CASES: SUMMARY:
1) La suerte v. director of BLR 123 scra 679;
2) Univ of pangasinan v. NLRC 218 scra 65; In the determination of the basic issue raised
3) UST v. Bitonio, 318 scra 185; in the "control test" earlier laid down
4) Victoriano v. Elizalde rope workers 59 scra 54; in Investment Planning Corp. vs. Social
5) BPI v. Bpi employees Aug 10, 2010; Security System, 21 SCRA 924, and in Social
6) Natu v. Torres 239 scra 546; Security System vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and
7) San Miguel v. Laguesma 277 scra 370; Shriro (Phils.) Inc., 37 SCRA 579 are
8) Tunay na Pagkakaisa v. Asia brewery Aug 3, 2010 authoritative and controlling.
9) Pepsi v. Sec of labor Aug 10, 1999
10) Philips v. NLRC 210 scra 339; 4 fold-test:
11) Golden farms v. Calleja 175 scra 471;
12) National assoc v. Torres 239 scra 546;
(1) the selection and engagement of the
13) Pier 8 v. Roldan-confesor 241 scra 294;
employee;
14) Metrolab v. Roldan-confesor 254 scra 182;
15) Arizala v. CA 189 scra 584;
16) Camporedondo v. NLRC, Aug 6, 1999. (2) the payment of wages;
17) Cooperative rural bank v Calleja Sept 26, 1988;
18) Republic v. Asiapro coop. Nov 23, 2007; (3) the power of dismissal; and
19) Intl Catholic v. Calleja 190 scra 130;
20) German agency v. CA April 16, 2009; (4) the power to control the employees'
21) Heritage hotel v. National union, Jan 12, 2011; conduct-although the latter is the most
22) S.S. Ventures v. S.S. Ventures union 559 scra 435; important element.
23) Toyota v. Toyota union 268 scra 571;
24) Tagaytay highlands v. Tagaytay union 395 scra 699; Factors to determine existence of
25) Mariwasa v. Sec of labor g.r.no. 183317 dec 21, 2009; independent contract relationship.
26) Eagle ridge v. CA GR No. 178989 mar 18, 2010;
27) Heritage hotel v. Piglas GR No. 177024 Oct 30, 2009; An independent contractor is one who
28) Liberty cotton v. Liberty cotton Mills 66 scra 512; exercises independent employment and
29) Associated labor v. NLRC 188 scra 123; contracts to do a piece of work according to
30) Benguet v. BCI union 3 scra 471 his own methods and without being subject to
control of his employer except as to the result
of the work. '
LADJIMAN
Among the factors to be considered are
G.R. No. L-55674 July 25, 1983 whether the contractor is carrying on an
independent business;
LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE
FACTORY, whether the work is part of the
vs. DIR. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, employer's general business; the nature
THE LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE and extent of the work; the skill
FACTORY PROVINCIAL (Luzon) AND required; the term and duration of the
METRO MANILA SALES FORCE relationship;
ASSOCIATION-NATU, and THE NATIONAL the right to assign the performance of
ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS, . the work to another; the power to
terminate the relationship;
ISSUE: Whether the employees of petitioner the existence of a contract for the
company in which case they should be performance of a specified piece of
included in the 30% jurisdictional work;
requirement necessary to support the petition the control and supervision of the work;
for certification election, or independent the employer's powers and duties with
contractors and hence, excluded therefrom respect to the hiring, firing, and
payment of the contractor's servants;
the control of the premises; the duty to NATU and the local union opposed the
supply the premises, tools, appliances, Company's motion to dismiss alleging that the
material and labor, and the mode, fourteen dealers are actually employees of the
manner, and terms of payment.' Company because they are subject to its
control and supervision.
whether the employer controls or has reserved
the right to control the employee not only as to On August 29, 1979, the Med-Arbiter issued
the result of the work to be done but also as to an order dismissing the petition for lack of
the means and methods by which the same is merit as the fourteen dealers who joined the
to be accomplished. union should not be counted in determining
the 30% consent requirement because they
FACTS: are not employees but independent
contractors and the withdrawal of the 31
On 1979, the La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette salesmen from the union prior to the filing of
Factory Provincial (Luzon) and Metro Manila the petition for certification election was
Sales Force Association (union) for and was uncontroverted by the parties.
granted chapter status by the National
Association of Trade Unions (NATU). ISSUES:
Thereafter, 31 local members signed a joined
letter withdrawing their membership from 1. W/N the 14 dealers are employees or
NATU. independent contractors. Yes,
Independent Contractor.
On April 18, 1979, the local union and NATU 2. W/N the withdrawal of 31 union
filed a petition for direct certification or members from the NATU affected the
certification election which alleged among petition for certification election insofar
others, that forty-eight of the sixty sales as the thirty per cent requirement is
personnel of the Company were members of concerned; Yes. While there might be
the local union; that the petition is supported force or duress of withdrawal, this
by no less than 75% of the sales force; that must be proven.
there is no existing recognized labor union in 3. W/N the withdrawal of the petition for
the Company representing the said sales certification election by the NATU,
personnel; that there is likewise no existing through its President and legal counsel,
collecting bargaining agreement; and that was valid and effective.
there had been no certification election in the
last twelve months preceding the filing of the RULING:
petition.
We hold and rule that the 14 members of
Companys argument: No EE-ER relationship respondent local union are dealers or
independent contractors. They are not
Filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the employees of petitioner company. With the
ground that it is not supported by at least withdrawal by 31 members of their support to
30% of the members of the proposed the petition prior to or before the filing thereof,
bargaining unit because (a) of the alleged making a total of 45, the remainder of 3 out of
forty-eight (48) members of the local union, the 48 alleged to have supported the petition
thirty-one (31) had withdrawn prior to the can hardly be said to represent the union.
filing of the petition; and (b) fourteen (14) of Hence, the dismissal of the petition by the
the alleged members of the union were not Med-Arbiter was correct and justified.
employees of the Company but were Respondent Director committed grave abuse of
independent contractors. discretion in reversing the order of the Med-
Arbiter.
NATU & unions: argument:
Failure to establish this juridical
relationship between the union members
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
LAB OR R ELAT IONS C AS ES - MS U |3
and the employer affects the legality of the unwritten contract of employment for work
union itself. It means the ineligibility of done or to be done or for services rendered or
the union members to present a petition to be rendered, and includes the fair and
for certification election as well as to vote reasonable value, as determined by the
therein Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other
facilities customarily furnished by the
It is important in the determination of who employer to the employee ...
shall be included in a proposed bargaining
unit because it is the sine qua non, the Precisely, there was need to change the
fundamental and essential condition that a contract of employment because of the change
bargaining unit be composed of employees. of relationship, from an employee to that of an
Corollarily, when a petition for certification independent dealer or contractor. The
election is supported by 48 signatories in a employees were free to enter into the new
bargaining unit composed of 60 salesmen, but status, to sign or not to sign the new
14 of the 48 lacks employee status, the agreement. As in the Mafinco case, the
petition is vitiated thereby. Herein lies the respondents therein as in the instant case,
importance of resolving the status of the were free to reject the terms of the dealership
dealers in this case. but having signed it, they were bound by its
stipulations and the consequences thereof
Status thereby created is one of under existing labor laws. The fact that the 14
independent contractorship, pursuant to local union members voluntarily executed
the first rule in the interpretation of the with La Suerte formal dealership agreements
signed Dealership contracts which indicate the distribution and sale of La
Suerte cigarettes signifies that they were
It is likewise immediately noticeable that no acting as independent businessmen.
such words as "to hire and employ" are
present. The Dealership Agreement uses the It is not disputed that under the dealership
words "the factory has accepted the agreement, the dealer purchases and sells the
application of (name of applicant) and cigarettes manufactured by the company
therefore has appointed him as one of its under and for his own account. The dealer
dealers"; whereas the Dealership places his order for the purchase of cigarettes
Supplementary Agreement is prefaced with the to be sold by him in a particular territory by
statement: "For and in consideration of the filling up an Issuance Slip. The dealers do not
mutual covenants and agreements made devote their full time in selling company
herein, by one to the other, the COMPANY and products. They are likewise engaged in other
the DEALER by these presents, enter into this livelihood and businesses while selling
Supplementary Agreement whereby the cigarettes manufactured by the company.
COMPANY will avail of the services of the
DEALER to handle the sale and distribution of We agree with the petitioner. We hold further
the cigarette products". Nothing in the terms that the terms and conditions for the
and conditions likewise reveals that the termination of the contract are the usual and
dealers were engaged as employees. common stipulations in independent
contractorship agreements. In any event, the
No Mention of Wage payment- Indication of contention that the totality of the powers
non-existence of EE-ER relationship expressly reserved to the company establish
company control over the manner and details
'Wage' paid to any employee shall mean the of performance is merely speculative and
remuneration or earnings, however conjectural.
designated, capable of being expressed in
terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained G.R. Nos. 64821-23 January 29, 1993
on a time, task, piece, commission basis, or
other method of calculating the same, which is UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY
payable by an employer under a written or UNION
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C AS E S - M S U |4
vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS and that, since there were "no complainants
COMMISSION and UNIVERSITY OF for the alleged nonpayment of extra loads for
PANGASINAN two days," the issue had become academic.
interest of the individual worker can be the present case, in the right forum by the
better protected on the whole by a strong right parties. While grievances against union
union aware of its moral and legal leaders constitute legitimate complaints
obligations to represent the rank and file deserving appropriate redress, action thereon
faithfully and secure for them the best should be made in the proper forum at the
wages and working terms and conditions. proper time and after observance of proper
procedures. Similarly, the election of union
The University's contention that petitioner had officers should be conducted in accordance
no legal personality to institute and prosecute with the provisions of the union's constitution
money claims must, therefore, fail. To quote and bylaws, as well as the Philippine
then Associate Justice Teehankee in Heirs of Constitution and the Labor Code. Specifically,
Teodelo M. Cruz v. CIR, 18 "[w]hat should be while all legitimate faculty members of the
borne in mind is that the interest of the University of Santo Tomas (UST) belonging to
individual worker can be better protected on a collective bargaining unit may take part in a
the whole by a strong union aware of its moral duly convened certification election, only bona
and legal obligations to represent the rank fide members of the UST Faculty Union
and file faithfully and secure for them the best (USTFU) may participate and vote in a legally
wages and working terms and conditions. . . . called election for union officers. Mob hysteria,
Although this was stated within the context of however well-intentioned, is not a substitute
collective bargaining, it applies equally well to for the rule of law.
cases, such as the present wherein the union,
through its president, presented its individual FACTS:
members' grievances through proper
proceedings. While the complaints might Private respondents Marino et.al, are duly
nothave disclosed the identities of the elected officers of the UST Faculty Union
individual employees claiming monetary (USTFU). The union has a subsisting five-year
benefits, 19 such technical defect should not Collective Bargaining Agreement with its
be taken against the claimants, especially employer, the University of Santo Tomas
because the University appears to have failed (UST). The CBA was registered with the
to demand a bill of particulars during the Industrial Relations Division, DOLE-NCR, on
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. 20 February 1995. It is set to expire on 31
May 1998.
G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1999
UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU),etal vs. On 21 September 1996, appellee Collantes, in
Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR. her capacity as Secretary General of USTFU,
of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Med- posted a notice addressed to all USTFU
Arbiter TOMAS F. FALCONITIN of The members announcing a general assembly to
National Capital Region, Department of be held on 05 October 1996. Among others,
Labor and Employment (DOLE), the general assembly was called to elect
etal,respondents. USTFU's next set of officers. Through the
notice, the members were also informed of the
-On conducting Election of Union Members constitution of a Committee on Elections
outside its by-laws. (COMELEC) to oversee the elections. (Annex
- Union Election vs Certificate Election "B", petition)
and that no rules had been issued to govern and the Labor Code. Employees have the
the conduct of the 05 October 1996 election. right to form, join or assist labor organizations
for the purpose of collective bargaining or for
The Assailed Ruling their mutual aid and protection. 12 Whether
employed for a definite period or not, any
Agreeing with the med-arbiter that the USTFU employee shall be considered as such,
officers' purported election held on October 4, beginning on his first day of service, for
1994 was void for having been conducted in purposes of membership in a labor union. 13
violation of the union's Constitution and
Bylaws (CBL), Public Respondent Bitonio Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to
rejected petitioners' contention that it was a join, affiliate with or assist a labor
legitimate exercise of their right to self- union. 14 Therefore, to become a union
organization. He ruled that the CBL, which member, an employee must, as a rule, not
constituted the covenant between the union only signify the intent to become one, but also
and its members, could not be suspended take some positive steps to realize that intent.
during the October 4, 1996 general assembly The procedure for union membership is
of all faculty members, since that assembly usually embodied in the union's constitution
had not been convened or authorized by the and bylaws. 15 An employee who becomes a
USTFU. union member acquires the rights and the
concomitant obligations that go with this new
ISSUE: status and becomes bound by the union's
rules and regulations.
1. W/N there is interference in the
exercise by USTFU members of their When a man joins a labor union (or almost
right to self-organization. YES! any other democratically controlled group),
necessarily a portion of his individual
The participation of non-union members in freedom is surrendered for the benefit of all
the election aggravated its irregularity members. He accepts the will of the
majority of the members in order that he
2. Whether the Collective Bargaining Unit may derive the advantages to be gained
of all the faculty members in that from the concerted action of all.
General Faculty Assembly had the right
in that General Faculty Assembly to On joining a labor union, the constitution
suspend the provisions of the and by-laws become a part of the member's
Constitution and By-Laws of the contract of membership under which he
USTFU regarding the elections of agrees to become bound by the
officers of the union[.] constitution and governing rules of the
3. Whether the suspension of the union so far as it is not inconsistent with
provisions of the Constitution and By- controlling principles of law. The
Laws of the USTFU in that General constitution and by-laws of an unincorporated
Faculty Assembly is valid pursuant to trade union express the terms of a contract,
the constitutional right of the Collective which define the privileges and rights secured
Bargaining Unit to engage in "peaceful to, and duties assumed by, those who have
concerted activities" for the purpose of become members. The agreement of a member
ousting the corrupt regime of the on joining a union to abide by its laws and
private respondents[.]. comply with the will of the lawfully constituted
majority does not require a member to submit
RULING: to the determination of the union any question
Right to Self-Organization involving his personal rights. 16
and Union Membership
Petitioners' frustration over the
Self-organization is a fundamental right performance of private respondents, as well
guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution as their fears of a "fraudulent" election to
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C AS E S - M S U |7
Benjamin Victoriano, an Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) BPI vs BPI Employees Union Davao-
member, has been an employee of the Elizalde Chapter, August 10, 2010E CASTRO, J.]
Rope Factory (ERF) since 1958. He was also a
member of the EPWU (Elizalde Rope Workers FACTS:
Union). Under the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) between ERF and EPWU, a Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the
close shop agreement is being enforced which Articles of Merger executed by and between
means that employment in the factory relies BPI, herein petitioner, and Far East Bank and
on the membership in the EPWU; that in order Trust Company (FEBTC) and was approved by
to retain employment in the said factory one the Securities and Exchange Commission.
must be a member of the said Union. The Articles of Merger and Plan of Merger
did not contain any specific stipulation with
In 1962, Victoriano tendered respect to the employment contracts of
his resignation from EPWU claiming that as existing personnel of the non-surviving entity
per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the close which is FEBTC. Pursuant to the said Article
shop agreement by virtue of his being a and Plan of Merger, all the assets and
member of the INC because apparently in the liabilities of FEBTC were transferred to and
INC, one is forbidden from being a member of absorbed by BPI as the surviving
any labor union. It was only in 1974 that corporation. FEBTC employees, including
his resignation from the Union was acted those in its different branches across the
upon by EPWU which notified ERF about it. country, were hired by petitioner as its own
ERF then moved to terminate Victoriano due employees, with their status and tenure
to his non-membership from the EPWU. recognized and salaries and benefits
EPWU and ERF reiterated that he is not maintained.
exempt from the close shop agreement
because RA 3350, which provides that close ISSUE
shop agreements shall not cover members of
any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of Whether or not employees are ipso
their members in any such labor organization, jure absorbed in a merger of the two
is unconstitutional and that said law violates corporations.
the EPWUs and ERFs legal/contractual
rights. RULING
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is NO. [H]uman beings are never embraced in
unconstitutional. the term assets and liabilities.Moreover,
BPIs absorption of former FEBTC employees
HELD: No. Right to religion prevails over was neither by operation of law nor by legal
contractual or legal rights. As such, an INC consequence of contract. There was no
member may refuse to join a labor union and government regulation or law that compelled
despite the fact that there is a close shop the merger of the two banks or the absorption
agreement in the factory where he was of the employees of the dissolved corporation
employed, his employment could not be validly by the surviving corporation. Had there been
terminated for his non-membership in the such law or regulation, the absorption of
majority therein. Further, the right to join a employees of the non-surviving entities of the
union includes the right not to join a union. merger would have been mandatory on the
The law is not unconstitutional. It recognizes surviving corporation. In the present case, the
both the rights of unions and employers to merger was voluntarily entered into by both
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
LAB OR R ELAT IONS C AS ES - MS U |9
banks presumably for some mutually merger that as a condition for the merger, BPI
acceptable consideration. In fact, the was being required to assume all the
Corporation Code does not also mandate employment contracts of all existing FEBTC
the absorption of the employees of the non- employees with the conformity of the
surviving corporation by the surviving employees. In the absence of such a provision
corporation in the case of a merger. in the articles of merger, then BPI clearly had
the business management decision as to
[The] Court cannot uphold the reasoning that whether or not employ FEBTCs employees.
the general stipulation regarding transfer of FEBTC employees likewise retained the
FEBTC assets and liabilities to BPI as set forth prerogative to allow themselves to be absorbed
in the Articles of Merger necessarily includes or not; otherwise, that would be tantamount
the transfer of all FEBTC employees into the to involuntary servitude.
employ of BPI and neither BPI nor the FEBTC
employees allegedly could do anything about [Note: The decision as to absorption of
it. Even if it is so, it does not follow that employees upon merger is reversed in the
the absorbed employees should not be Resolution of MR dated October 19, 2011]
subject to the terms and conditions of
employment obtaining in the surviving
corporation.
BALBOA
Furthermore, [the] Court believes that it is
contrary to public policy to declare the former
NATU VS TORRES, G.R. No. 93468
FEBTC employees as forming part of the
December 29, 1994
assets or liabilities of FEBTC that were
transferred and absorbed by BPI in the
FACTS:
Articles of Merger. Assets and liabilities, in
this instance, should be deemed to refer only
to property rights and obligations of FEBTC NATU filed a petition for certification election
and do not include the employment contracts to determine the exclusive bargaining
of its personnel. A corporation cannot representative of respondent Bank's
unilaterally transfer its employees to another employees occupying supervisory positions.
employer like chattel. Certainly, if BPI as an Bank moved to dismiss the petition on the
employer had the right to choose who to retain ground that the supposed supervisory
among FEBTCs employees, FEBTC employees employees were actually managerial and/or
had the concomitant right to choose not to be confidential employees thus ineligible to join,
absorbed by BPI. Even though FEBTC assist or form a union, and that the petition
employees had no choice or control over the lacked the 20% signatory requirement under
merger of their employer with BPI, they had a the Labor Code.
choice whether or not they would allow
themselves to be absorbed by BPI. Certainly ISSUE:
nothing prevented the FEBTCs employees
from resigning or retiring and seeking WON the Department Managers, Assistant
employment elsewhere instead of going along Managers, Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers
with the proposed absorption. and Controllers of respondent Bank are
managerial and/or confidential employees
Employment is a personal consensual hence ineligible to join or assist the union of
contract and absorption by BPI of a former petitioner.
FEBTC employee without the consent of
the employee is in violation of an RULING
individuals freedom to contract.
YES, but only the Branch Managers/OICs,
It would have been a different matter if there Cashiers and Controllers of respondent
was an express provision in the articles of Republic Planters Bank are ineligible to
SAN MIGUEL VS LAGUESMA, G.R. No. duties of the parties under the collective
100485 September 21, 1994 bargaining provisions of the law." 5
confidential information about the products or PEPSI VS SECRETARY OF LABOR, G.R. No.
have knowledge of mixtures of the products, 96663, August 10, 1999
their defects, and even their formulas which
are considered trade secrets. FACTS
Anent the second issue, unfair labor practice PCEU argued that Art. 245 of the Labor Code,
as amended by RA 6715, did not prohibit a
refers to acts that violate the workers right to
local union composed of supervisory
organize. The prohibited acts are related to the employees from being affiliated to a federation
workers right to self organization and to the which has local unions with rank-and-file
observance of a CBA. For a charge of unfair members as affiliates. Furthermore, Book V,
labor practice to prosper, it must be shown Rule II, Section 7 of the Omnibus Rules
that ABI was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or Implementing the Labor Code provides the
fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a grounds for cancellation of the registration
certificate of a labor organization, and the
manner contrary to morals, good customs, or
inclusion of managerial employees is not one
public policy. of the grounds.
Considering that the herein dispute arose However, on 1992, or before the SC decision,
the PCEU issued a resolution withdrawing
from a simple disagreement in the
from the UOEF.
interpretation of the CBA provision on
excluded employees from the bargaining unit, ISSUE
respondent cannot be said to have committed
WON a supervisors union can affiliate with the
unfair labor practice that restrained its
same Federation of which two (2) rank and file
employees in the exercise of their right to self- unions are likewise members, without
organization, nor have thereby demonstrated violating Article 245 of the Labor Code (PD
442), as amended, by Republic Act 6715.
an anti-union stance.
RULING
In holding that they are included in the Ministry of Labor and Employment. The
bargaining unit for the rank and file petition declared that the employees belonged
employees of PIDI, the NLRC practically forced to rank-and-file. The petition was opposed by
them to become members of PEO-FFW or to
the petitioner on the grounds that some of the
be subject to its sphere of influence, it being
the certified bargaining agent for the subject employees supporting the said petition are
bargaining unit. This violates, obstructs, performing managerial functions or
impairs and impedes the service engineers' confidential positions. The petition was
and the sales representatives' constitutional dismissed by a resolution establishing that a
right to form unions or associations and to collective bargaining unit between the
self-organization. petitioner and private respondent was
inexistence at the time of the filing and the
The decision then of the Executive Labor
present filing of the petition. Herein public
Arbiter in merely directing the holding of a
referendum "to determine the will of the respondent released a decision in favor of the
service engineers, sales representatives as to private respondent union stating that the
their inclusion or exclusion in (sic) the employees are classified as rank and file
bargaining unit" is the most appropriate employees. Hence this petition seeks the
procedure that conforms with their right to reversal of the resolution made by public
form, assist or join in labor union or
respondent.
organization. However, since this decision was
rendered before the effectivity of R.A. No. ISSUE:
6715, it must now be stressed that its future
application to the private parties in this case WON supervisors, cashiers, foremen, and
should, insofar as service engineers and sales
employees holding confidential/managerial
representatives holding supervisory positions
or functions are concerned, take into account function are allowed to enter into a collective
the present Article 245 20 of the Labor Code bargaining agreement with the petitioner
which, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, now corporation.
reads:
RULING:
ARTICLE 245. Ineligibility of managerial
employees to join any labor organization; NO. The SC stated in a case, if these
right of supervisory employees. managerial employees would belong to or be
Managerial employees are not eligible to join, affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be
assist or form any labor organization. assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for evident conflict of interests or that the Union
membership in a labor organization of the rank-
can be company- dominated with the presence
and-file employees but may join, assist or form
separate labor organizations of their own. of managerial employees in Union
membership. A managerial employee is
GARCIA defined under Art. 212 (k) of the new Labor
Code as "one who is vested with powers or
prerogatives to lay down and execute
Golden Farms Inc. vs. Calleja management policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
FACTS: discipline employees, or to effectively
recommend such managerial actions. All
Petitioner is a corporation and its employees
employees not falling within this definitions
represented by the private respondent union
are considered rank-and-file employees for
(National Federation Labor) filed a petition for
purposes of this Book." This rationale also
Certification Election before the office of the
serves confidential employees. To allow the
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 16
not be excluded from the bargaining unit of WON executive secretaries must be included
the rank and file. The test of supervisory or as part of the bargaining unit of rank and file
managerial status is whether an employee employees.
possesses authority to act in the interest of
his employer, and such authority is not RULING:
merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. NO. By recognizing the expanded scope of the
What determines the nature of the right to self-organization, the intent of the
employment is not the title bu the job
court was to delimit the types of employees
description.
excluded from the close shop provisions, not
Metrolab Industries Inc. vs. Roldan
from the bargaining unit.
Confesor
The executive secretaries of General Manager
FACTS:
and the Management Committees should not
Herein petitioner Metrolab Industries only be exempted from the closed-shop
represented by the private respondent Metro provision but should not be permitted to join
Drug Corp. a labor organization representing in the bargaining unit of the rank and file
the petitioners employees. After the CBA employees as well as on the grounds that the
between the parties expired, negotiations for executive secretaries are confidential
new CBA ended into deadlock. Both parties employees , having access to vital labor
failed to settle their dispute hence the order information.
issued by the Secretary of Labor and
As stated in several cases, confidential
Employment that any strike or acts that might
employees are prohibited and disqualified to
exacerbate the situation is ceased and ordered
join any bargaining unit since the very nature
the parties to execute a new CBA. Later, the
of the functions are to assist and act in a
petitioner moved two lay-off acts to its rank
confidential capacity, or to have access to
and file employees and was opposed by the
confidential matters of, persons who exercise
union. Petitioner assailed that the move was
managerial functions in the field of labor
temporary and exercise of its management
relations.
prerogative. Herein public respondent
declared that the petitioners act illegal and Finally, confidential employees cannot be
issued two resolution of cease and desist classified as rank and file from the very nature
stating that the move exacerbate and caused of their work. Excluding confidential
conflict to the case at bar. Included on the last employees from the rank and file of bargaining
resolution issued by the public respondent unit, therefore, is not tantamount to
which states that executive secretaries are discrimination.
excluded from the closed-shop provision of the
CBA, not from the bargaining unit. Therefore, executive secretaries of petitioners
General Manager and its Management
A petition for certiorari seeking the annulment Committee are permanently excluded from the
of the Resolution and Omnibus Resolution of bargaining unit of petitioners rank and file
Roldan-Confesor on grounds that they were employees.
issued with grave abuse of discretion and
excess of jurisdiction. Arizala vs. CA
ISSUE: FACTS:
principal place of business at Phase I-PEZA- grounds for cancellation is the commission of
Bataan Export Zone, Mariveles, Bataan, is in any of the acts enumerated in Art. 239(a) of
the business of manufacturing sports shoes. the Labor Code, such as fraud and
Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union misrepresentation in connection with the
(Union) is a labor organization registered with adoption or ratification of the unions
the DOLE. constitution and like documents. The Court,
has in previous cases, said that to decertify a
March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLE- union, it is not enough to show that the union
Region III a petition for certification election in includes ineligible employees in its
behalf of the rank-and-file employees membership. It must also be shown that there
was misrepresentation, false statement, or
August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to fraud in connection with the application for
cancel the Unions certificate of registration registration and the supporting documents,
alleging that the Union deliberately and such as the adoption or ratification of the
maliciously included the names of more or constitution and by-laws or amendments
less 82 former employees no longer connected thereto and the minutes of ratification of the
with Ventures in its list of members who constitution or by-laws, among other
attended the organizational meeting and in documents.
the adoption/ratification of its constitution
and by-laws; that No organizational meeting The evidence presented by Ventures consist
and ratification actually took place; and the mostly of separate hand-written statements of
Unions application for registration was not 82 employees who alleged that they were
supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file unwilling or harassed signatories to the
employees of Ventures. attendance sheet of the organizational
meeting. However these evidence was
Regional Director of DOLE- Region III favored presented seven months after the union filed
Ventures and resolved to Cancel the its petition for cancellation of registration.
Certificate of the union. On appeal, the BLR Hence these statements partake of the nature
Director granted the Unions appeal and of withdrawal of union membership executed
reversing the decision of RD. Ventures went to after the Unions filing of a petition for
the CA. The CA dismissed Ventures petition certification election on March 21, 2000. We
as well as the MR. Hence, this petition for have said that the employees withdrawal from
review. a labor union made before the filing of the
petition for certification election is presumed
ISSUE: W/N the registration of the Union voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of
must be cancelled. such petition is considered to be involuntary
and does not affect the same. Now then, if a
RULING: NO. The right to form, join, or assist withdrawal from union membership done after
a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII, a petition for certification election has been
Section 3 of the Constitution and such right, filed does not vitiate such petition, it is but
according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot
and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be work to nullify the registration of the union.
abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a The Court is inclined to agree with the CA that
union is considered a legitimate labor the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor
organization endowed with the right and gravely err when it concluded that the
privileges granted by law to such organization. affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had
While a certificate of registration confers a no evidentiary weight.
union with legitimacy with the concomitant
right to participate in or ask for certification The registration or the recognition of a labor
election in a bargaining unit, the registration union after it has submitted the
may be canceled or the union may be corresponding papers is not ministerial on the
decertified as the bargaining unit, in which part of the BLR. It becomes mandatory for the
case the union is divested of the status of a BLR to check if the requirements under Art.
legitimate labor organization. Among the 234 of the Labor Code have been sedulously
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 21
complied with. If the unions application is Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor
infected by falsification and like serious Union (TMPCLU) filed a petition for
irregularities, especially those appearing on certification election with the Department of
the face of the application and its Labor, National Capital Region, for all rank-
attachments, a union should be denied and-file employees of the Toyota Motor
recognition as a legitimate labor organization. Corporation. The Med-Arbiter dismissed
The issuance to the Union of Certificate of respondent union's petition for certification
Registration, in the case at bar, necessarily election for lack of merit. The latter found that
implies that its application for registration and the labor organization's membership was
the supporting documents thereof are prima composed of supervisory and rank-and-file
facie free from any vitiating irregularities. employees in violation of Article 245 of the
Labor Code.
The relevance of the 82 individuals active
participation in the Unions organizational On appeal, the Office of the Secretary of
meeting and the signing ceremonies thereafter Labor, set aside the Med-Arbiter's Order and
comes in only for purposes of determining directed the holding of a certification election
whether or not the Union, even without the among the regular rank-and-file employees of
82, would still meet what Art. 234(c) of the Toyota Motor Corporation contending that the
Labor Code requires to be submitted, Med-Arbiter should have not dismissed the
requiring that the union applicant must file petition for certification election based on the
the names of all its members comprising at ground that the proposed bargaining unit is a
least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file
in the bargaining unit where it seeks to employees. The petition and the other
operate. documents submitted by respondent will
readily show that what the former really seeks
In its union records on file with this Bureau, to represent are the regular rank-and-file
respondent union submitted the names of 542 employees in the company numbering about
members. This number easily complied with 1,800 more or less, a unit which is obviously
the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202 appropriate for bargaining purposes. This
employees in the establishment. Even being the case, CA believed that the mere
subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves allegation of respondent-appellee that there
460 union members, still within 440 or 20% of are about 42 supervisory employees in the
the maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file proposed bargaining unit should have not
employees of the employer Venture. caused the dismissal of the instant petition.
Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have Petitioner filed this special civil action
with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is contends that "the Secretary of Labor and
better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion Employment committed grave abuse of
proceedings during a pre-election conference. discretion amounting to lack or excess of
The issue surrounding the involvement of the jurisdiction in reversing, contrary to law and
82 employees is a matter of membership or facts the findings of the Med-Arbiters to the
voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel effect that, the inclusion of the prohibited mix
union registration. of rank-and file and supervisory employees in
the roster of members
For fraud and misrepresentation to be
grounds for cancellation of union registration ISSUE: W/N the respondents inclusion of
under Article 239, the nature of the fraud and supervisory Employees in the union violates
misrepresentation must be grave and the Labor Code requirements.
compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members HELD: Inclusion of supervisory employees
violates The Code. Art. 245 - Ineligibility of
Toyota vs Toyota Union managerial employees to join any labor
organization; right of supervisory employees. -
FACTS: - Managerial Employees are not eligible to
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 22
join, assist or form any labor organization. secured through fraudulent and deceitful
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for means, and submitted copies of the
membership in a labor organization of the handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of
rank-and-file employees but may join, assist its employees from participating in the
or form separate labor organizations of their petition.
own.
The union asserted that it complied with all
Clearly, based on this provision, a labor the requirements for valid affiliation and
organization composed of both rank-and-file inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor
and supervisory employees is no labor organizations pursuant to DOLE Department
organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account of
purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. which it was duly granted a Certification of
Not being one, an organization which carries a Affiliation by DOLE on October 10, 1997; and
mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory that Section 5, Rule V of said Department
employees cannot possess any of the rights of Order provides that the legitimacy of its
a legitimate labor organization, including the registration cannot be subject to collateral
right to file a petition for certification election attack, and for as long as there is no final
for the purpose of collective bargaining. It order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy the
becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the rights accorded to a legitimate organization.
granting of an order allowing a certification Therefore, the Med-Arbiter should, pursuant
election, to inquire into the composition of any to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Section
labor organization whenever the status of the 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No.
labor organization is challenged on the basis 09, automatically order the conduct of a
of Article 245 of the Labor Code. certification election.
October 16, 1997 Tagaytay Highlands CA denied THIGCIs Petition for Certiorari and
Employees Union(THEU), Philippine Transport affirmed the DOLE Resolution of dismissal. It
and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), held that while a petition for certification
Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor election is an exception to the innocent
organization said to represent majority of the bystander rule, hence, the employer may pray
rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a for the dismissal of such petition on the basis
petition for certification election before the of lack of mutuality of interests of the
DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional members of the union as well as lack of
Branch No. IV. employer-employee relationship and petitioner
failed to adduce substantial evidence to
November 27, 1997, petitioner filed a petition support its allegations.
opposing the filing of certification election
because the list of union members submitted ISSUE: W/N the withdrawal of some union
by it was defective and fatally flawed as it members from the certification election will
included the names and signatures of affect the result
supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent
without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as HELD: NO. As for petitioner s allegation that
employees of The Country Club, Inc., a some of the signatures in the petition for
corporation distinct and separate from certification election were obtained through
THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to fraud, false statement and misrepresentation,
the petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for
employees of THIGCI. Also, some of the it to file a petition for cancellation of the
signatures in the list of union members were certificate of registration, and not to intervene
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 23
withdrawals made after the filing of the Considering that the first set of 25 affidavits
petition are deemed involuntary. was submitted to the DOLE on June 14, 2005,
it is surprising why petitioner was able to
The reason for such distinction is that if the submit the second set of affidavits only on
withdrawal or retraction is made before the July 12, 2005.
filing of the petition, the names of employees
supporting the petition are supposed to be Accordingly, we cannot give full credence to
held secret to the opposite party. Logically, these affidavits, which were executed under
any such withdrawal or retraction shows suspicious circumstances, and which contain
voluntariness in the absence of proof to the allegations unsupported by evidence. At best,
contrary. Moreover, it becomes apparent that these affidavits are self-serving. They possess
such employees had not given consent to the no probative value.
filing of the petition, hence the subscription
requirement has not been met. Nevertheless, even assuming the veracity of
the affidavits of recantation, the legitimacy of
When the withdrawal or retraction is made respondent as a labor organization must be
after the petition is filed, the employees who affirmed. While it is true that the withdrawal
are supporting the petition become known to of support may be considered as a resignation
the opposite party since their names are from the union, the fact remains that at the
attached to the petition at the time of filing. time of the unions application for registration,
Therefore, it would not be unexpected that the the affiants were members of respondent and
opposite party would use foul means for the they comprised more than the required 20%
subject employees to withdraw their support. membership for purposes of registration as a
labor union. Article 234 of the Labor Code
In the instant case, the affidavits of merely requires a 20% minimum membership
recantation were executed after the identities during the application for union registration.
of the union members became public, i.e., It does not mandate that a union must
after the union filed a petition for certification maintain the 20% minimum membership
election on May 23, 2005, since the names of requirement all throughout its existence.
the members were attached to the petition.
The purported withdrawal of support for the For the purpose of de-certifying a union such
registration of the union was made after the as respondent, it must be shown that there
documents were submitted to the DOLE, was misrepresentation, false statement or
Region IV-A. The logical conclusion, therefore, fraud in connection with the adoption or
following jurisprudence, is that the employees ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
were not totally free from the employers amendments thereto; the minutes of
pressure, and so the voluntariness of the ratification; or, in connection with the election
employees execution of the affidavits becomes of officers, the minutes of the election of
suspect. officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit
these documents together with the list of the
It is likewise notable that the first batch of 25 newly elected-appointed officers and their
pro forma affidavits shows that the affidavits postal addresses to the BLR.
were executed by the individual affiants on
different dates from May 26, 2005 until June The bare fact that two signatures appeared
3, 2005, but they were all sworn before a twice on the list of those who participated in
notary public on June 8, 2005. the organizational meeting would not, to our
mind, provide a valid reason to cancel
There was also a second set of standardized respondents certificate of registration. The
affidavits executed on different dates from May cancellation of a unions registration doubtless
26, 2005 until July 6, 2005. While these 77 has an impairing dimension on the right of
affidavits were notarized on different dates, 56 labor to self-organization. For fraud and
of these were notarized on June 8, 2005, the misrepresentation to be grounds for
very same date when the first set of 25 was cancellation of union registration under the
notarized. Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 25
misrepresentation must be grave and for the cancellation of the said Reg. Cert.
compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a Eagle Ridges petition ascribed
majority of union members. misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud to
EREU in connection with the adoption of its
In this case, we agree with the BLR and the
CA that respondent could not have possibly constitution and by-laws, the numerical
committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false composition of the Union, and the election of
statements. The alleged failure of respondent its officers.
to indicate with mathematical precision the
total number of employees in the bargaining ISSUE: Whether or not the Union
unit is of no moment, especially as it was able possesses bona fide compliance of the
to comply with the 20% minimum registration requirements under Art. 234 of
membership requirement. the Code, explaining the seeming
discrepancies between the number of
employees who participated in the
COSEP organizational meeting and the total number
of union members at the time it filed its
registration, as well as the typographical error
G.R. No. 178989 March 18, 2010 in its certification which understated by one
the number of union members who ratified
EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, the unions constitution and by-laws.
vs. CA and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES
UNION (EREU) RULING: Yes, it does.
(c) The names of all its members comprising at the list of voters, or failure to submit these
least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees documents together with the list of the newly
in the bargaining unit where it seeks to elected/appointed officers and their postal
operate; addresses within thirty (30) days from
election. (Emphasis supplied.)
(e) Four copies (4) of the constitution and by-
laws of the applicant union, minutes of its A scrutiny of the records fails to show any
adoption or ratification and the list of the misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud
members who participated in it. committed by EREU to merit cancellation of
its registration. Twenty percent (20%) of 112
The Union submitted the required documents rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge would
attesting to the facts of the organizational require a union membership of at least 22
meeting on December 6, 2005, the election of employees (112 x 205 = 22.4). When the EREU
its officers, and the adoption of the Unions filed its application for registration on
constitution and by-laws. It submitted before December 19, 2005, there were clearly 30
the DOLE Regional Office with its Application union members. Thus, when the certificate of
for Registration and the duly filled out BLR registration was granted, there is no dispute
Reg. Form No. I-LO, s. 1998. that the Union complied with the mandatory
Evidently, as the Union persuasively argues, 20% membership requirement.
the withdrawal of six member-employees from Besides, it cannot be argued that the six
the Union will affect neither the Unions affidavits of retraction retroact to the time of
registration nor its petition for certification the application of registration or even way
election, as their affidavits of retraction were back to the organizational meeting. Prior to
executed after the Unions petition for their withdrawal, the six employees in
certification election had been filed. The initial question were bona fide union members. More
five affidavits of retraction were executed on so, they never disputed affixing their
February 15, 2006; the sixth, on March 15, signatures beside their handwritten names
2006. Indisputably, all six were executed way during the organizational meetings. While they
after the filing of the petition for certification alleged that they did not know what they were
election on January 10, 2006. signing, it bears stressing that their affidavits
Additionally, Article 239, GROUNDS FOR of retraction were not re-affirmed during the
CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION hearings of the instant case rendering them of
provides that the following shall constitute little, if any, evidentiary value.
grounds for cancellation of union registration: With the withdrawal of six union members,
(a) Misrepresentation, false statements or there is still compliance with the mandatory
fraud in connection with the adoption or membership requirement under Art. 234(c),
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or for the remaining 24 union members
amendments thereto, the minutes of constitute more than the 20% membership
ratification, and the list of members who took requirement of 22 employees.
part in the ratification;
G.R. No. 177024 October 30, 2009
xxxx
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL
fraud in connection with the election of CORPORATION) Petitioner,
officers, minutes of the election of officers, vs. PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 27
MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA claimed that the documents submitted with
(PIGLAS-HERITAGE), Respondent. the unions application for registration bore
many false information.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether or not "dual unionism" is a
Sometime in 2000, certain rank and file ground for cancelling a unions registration.
employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila
formed and was later issued a certificate of RULING: No, it is not.
registration for the "Heritage Hotel Employees
Union". Subsequently, the HHE union filed a The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS
petition for certification election that the unions members were also members of the
petitioner company opposed even though the old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not
Med-Arbiter granted the HHE unions petition a ground for cancelling the new unions
for certification election. The company alleged registration. The right of any person to join an
that the HHE union misrepresented itself to organization also includes the right to leave
be an independent union, when it was, in that organization and join another one.
truth, a local chapter of the National Union of Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to
Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied exist and its certificate of registration had
Industries (NUWHRAIN). Thus, the company already been cancelled. Thus, petitioners
also filed a petition for the cancellation of the arguments on this point may also be now
HHE unions registration certificate. regarded as moot and academic.
On October 12, 2001, the Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-33987 September 4, 1975
issued a writ of injunction against the holding
LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS
of the HHE unions certification election. The
UNION, RAFAEL NEPOMUCENO, MARIANO
decision of the Court of Appeals became final
CASTILLO, NELLY ACEVEDO, RIZALINO
when the HHE union withdrew the petition for
CASTILLO and RAFAEL
review that it filed with this Court. On
COMBALICER, petitioners,
December 10, 2003, certain rank and file
vs. LIBERTY COTTON MILLS, INC.,
employees of the company formed another
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR
union, the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at
UNION (PAFLU) and the COURT OF
Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
(the PIGLAS union). This union applied for
and was granted the registration on February
9, 2004. Two months later, the members of
the first union, the HHE union, adopted a FACTS:
resolution for its dissolution. The HHE union
The Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union
then filed a petition for cancellation of its
adopted its Constitution and By-laws on
union registration. On September 4, 2004,
January 1, 1959. On October 1, 1959, a
respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for
Collective Bargaining Agreement 2 was
certification election that petitioner company
entered into by and between the Company and
also opposed, alleging that the new unions
the Union represented by PAFLU. On March
officers and members were also those who
13, 1964, while the Collective Bargaining
comprised the old union.
Agreement was in full force, Marciano Castillo
On December 6, 2004 petitioner company filed and Rafael Nepomuceno, President and Vice-
a petition to cancel the union registration of President, respectively, of the local union,
respondent PIGLAS union. The company wrote PAFLU, its mother federation,
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 28
complaining about the legal counsel assigned The courts cannot agree with both the stand
by the PAFLU to assist them in a ULP case of PAFLU and the respondent court. For while
(Case No. 4001) they filed against the it is correct to say that a union security clause
Company. In said letter, the local union did exist, this clause was limited by the
expressed its dissatisfaction and loss of provision in the Unions' Constitution and By-
confidence in the PAFLU lawyers, claiming Laws, which states:
that PAFLU never lifted a finger regarding this
particular complaint. That the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-
PAFLU shall be affiliated with the PAFLU, and
On May 17, 1964, thirty two (32) out of the 36 shall remain an affiliate as long as ten (10) or
members of the local union disaffiliated more of its members evidence their desire to
themselves from respondent PAFLU pursuant continue the said local unions affiliation.
to their local union's Constitution and By-
Laws. A copy of the signed resolution of Record shows that only four (4) out of its
disaffiliation was furnished the Company as members remained for 32 out of the 36
well as the Bureau of Labor Relations. The members of the Union signed the resolution of
following day, the local union wrote the disaffiliation on May 17, 1964, triggered by
Company and required the turn-over of the the alleged negligence of PAFLU in attending
checked-off dues directly to its Treasurer. to the needs of its local union, particularly its
failure to assign a conscientious lawyer to the
On May 29,1964, PAFLU wrote the Company local to attend to the ULP case they filed
for the second time, this time quoting en against the Company. The disaffiliation was,
toto Article III of the Collective Bargaining therefore, valid under the local's Constitution
Agreement on "Union Security" and requesting and By-Laws which, taken together with the
the termination of the employment of Rafael Collective Bargaining Agreement, is
Nepomuceno, Marciano Castillo, Nelly controlling.
Acevedo, Enrique Managan, Rizalino Castillo
and Rafael Combalicer, all petitioners herein. Considering that the dispute revolved around
PAFLU at the same time expelled the the mother federation and its local, with the
aforementioned workers from their' union company dismissing the workers at the
membership in the mother federation for instance of the mother federation, it is
allegedly "instigating union disaffiliation." believed that the company's liability should be
limited to the immediate reinstatement of the
On May 30,1964, the Company terminated the workers.
employment of the members expelled by the
PAFLU. On the last day of May, 1964, counsel G.R. No. 74841 December 20, 1991
for the ousted workers wrote the Company
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS-VIMCONTU,
requesting their reinstatement. This was
THE CEBU OIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
denied by the Company; hence the complaint
represented by its Acting President,
for unfair labor practice filed with the Court of
MIGUEL C. ALIVIADO, and THE MOBIL
Industrial Relations.
DAVAO/ COTABATO CHAPTER-ALU,
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the represented by its President, DAVID C.
complaining employees was justified or not. ONDEVILLA, petitioners,
vs.
RULING: It is claimed by PAFLU that the local THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
union could not have validly disaffiliated from COMMISSION (NLRC), MOBIL OIL
it as the Union Security Clause so provided. PHILIPPINES, INC., JEAN PIERRE
BY: AMISTAD, BALBOA, CEDENIO, COSEP, GARCIA, LADJIMAN
L A B O R R E L A T I O N S C A S E S - M S U | 29
BAILLEUX, CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., the complainant unions were not notified
and MOBIL PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents. officially of such assignment to Caltex
Philippines and respondent Mobil Oil
Philippines made announcement in major
FACTS: dailies that the company shall continue to
operate its business.
A collective bargaining agreement was entered
into between the complainants and the ISSUE: Whether or not respondents Caltex
respondent Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. for a and MOPI bound by the provisions of the CBA.
period of three years starting from April 1, RULING:
1982 to March 31, 1985. On August 5, 1983,
respondent J.P. Bailiux, President of Mobil Oil Yes, the Commission finds that although
Philippines, Inc. sent letters to the employees, Caltex is bound by the said agreement under
notifying of the termination of their services Section I thereof, the rights and interests or
effective August 31, 1983 because of the sale benefits that may have been earned during the
of the respondent firm. On September 13, remaining term of the CBA have been satisfied
1983, complainant employee accepted their by MOPI when herein complainants accepted
checks for separation pay and signed quit- their respective checks and executed quitclaim
claims under protest and subject to the from and in favor of the firm.
outcome of this case.
In G.R. No. 74841, petitioners assail the above
Caltex Philippines, Inc. was impleaded as decision and contend that the NLRC
additional respondent because of its committed serious errors of law and grave
acquisition of the entire marketing and abuse of discretion when it ruled to justify the
distribution assets of Mobil Oil Philippines. termination that : (a) petitioners had
Mobil Philippines, Inc. was also made a knowledge of the impending sale to Caltex and
respondent in view of a metropolitan daily closure of the company in a series of
newspaper announcement that Mobil Oil negotiations/meetings by considering it as a
Philippines, Inc. will continue to do business sufficient notice of termination; (b) the
under the corporate name of Mobil situation was one of closure and not
Philippines, Inc. and that this newly formed redundancy; (c) the rights and interests or
company will market chemicals and special benefits that may have been earned during the
products such as solvents, process products, remaining term of the CBA have been satisfied
waxes and industrial asphalt, fuels and by MOPI when complainants accepted their
lubricants for the international marine and respective checks and executed quitclaim from
aviation industries. and in favor of the firm; (d) the benefits
granted by respondent MOPI were far above
Complainants charge respondent Mobil Oil the benefits provided by law; and (e) as
Philippines, Inc. and J.P. Bailiux with unfair regards the liability of Mobil Philippines, Inc.,
labor practice for violating their collective there is no concrete evidence to establish or
bargaining agreement which, among others, prove complainants' allegation that MOPI will
states that "this Agreement shall be binding continue its business.
upon the parties hereto and their successors
and assigns, and may be assigned by the G.R. No. L-24711,; Apr 30, 1968
company without the previous approval of the
Union. However, the latter will be notified of BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. vs. BCI
such assignment when it occurs." In this case, EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU,
have to respect said contract, but that it may Since defendants were not contractually
bargain with the management for the bound by the no-strike clause in the
shortening of the life of the contract if it CONTRACT, for the simple reason that they
considers it too long, or refuse to renew the were not parties thereto, they could not be
contract pursuant to an automatic renewal liable for breach of contract to plaintiff.
clause.