Labor Relations Case Doctrines

Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs. Zamora

The alleged labor contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment to qualify as an
independent contractor under the law. The premises, tools, equipment and paraphernalia
used by the petitioners in their jobs are admittedly all supplied by respondent company. It is
only the manpower or labor force which the alleged contractors supply, suggesting the
existence of a labor-only contracting scheme prohibited by law.
San Miguel Corporation Employees Union vs. Bersamira
While it is SanMig's submission that no employer-employee relationship exists between itself,
on the one hand, and the contractual workers of Lipercon and D'Rite on the other, a labor
dispute can nevertheless exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relationship of employer and employee" (Article 212 [1] Labor Code, supra) provided the
controversy concerns, among others, the terms and conditions of employment or a change or
arrangement thereof. Put differently, and as defined by law, the existence of a labor dispute
is not negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not stand in the proximate
relation of employer and employee.
Hawaiian- Philippine Company vs. Gulmatico
In the case at bar, it is clear that there is no employer-employee relationship between
petitioner milling company and respondent union and/or its members-workers. Absent the
jurisdictional requisite of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private
respondent, the inevitable conclusion is that the NLRC is without jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case.
National Union of Bank Employees vs. Lazaro
Since it involves collective bargaining --whether or not it involved an accompanying violation
of the Civil Code-- it may rightly be categorized as an unfair labor practice. The civil
implications thereof do not defeat its nature as a fundamental labor offense. As we stated,
the damages (allegedly) suffered by the petitioners only form part of the civil component of
the injury arising from the unfair labor practice. Under Article 247 of the Code, "the civil
aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for damages
and other affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiters."
Dy vs. NLRC
The controversy is intra-corporate in nature. It revolves around the election of directors,
officers or managers of the bank, the relation between and among its stockholders, and
between them and the corporation. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Securities
and Exchange Commission (now the RTC).


The question of remuneration, involving as it does, a person who is not a mere employee but
a stockholder and officer, an integral part, it might be said, of the corporation, is not a simple
labor problem but a matter that comes within the area of corporate affairs and management,
and is in fact a corporate controversy in contemplation of the Corporation Code.
Mainland Construction vs. Movilla
The better policy to be followed in determining jurisdiction over a case should be to consider
concurrent factors such as the status or relationship of the parties or the nature of the
question that is the subject of their controversy. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow
that every conflict between the corporation and its stockholders would involve such corporate
matters as only the SEC can resolve in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers.
In the case at bench, the claim for unpaid wages and separation pay filed by the complainant
against petitioner corporation involves a labor dispute. It does not involve an intracorporate
matter, even when it is between a stockholder and a corporation. It relates to an employer-
employee relationship which is distinct from the corporate relationship of one with the other.
Since Movilla's complaint involves a labor dispute, it is the NLRC which has jurisdiction over
the case.
Prudential Bank vs. Reyes
It has been stated that "the primary standard of determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation
to the usual trade or business of the employer." Additionally, an employee is regular because
of the nature of work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason
for hiring them. As Assistant Vice President of the Foreign Department of the Bank she
performs tasks integral to the operations of the bank and her length of service with the bank
totaling 28 years speaks volumes of her status as a regular employee of the bank. In fine, as
a regular employee, she is entitled to security of tenure; that is, her services may be
terminated only for a just or authorized cause. The NLRC's jurisdiction over the case is
upheld.
Pepsi-cola Bottling Co vs. Martinez
The claim for said prize unquestionably arose from an employer-employee relation and,
therefore, falls within the coverage of par. 5 of P.D. 1691, which speaks of "all claims arising
from employer-employee relations, unless expressly excluded by this Code." Indeed, Tumala
would not have qualified for the contest, much less won the prize, if he was not an employee
of the company at the time of the holding of the contest. Besides, the cause advanced by
petitioners to justify their refusal to deliver the prizethe alleged fraudulent manipulations
committed by Tumala in connection with his duties as salesman of the companyinvolves an
inquiry into his actuations as an employee.




San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC
Money claims of workers referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 217 embraces money claims
which arise out of or in connection with the employer-employee relationship, or some aspect
or incident of such relationship. That money claims of workers which now fall within the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters are those money claims which have some
reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relationship. In the present case,
the petitioner's Innovation Program is an employee incentive scheme offered and open only to
employees of petitioner Corporation. Without the existing employer-employee relationship
between the parties here, there would have been no occasion to consider the petitioner's
Innovation Program or the submission by Mr. Vega of his proposal concerning beer grande;
without that relationship, private respondent Vega's suit against petitioner Corporation
would never have arisen. The money claim of private respondent Vega in this case, therefore,
arose out of or in connection with his employment relationship with petitioner.
Philippine National Bank vs. Cabansag
Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-
employee relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are
overseas Filipino workers (OFW). Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers
enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to
the contrary notwithstanding.This pronouncement is in keeping with the basic public policy
of the State to afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers
and employers. For the State assures the basic rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work (Article 3 of
the Labor Code of the Philippines).
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs NLRC
Among the powers expressly conferred on the Commission by Article 218 is the power to
"enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful
acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not
restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or
render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party xx."
As a general rule, restraining orders or injunctions are not issued ex parte. However, a
temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte under the following conditions:
a. The complainant shall also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be
issued without notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property
will be unavoidable;


b. there is testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission in
issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice;
c. the complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in an amount
to be fixed by the Commission sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss,
expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or
injunction, including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable attorneys fee,
and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive
relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the Commission;
d. and the temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than twenty (20)
days and shall become void at the expiration of said twenty (20) days.

Philippine Airlines vs NLRC
Injunction is only an ancillary remedy in ordinary labor disputes. Thus, it is an essential
requirement that there must first be a labor dispute between the contending parties before
the labor arbiter can issue an injunction. In the present case, there is no labor dispute
between the petitioner and private respondents as there has yet been no complaint for illegal
dismissal filed with the labor arbiter by the private respondents against the petitioner.
Mayon Hotel & Restaurant, et al vs. Adana
In a complaint for underpayment of wages and other money claims filed by employees of a
single proprietorship business, the respondent should be the business owner. This is not
necessarily the person in whose name the business is registered.
Petitioners reliance on the rules of evidence, i.e., the certificate of registration being the best
proof of ownership, is misplaced. Notwithstanding the certificate of registration, doubts were
cast as to the true nature of petitioner Josefa Po Lams involvement in the enterprise, and the
Labor Arbiter had the authority to resolve this issue. It was therefore within his jurisdiction
to require the additional documents to ascertain who was the real owner of petitioner Mayon
Hotel & Restaurant. Article 221 of the Labor Code is clear: technical rules are not binding,
and the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the
demand of substantial justice. The rule of evidence prevailing in court of law or equity shall
not be controlling in labor cases and it is the spirit and intention of the Labor Code that the
Labor Arbiter shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the
interest of due process. Labor laws mandate the speedy administration of justice, with least
attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due process.
Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. vs. NLRC, et al
The general rule is that only lawyers are allowed to appear before the labor arbiter and
respondent Commission in cases before them. x x x A non-lawyer may appear before the


labor arbiters and the NLRC only if: (a) he represents himself as a party to the case; (b) he
represents an organization or its members, with written authorization from them; or (c) he is
a duly-accredited member of any legal aid office duly recognized by the Department of Justice
or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in cases referred to by the latter.
Engineers Estacio and Dulatre were not lawyers. Neither were they duly-accredited members
of a legal aid office. Their appearance before the labor arbiters in their capacity as parties to
the cases was authorized under the first exception to the rule. However, their appearance on
behalf of petitioner required written proof of authorization. It was incumbent upon the
arbiters to ascertain this authority especially since both engineers were named
correspondents in the cases before the arbiters. Absent this authority, whatever statements
and declarations Engineer Estacio made before the arbiters could not bind petitioner.
Nevertheless, even assuming that Engineer Estacio and Atty. Abundiente were authorized to
appear as representatives of petitioner, they could bind the latter only in procedural matters
before the arbiters and respondent Commission. Petitioners liability arose from Engineer
Estacios alleged promise to pay. A promise to pay amounts to an offer to compromise and
requires a special power of attorney or the express consent of petitioner. The authority to
compromise cannot be lightly presumed and should be duly established by evidence. This is
explicit from Section 7 of Rule III of the NLRC Rules of Procedure.
Rosewood Processing, Inc. vs. NLRC
Indisputable is the legal doctrine that the appeal of a decision involving a monetary award in
labor cases may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond. The lawmakers
intended the posting of the bond to be an indispensable requirement to perfect a employers
appeal.
In a number of cases, the Court has relaxed the requirement in order to bring about the
immediate and appropriate resolution of controversies on the merits.
In Quiambao vs. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court ruled that a relaxation of
the appeal bond requirement could be justified by substantial compliance with the rule.
In Globe General Services and Security Agency vs. National Labor Relations Commission, the
Court observed that the NLRC, in actual practice, allows the reduction of the appeal bond
upon motion of the appellant and on meritorious grounds; hence, petitioners in that case
should have filed a motion to reduce the bond within the reglementary period for appeal.
We hold that petitioners motion to reduce the bond is a substantial compliance with the
Labor Code. This holding is consistent with the norm that letter-perfect rules must yield to
the broader interest of substantial justice.
NOTE: More recent Supreme Court decisions require strict observance of the reglementary
period.
Sammer Oversees Placement Agency Inc. vs. Levantino


Arguments aside, it is indisputable that the Labor Code is explicit in providing that the
appeal from a decision of the Labor Arbiter must be perfected within ten (10) days, and that
such appeal is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.
Contrary to Sameers suggestion, the appeal bond requirement is not merely procedural but
jurisdictional, for without it, the NLRC does not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. Applying
the express provisions of the law, the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction over Sameers appeal
within the ten (10)-day reglementary period to perfect the appeal, for the appeal bond was
filed was filed six (6) days after the lapse of the reglementary period.
Borja Estate, et al. Vs. Spouses R. Ballad and R. Ballad
The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the
perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal may
be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The word only makes it
perfectly clear that the LAWMAKERS intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the
employer to be the exclusive means by which an employers appeal may be considered
completed. The law however does not require its outright payment, but only the posting of a
bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail. What petitioners
have to pay is a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium of such bond. The word
may on the other hand refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the
defeated party, but not to the posting of an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal.
While it is true that this Court has relaxed the application of the rules on appeal in labor
cases, it has only done so where the failure to comply with the requirements for perfection of
appeal was justified or where there was substantial compliance with the rules. Hence, the
Supreme Court has allowed tardy appeals in judicious cases, e.g., where the presence of any
justifying circumstance recognized by law, such as fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence, properly vested the judge with discretion to approve or admit an appeal filed out
of time; where on equitable grounds, a belated appeal was allowed as the questioned decision
was served directly upon petitioner instead of her counsel of record who at the time was
already dead; where the counsel relied on the footnote of the notice of the decision of the
labor arbiter that the aggrieved party may appeal . . . within ten (10) working days; in order
to prevent a miscarriage of justice or unjust enrichment such as where the tardy appeal is
from a decision granting separation pay which was already granted in an earlier final
decision; or where there are special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits
or the amount and the issue involved.
Sadol vs. Pilipinas Kao, Inc., et al.,
As petitioner had filed a timely appeal the NLRC had jurisdiction to give due course to his
appeal and render the decision of August 28, 1988, a copy of which was furnished
respondents. Having lost the right to appeal can respondent PKI file a motion for
reconsideration of said decision? The Court resolves the question in the affirmative. The rules
of technicality must yield to the broader interest of justice. It is only by giving due course to


the motion for reconsideration that was timely filed that the NLRC may be able to equitably
evaluate the conflicting versions of facts presented by the parties.
St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC and B. Aricayos
In a nutshell, the St. Martin precedent states: (1) the way to review NLRC decisions is
through the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65; (2) the jurisdiction over such
action belongs to both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals; but (3) in line with the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the petition should be initially presented to the lower of the
two courts, that is, the Court of Appeals.
Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals et al.,
A third party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff to enforce a decision against a
judgment debtor is afforded with several alternative remedies to protect its interests. The
third party may avail himself of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one will not preclude
the third party from availing himself of the other alternative remedies in the event he failed in
the remedy first availed of. Thus, a third party may avail himself of the following alternative
remedies: a) File a third-party claim with the sheriff of the Labor Arbiter, and b) If the third-
party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the denial to the NLRC.
The Court ruled that the regional trial court where the reinvindicatory action is filed can
issue an injunction or temporary restraining order against the execution ordered by a labor
arbiter or the NLRC.
Veloso and Liguaton vs. DOLE
The applicable law is Article 227 of the Labor Code providing clearly as follows: Art. 227.
Compromise agreements.Any compromise settlement, including those involving labor
standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or
the regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and binding upon the parties.
The National Labor Relations Commission or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over
issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facie
evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion. The
petitioners cannot renege on their agreement simply because they may now feel they made a
mistake in not awaiting the resolution of the private respondents motion for reconsideration
and recomputation. The possibility that the original award might have been affirmed does not
justify the invalidation of the perfectly valid compromise agreements they had entered into in
good faith and with full voluntariness.
Magbanua, et al., vs. Uy
Jesalva v. Bautista upheld a compromise agreement that covered cases pending trial, on
appeal, and with final judgment. The Court noted that Article 2040 impliedly allowed such
agreements; there was no limitation as to when these should be entered into. Palanca v.
Court of Industrial Relations sustained a compromise agreement, notwithstanding a final


judgment in which only the amount of back wages was left to be determined. The Court
found no evidence of fraud or of any showing that the agreement was contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy. Gatchalian v. Arlegui upheld the right to
compromise prior to the execution of a final judgment. The Court ruled that the final
judgment had been novated and superseded by a compromise agreement. Also, Northern
Lines, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals recognized the right to compromise final and executory
judgments, as long as such right was exercised by the proper party litigants.
The validity of the agreement is determined by compliance with the requisites and principles
of contracts, not by when it was entered into.
Progressive Development Corp.-Pizza Hut vs. Laguesma
After the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization,
recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations does not merely become a ministerial function.
After a labor organization has filed the necessary papers and documents for registration, it
becomes mandatory for the Bureau of Labor Relations to check if the requirements under
Article 234 have been sedulously complied with. If its application for registration is vitiated
by falsification and serious irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the
application and the supporting documents, a labor organization should be denied recognition
as a legitimate labor organization. And if a certificate of recognition has been issued, the
propriety of the labor organizations registration could be assailed directly through
cancellation of registration proceedings in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor
Code, or indirectly, by challenging its petition for the issuance of an order for certification
election.
Tropical Hut Employees' Union-CGW vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc.
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-settled. A local
union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its
members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is
consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.
When the local union withdrew from the old federation to join a new federation, it was merely
exercising its primary right to labor organization for the effective enhancement and protection
of common interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federations
constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever its relationship with
its parent.
Philippine Skylanders, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
The Court upheld the right of the local unions to separate from their mother federation on
the ground that as separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their
creation and existence to the national federation to which they are affiliated but instead to
the will of their members.


The issue of disaffiliation is an inter-union conflict the jurisdiction of which properly lies with
the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and not with the Labor Arbiter.
Johnson and Johnson Labor Union-FFW vs. Director of Labor Relations
The union constitution is a covenant between the union and its members and among the
members. In the case at bar, there is nothing in their constitution which leaves the legal
interpretation of its terms unilaterally to the union or its officers or even the general
membership. It is noteworthy to quote the ruling made by the public respondent in this
respect, to wit: The union constitution and by-laws clearly show that any member who is
suspended or terminated from employment without reasonable cause is entitled to financial
assistance from the union and its members. The problem, however, is that the constitution
does not indicate which body has the power to determine whether a suspension or dismissal
is for reasonable cause or not. To our mind, the constitutions silence on this matter is a
clear recognition of the labor arbiters exclusive jurisdiction over dismissal cases. After all,
the unions constitution and by-laws is valid only insofar as it is not inconsistent with
existing laws.
UST Faculty vs Bitonio
A union election is held pursuant to the unions constitution and by-laws, and the right to
vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. A union election should be distinguished from a
certification election, which is the process of determining, through secret ballot, the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes
of collective bargaining. Specifically, the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain
whether or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor organization
and, in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. In a certification election,
all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can vote. Therefore, a union
member who likewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said
election. However, the reverse is not always true; an employee belonging to the appropriate
bargaining unit but who is not a member of the union cannot vote in the union election,
unless otherwise authorized by the constitution and by-laws of the union. Verily, union
affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-union activity.
Ferrer vs NLRC
While termination of employment is traditionally considered a management prerogative, the
manner of dismissal cannot be considered within the ambit of managerial prerogatives. It is
not an absolute prerogative subject as it is to limitations founded in law, the CBA, or general
principles of fair play and justice.
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from a federation in the absence of any provision in
the federations constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union is legal. Such right is
consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.



Verceles vs Bureau of Labor Relations
The use of the permissive may in the provision (Art. 241, Previously Sec. 17 Act No. 875) at
once negates the notion that the assent of 30% of all the members is mandatory. More
decisive is the fact that the provision expressly declares that the report may be made,
alternatively by any member or members specially concerned. And further confirmation that
the assent of 30% of the union members is not a factor in the acquisition of jurisdiction by
the Bureau of Labor Relations is furnished by Article 226 of the same Labor Code, which
grants original and exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau, and the Labor Relations Division in
the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor, over all inter-union and intra-union conflicts,
and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor management relations,
making no reference whatsoever to any such 30%-support requirement. Indeed, the officials
mentioned are given the power to act on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts (1) upon
request of either or both parties as well as (2) at their own initiative.
(Accdg to Azucena, in view of Arts. 238 and 239 limiting the grounds for cancellation of union
registration, the 30% requirement is not anymore relevant in relation to the particular issue of
union cancellation)
Palacol vs Calleja
The failure of a Union to comply strictly with the requirements set out by the law invalidates
the special assessment. Substantial compliance is not enough in view of the fact that the
special assessment will diminish the compensation of the union members. Their express
consent is required, and this consent must be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined
by law, which must be followed to the letter. No shortcuts are allowed.
San Jose Electric vs Ministry of Labor
Members of a cooperative who are members-co-owners do not have the right to collective
bargaining. The reason is clear: an owner cannot bargain with himself. However, employees
who are not members-consumers may form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of
collective bargaining.
A cooperative, is by its nature different from an ordinary business concern being run either,
by persons, partnerships or corporations. Its owners and/ or members are the ones who run
and operate the business while the others are its employees. As above stated, irrespective of
the name of shares owned by its members they are entitled to cast one vote each in deciding
upon the affair of the cooperative. Their share capital earn limited interests. They enjoy
special privileges as exemption from income tax and sales taxes, preferential right to supply
their products to State agencies and even exemption from minimum wage laws. An employee
therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the
right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-
owners.



ICMC vs Pura Calleja
The term "international organization" is generally used to describe an organization set up by
agreement between two or more states. Under contemporary international law, such
organizations are endowed with some degree of international legal personality such that they
are capable of exercising specific rights, duties and powers. They are organized mainly as a
means for conducting general international business in which the member states have an
interest. "Specialized agencies" are international organizations having functions in particular
fields.
Specialized Agencies are normally immune from legal process, certification election being one
of them. The immunity granted being "from every form of legal process except in so far as in
any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity," it is inaccurate to state that
a certification election is beyond the scope of that immunity for the reason that it is not a
suit against ICMC. A certification election cannot be viewed as an independent or isolated
process. It could trigger off a series of events in the collective bargaining process together
with related incidents and/or concerted activities, which could inevitably involve ICMC in the
"legal process," which includes "any penal, civil and administrative proceedings."
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers Union
Although closed-shop agreements are valid, there is an exception that may be invoked under
the right to free exercise of ones religion. Religious objectors are exempted from the coverage
of closed shop agreements. Republic Act No. 3350 merely excludes ipso jure from the
application and coverage of the closed shop agreement the employees belonging to any
religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members with any labor organization.
Members of said religious sects, therefore, cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor
unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers; that in spite
of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be refused employment
or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the collective
bargaining union.
Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division vs BLR Director Pura-Calleja
This Courts decision in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, upholding the right of
members of the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect not to join a labor union for being contrary to their
religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from forming their own union. The
public respondent correctly observed that the recognition of the tenets of the sect x x x
should not infringe on the basic right of selforganization granted by the constitution to
workers, regardless of religious affiliation.
Wise And Co., Inc. V. Wise & Co., Inc. Employees Union-NATU
Discrimination per se is not unlawful. Employer does not commit discrimination where the
situation of union employees is different and distinct from non-union employees. There can
be no discrimination where the employees concerned are not similarly situated.


Philippine Graphic Arts Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.
The decision to resort to forced leaves is a management prerogative. No unfair labor practice
is committed where forced vacation leave, required in view of the economic crisis, is enforced
neither in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, nor wanton manner, nor out of malice
or spite.
CLLC E.G. Gochangco Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission
Employer commits unfair labor practice where it interferes with its employees right to self-
organization by issuing suspension and termination orders against its employees when such
employees were in the midst of a certification election preliminary to labor management
conference. What unfolds here is a clear effort by management to punish the employees for
their union activities.
MoncadaBijon Factory v. Court of Industrial Relations
Unfair labor practice exists where the sale of the factory to a former agent of the owner is
simulated and a devise resorted to merely to get rid of the employees who are union-
members.
Complex Electronics Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission
"Runaway shop" is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners from one location to
another to escape union labor regulations or state laws, but the term is also used to describe
a plant removed to a new location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant
because of their union activities. It is one wherein the employer moves its business to
another location or it temporarily closes its business for anti-union purposes. A "runaway
shop" in this sense, is a relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business
reasons. But where there is failure to show that the primary reason for the closure of the
establishment is due to the union activities of employees, unfair labor practice is not
committed.
Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. National Labor Relations Commission
Although union-members are entitled to disaffiliate from their union and to form a new
organization of their own, they must suffer the consequences of their separation from the
union under the security clause of the collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Code
recognizes union security clause which does not constitute unfair labor practice nor is it a
violation of the freedom of association clause.
Mabeza v. National Labor Relations Commission
The act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed
labor standards provisions of law when he might have not, together with the act of
terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employer's scheme
constitutes unfair labor practice.


Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
While retrenchment undertaken by employer is legal, the prerogative to do so should not be
confused with the manner in which the prerogative is exercised and that such exercise must
be made without abuse of discretion since it affects ones person and property. The
discrimination against NAFLU members amounts to interference in the employees exercise of
their right of self-organization.