess should be
otherwise deal with each other in an deemed as advances of salary which
atmosphere of freedom and mutual should be refundable until fully repaid by
respect; and disrupt industrial peace him.
and hinder the promotion of healthy
and stable labor-management Disposition Petition partially granted.
relations. As the conscience of the
government, it is the Court's sworn
duty to ensure that none trifles with
labor rights.
B. Extent and Scope of Right reflect the true sentiments of the majority
Art 257 (246) - Non-abridgment of right to self- of the employees."
organization. It shall be unlawful for any person to
restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly
interfere with employees and workers in their Med-Arbiter: Petition had no merit. They
exercise of the right to self-organization. Such were using their religion to render
right shall include the right to form, join, or assist meaningless the rights of non-INK EEs.
labor organizations for the purpose of collective Also, they did not possess any legal
bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in lawful concerted
personality to institute this present
activities for the same purpose or for their mutual action, as they were not parties to the
aid and protection, subject to the provisions of petition for certification election.
Article 264 of this Code. (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980). BLR: Denied the appeal. Similar reason +
petitioners did not participate in previous
Alexander Reyes v. Hon. Trajano & Tri-
certification elections for the reason that
Union (92)
their religious beliefs do not allow them to
A certification election was held among the EEs of form, join or assist labor orgs.
TUIC, where the votes of 141 INK members were
challenged because they were not members of any ISSUES:
union. They then petitioned to cancel the elections, WON the right to self-organization
asserting their right to not join any labor union.
Although the Med-Arbiter and the BLR did not
includes the right not to join any union.
agree with them, the SC granted their petition, YES.
stating that the right to not join in any labor WON the INK EEs are disqualified to vote
organization is part of their right to self- because they are not constituted into a
organization, and that the law does not require duly organized labor union. NO
them to be part of any labor organization to
exercise such right.
HELD:
FACTS: Art. 243 of the Labor Code provides the
Oct. 20, 1987 A certification election was right of EEs to self-organization. Art. 248
held among the employees of Tri-Union (a) declares it to be an ULP for an
Industries Corporation. Of the 348 EEs, employer, among others, to "interfere
only 240 actually took part in the election with, restrain or coerce employees in the
(141 of which are Iglesia Ni Kristo (INK) exercise of their right to self-
members). Results are as follows: organization." Similarly, Article 249 (a)
TUPAS 1 makes it an ULP for a labor organization
TUEU OLALIA 95 to "restrain or coerce employees in the
No Union 1 exercise of their rights to self-
Spoiled 1 organization . . . Sec. 1 of Rule II, Book V
of the Omnibus Rules also provides for
Challenged 141 Votes cast by INK such right.
Members, who should not be allowed to
vote "because they are not members of Logically, the right NOT to join from a
any union and refused to participate in labor organization is subsumed in the
the previous certification elections." right to join, affiliate with and assist
any union, and to maintain
The INK EEs protested to the exclusion of membership therein.
their votes, stating that they want to
cancel the election alleging that it "was Historically, the original rules on
not fair" and the result thereof did "not certification election by the CIR required
Law 114 Labor II gdreyes
that the ballots to be used at a law is to grant the right to vote to all
certification election to determine which bona fide employees in the bargaining
labor union would represent the unit, whether they are members of a labor
employees in the appropriate bargaining organization or not. Neither does the law
unit should contain, aside from the names forfeit such right because of their neglect
of each union, an alternative choice of the in their exercise of their right in past
employee voting, to the effect that he certification election.
desires not to which of two or more
competing labor unions would represent Petition for certiorari granted and the
the employees in the appropriate decision of the BLR is annulled and set-
bargaining unit should contain, aside from aside.
the names of each union, an alternative
choice of the employee voting, to the Kapatiran v. Hon. Calleja (88)
effect that he desires not to be
represented by any union. Now, the rules 2 Rival labor unions- old TUPAS and the recently
registered NEW ULO (composed of INC members).
do not expressly bar the inclusion of the The latter filed a petition for a certification
choice of "NO UNION" in the ballots. And election claiming that it has the majority of the
whether the prevailing "NO" votes are rank and file, which TUPAS opposed. SC said the
inspired by considerations of religious tenets of a sect should not infringe the right to self-
belief or discipline or not is beside the organization, regardless of religious affiliation.
Moreover, a certification election is the best forum
point, and may not be inquired into at all. in ascertaining the majority status of the
The purpose of a certification election contending unions wherein the workers
is precisely the ascertainment of the themselves can freely choose their bargaining
wishes of the majority of the employees in representative.
the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or
not to be represented by a labor FACTS:
organization, and in the affirmative case, From 1984 to 1987, TUPAS was the sole
by which particular labor organization. If and exclusive collective bargaining
the results of the election should disclose representative of URC Meat and Canning
that the majority of the workers do not Division, with a 3-yr CBA which was to
wish to be represented by any union, then expire on Nov.15, 1987. On Oct.8, 1987,
their wishes must be respected, and no NEW ULO, composed mostly of workers
union may properly be certified as the belonging to the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC)
exclusive representative of the workers in sect, registered as a labor union. NEW
the bargaining unit in dealing with the ULO claims that it has the majority of the
employer. workers in the rank and file positions,
thus filed a petition for a certification
Therefore, it is beyond doubt that when election at the BLR.
the INK EEs chose NO UNION, they were
in the exercise of their right of self- TUPAS moved to dismiss the petition for
organization, albeit in its negative aspect. being defective in form and that the
members of the NEW ULO were mostly
Neither law, administrative rule nor members of INC sect which 3 years
jurisprudence requires that only previous refused to affiliate with any
employees affiliated with any labor labor union. It also accused the company
organization may take part in a of using the NEW ULO to defeat TUPAS'
certification election. On the contrary, the bargaining rights.
plainly discernible intendment of the
Law 114 Labor II gdreyes
The Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a shown that this order is tainted with
certification election within 20 days. unfairness, this Court will not thwart the
TUPAS appealed to BLR. In the meantime, holding of a certification election.
it was able to negotiate a 3-year CBA with
URC. BLR Director Calleja dismissed the Pan-Am World Airways Inc. v. Pan-am
appeal. MR was also denied. Employees Assn. (69)
detriment of the service or safety of the to work, it cannot be contended that the
aircraft). The best we can do is to deposit CIR does not have the power or
their salaries even if they would not be jurisdiction to carry that solution into
working, and they would not be required effect. And of what use is its power of
to refund any amount should they be conciliation and arbitration if it does not
terminated for the illegal strike. have the power and jurisdiction to carry
into effect the solution it has adopted.
Judge Bugayong of the CIR: issued order Lastly, if the said court has the power to
requiring Pan Am to accept the 5 union fix the terms and conditions of
officers pending resolution on the merits employment, it certainly can order the
of the dispute involved in the strike. return of the workers with or without
backpay as a term or condition of the
Pan Ams MR was denied. Hence this employment.
petition alleging grave abuse of discretion
in the failure of the CIR to grant Pan Ams 2. Pan Ams inexcusable lack of confidence
demand. in the responsibility of union officials
attacks the validity of the CB itself. For it
ISSUE: is the basic premise under which a regime
WON the CIR committed grave abuse of of CB was instituted by the Industrial
discretion. NO. Peace Act that through the process of
industrial democracy, with both union
HELD: and management equally deserving of
1. Considering that this is a case certified public trust, labor problems could be
by the President, with respondent Court susceptible of the just solution and
exercising its broad authority of industrial peace attained. Implicit in such
compulsory arbitration, the discretion it a concept is the confidence that must
possesses cannot be so restricted and be displayed by management in the
emasculated that the mere failure to grant sense of responsibility of union
a plea to exclude from the return-to-work officials to assure that the two
order the union officials could be indispensable elements in industry
considered as tantamount to a grave and production could-work side by
abuse thereof. side, attending to the problems of each
without neglecting the common
Upon certification by the President under welfare that binds them together.
Section 10 of RA 875, the case comes
under the operation of CA 103, which The moment mgt displays what in this
enforces compulsory arbitration in cases case appears to be grave but unwarranted
of labor disputes in industries distrust in union officials discharging
indispensable to the national interest their functions just because a strike was
when the President certifies the case to resorted to, then the integrity of the CB
the CIR. The evident intention of the law is process itself is called into question.
to empower the CIR to act in such cases,
not only in the manner prescribed under The greater offense is to the labor
CA 103, but with the same broad powers movement itself, more specifically to the
and jurisdiction granted by that Act. If the right of self-organization. There is both a
CIR is granted authority to find a solution constitutional and statutory recognition
in an industrial dispute and such solution that labourers have the right to form
consists in ordering of EEs to return back unions to take care of their interests vis-a-
Law 114 Labor II gdreyes
vis their employers. Their freedom On March 15, 2010, respondent Hanjin
organizations would be rendered Heavy Industries and Construction Co.,
nugatory if they could not choose their Ltd. Philippines (Hanjin), with offices at
own leaders to speak on their behalf and Greenbeach 1, Renondo Peninsula, Sitio
to bargain for them. Agustin, Barangay Cawag, Subic Bay
Freeport Zone, filed a petition7 with
If Pan Ams demand would be granted, the DOLE-Pampanga praying for the
laborers in this union would thus be cancellation of registration of Samahan's
confronted with the sad spectacle of the association on the ground that its
leaders of their choice condemned as members did not fall under any of the
irresponsible, possible even constituting a types of workers enumerated in the
menace to the operations of the second sentence of Article 243 (now 249).
enterprise. This would result in calling
into question their undeniable right to Hanjin opined that only ambulant,
choose their leaders, and in effectively intermittent, itinerant, rural workers, self-
depriving the rank and file of their employed, and those without definite
freedom of choice as to who should employers may form a workers'
represent them, for what use are leaders association. It further posited that one
so undeserving of the minimum third (1/3) of the members of the
confidence. To that extent, their association had definite employers and
constitutional and statutory right to the continued existence and registration
freedom of association suffers an of the association would prejudice the
impairment hardly to be characterized as company's goodwill.
inconsequential.
On March 18, 2010, Hanjin filed a
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin supplemental petition, adding the
Shipyard rep. by Pres. Alfie Alipio v. BLR & alternative ground that Samahan
Hanjin Heavy Ind. & Construction Co. (Oct committed a misrepresentation in
2015) connection with the list of members
and/or voters who took part in the
The right to self-organization is not limited to ratification of their constitution and by-
unionism. Workers may also form or join an
association for mutual aid and protection and for
laws in its application for registration.
other legitimate purposes. Hanjin claimed that Samahan made it
appear that its members were all qualified
FACTS: to become members of the workers'
On February 16, 2010, Samahan, through association.
its authorized representative, Alfie F.
Alipio, filed an application for Aggrieved, Samahan filed an appeal before
registration5 of its name "Samahan ng the BLR, arguing that Hanjin had no right
Mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" to petition for the cancellation of its
with the DOLE. Attached to the registration. Samahan pointed out that the
application were the list of names of the words "Hanjin Shipyard," as used in its
association's officers and members, application for registration, referred to a
signatures of the attendees of the workplace and not as employer or
February 7, 2010 meeting, copies of their company. It explained that when a
Constitution and By-laws. The application shipyard was put up in Subic, Zambales, it
stated that the association had a total of became known as Hanjin Shipyard.
120 members. Further, the remaining 63 members
Law 114 Labor II gdreyes