G. R. No.

L-53406 December 14, 1981

NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
MINISTER OF LABOR, THE HONORABLE DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR, THE
HONORABLE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,
PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

MAKASIAR, J.:
Facts: Petitioner Union filed a petition to be directly certified as collective
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent corporation.
Private respondent was required to submit a payroll of employees. In a handwritten
manifestation, respondent employer through counsel, agreed that as soon as the
registration certificate of the local union was issued by the Ministry of Labor and
that it was shown that the local union represents the majority of the rank and file,
the Bank would recognize the said union and would negotiate. The said registration
certificate of the local union was secured.
Petitioner filed a Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Decide and submitted a copy
of the Registration Certificate of the local union and union membership application
of 183 members out of more or less 259 rank and file employees of employer Bank,
authorizing the NUBE to represent them "as their sole and exclusive collective
bargaining agent in all matters relating to salary rates, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment in the Producers Bank of the Philippines".
Nonetheless, respondent corporation failed to submit the required payroll and the
list of rank and file workers based on said payroll.
The Med-Arbiter issued an order directing the holding of a certification election.
Respondent corporation filed a motion to suspend further proceedings because of
an allegedly prejudicial issue consisting of a pending proceeding for cancellation of
the registration of petitioning union for allegedly engaging in prohibited and
unlawful activities in violation of the laws.
By agreement of the parties, respondent then Deputy Minister of Labor assumed
jurisdiction over the certification election case. Med-Arbiter Luna Piezas conducted
hearings but withdrew, in view of the alleged utter disrespect for authority, gross
bad faith, malicious refusal to appreciate effective, prompt and honest service and
resorting in malicious and deliberate lying in dealing with Ministry of Labor officials
by a certain Mr. Jun Umali, spokesman of the Producers' Bank Employees
Association. The case was then transferred to Med-Arbiter Alberto Abs. Respondent
Bank failed to submit a list of rank and file employees proposed to be excluded from
the bargaining unit. Med-Arbiter Alberto Abis Jr. ordered the holding of certification
election among the rank and file employees but sustained the stand of respondent
company as to the exclusion of certain employees. Petitioner filed a partial appeal
to the Director of Bureau of Labor Relations questioning the exclusions made by
Med-Arbiter Abs. Respondent bank likewise appealed from the aforesaid order of
Med-Arbiter. The Bureau of Labor Relations Director rendered a decision affirming

the Med-Arbiter's order. Petitioner received an undated and unverified appeal of the
respondent bank to the Minister of Labor questioning the decision of Bureau of
Labor Relations. Public respondent Director did not proceed to hold the certification
election, neither did the Minister of Labor act on the appeal of private respondent
and on petitioner's motion to dismiss with motion to execute. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether certification election should be held under circumstances obtaining
in the present case.
Ruling: Yes. The pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration
certificate of herein petitioner union is not a bar to the holding of a certification
election. The pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate
of petitioner union founded on the alleged illegal strikes staged by the leaders and
members of the intervenor union and petitioner union should not suspend the
holding of a certification election, because there is no order directing such
cancellation. In said Dairy Queen case, one of the issues raised was whether the
lower court erred and concomitantly committed grave abuse of discretion in
disregarding the fact that therein respondent union's permit and license have been
cancelled by the then Department of Labor and therefore could not be certified as
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of
therein petitioner company.

G.R. No. L-44350 November 25, 1976

U.E. AUTOMOTIVE EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION-TRADE UNIONS OF
THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES, petitioners, vs. CARMELO C.
NORIEL, PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND U. E. AUTOMOTIVE
MANUFACTURING CO., INC., respondents.
FERNANDO, J.:

Facts: A petition for certification election with the National Labor Relations
Commission was filed by petitioner. Private respondent Philippine Federation of
Labor submitted a motion for intervention. Three conferences between such labor
organizations resulted in an agreement to hold a consent election. Petitioner
obtained fifty-nine votes, with respondent union having only fifty-two votes in such
consent election. Respondent Director certify petitioner as the sole land exclusive
collective bargaining representative. There was, however, a motion for
reconsideration which was granted setting aside the previous order certifying
petitioner as the sole bargaining representative. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether the respondent director erred in setting aside his previous order.
Ruling: Yes. 'Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or
assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective
bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or

protection. The new Labor Code is equally explicit on the matter. Thus: 'The State
shall assure the rights of workers of self-organization, collective bargaining, security
of tenure and just and humane conditions of work.'"
In the absence of any fatal defect to the application for registration, there is no
justification for withholding it from petitioner to enable it to exercise fully its
constitutional right to freedom of association. In the alternative, the petition could
very well be considered as having been filed by the parent labor federation. What is
decisive is that the members of petitioner Union did exercise their fundamental
right to self-organization and did win in a fair and honest election.

[G.R. No. 142000. January 22, 2003]

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED,
petitioner, vs. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNIONPGTWO,respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Facts: Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU), a legitimate labor organization

said to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a petition
for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit. THIGCI
opposed THEUs petition for certification election on the ground that the list of union
members submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names
and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without leave
(AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation
distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the
petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. DOLE Med-Arbiter
ordered the holding of a certification election. THIGCI appealed to the Office of the
DOLE Secretary which set aside the said Med-Arbiters Order and accordingly
dismissed the petition for certification election. Upon Motion for Reconsideration by
THEU, DOLE Undersecretary, by authority of the DOLE Secretary, issued DOLE
Resolution setting aside its former resolution holding that the names of alleged
disqualified supervisory employees and employees of the Country Club, Inc. should
simply be removed from the THEUs roster of membership; and that regarding the
participation of alleged resigned and AWOL employees and those whose signatures
are illegible, the issue can be resolved during the inclusion-exclusion proceedings at
the pre-election stage. When it reached CA, it denied THIGCIs Petition for Certiorari
and affirmed the DOLE Resolution. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether CA erred in affirming the DOLE Resolution.
Ruling: The statutory authority for the exclusion of supervisory employees in a
rank-and-file union, and vice-versa, is Article 245 of the Labor Code, to wit:

Article 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization;

right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees are not eligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join,
assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.
While above-quoted Article 245 expressly prohibits supervisory employees from
joining a rank-and-file union, it does not provide what would be the effect if a rankandfile union counts supervisory employees among its members, or vice-versa.
Clearly, based on this provision [Article 245], a labor organization composed of both
rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot,
for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an
organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees
cannot posses any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the
right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective
bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order
allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor
organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the
basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be
subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition
for cancellation.
The grounds for cancellation of union registration are provided for under Article 239
of the Labor Code, as follows:
Art. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. The following shall
constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
(b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within
thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto;
(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to subject
these documents together with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and
their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election;
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty (30) days
after the losing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in
the preparation of the financial report itself;
(e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the cabo system, or otherwise
engaging in any activity prohibited by law;

(f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and
conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law;
(g) Asking for or accepting attorneys fees or negotiation fees from employers;
(h) Other than for mandatory activities under this Code, checking off special
assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual written authorizations
of the members;
(i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or
whenever required by the Bureau; and
(j) Failure to comply with the requirements under Articles 237 and 238
The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for
cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of
above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code. THEU, having been validly issued a
certificate of registration, should be considered to have already acquired juridical
personality which may not be assailed collaterally.

G.R. Nos. L-18778 and L-18779

August 31, 1967

UNITED SEAMEN'S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. DAVAO

SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ANGTIONG SONS and/or RICARDO ANG,
ownermanager; ANGLIONGTO SONS and COMPANY, GARCIA WATER
TRANSPORTATION, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.,
respondents.
MAKALINTAL, J.

Facts: Petitioner United Seamen's Union of the Philippines presented a set of

demands to respondent Davao Shipowners Association representing respondent
shipping companies, for union recognition, union security, standardization of wages
and other benefits. In its answer, the Shipowners invited USUP's attention to the
existence of a collective bargaining agreement with the Davao Marine Association,
to which all the crewmen of their launches belonged. Since the Shipowners were
bound by said collective bargaining agreement until the end of that year, it
suggested that USUP first take the necessary steps to be certified as the collective
bargaining agent of the employees before they could negotiate in connection with
its proposals.
However, even before receiving the Shipowners' answer to its set of demands, USUP
had filed with the Department of Labor of Davao City a notice of strike against all
the individual shipowners. The Chief of the Labor Operations Section of the Davao
Regional Office requested USUP and the Shipowners to a conference with a view to
settling the conflict. The Shipowners and the Association reached an agreement. As
stipulated, USUP filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a petition for certification

election to determine the sole collective bargaining representative of all the workers
and employees of respondent shipping companies. The respondent shipping
companies separately served notices of termination of service upon 64 employees
for reasons ranging from stoppage of operations due to the death of a partner to
business losses and reversals. USUP reported the matter to the Department of Labor
in Davao City. The Regional Office thereupon called the parties to a conference, but
apparently USUP formally notifies that they would declare a strike. Respondent filed
a petition for a writ of injunction. USUP filed an unfair labor practice case against
herein respondents which was dismissed and a permanent injunction was issued
declaring the strike staged by the members of the USUP unjustified and illegal.
Issue: Whether the Court of Industrial Relations gravely abuse its discretion, as
claimed, in declaring the strike staged by the members of the USUP unjustified and
illegal.
Ruling: Where, "in carrying out the strike, coercion, force, intimidation, violation
with physical injuries, sabotage and the use of unnecessary and obscene language
or epithets were committed by the top officials and members of the union in an
attempt to prevent the other willing laborers to go to work," it was held that "a
strike hold under those circumstances cannot be justified in a regime of law for that
would encourage abuses and terrorism and could subvert the very purpose of the
law which provides for arbitration and peaceful settlement of labor disputes."
A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of promoting
the interests of labor without unnecessary labor disputes. That is why it is given
personality and recognition in concluding collective bargaining agreements. But if it
is made use of as a subterfuge, or as a means to subvert valid commitments, it
defeats its own purpose, for it tends to undermine the harmonious relations
between management and labor. The situation does not deserve any approving
sanction from the Court.
In view of our conclusion that the strike staged by petitioner USUP was illegal and
unjustified and that the permanent injunction issued by the lower court was proper.

G.R. Nos. 64821-23 January 29, 1993

UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY UNION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN,
respondents.
ROMERO, J.:
Facts: Petitioner filed seven complaints against the University of Pangasinan before
the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Dagupan City for non-payment of Ecolas under
P.D. Nos. 525, 1123, 1614, 1634, 1678 and 1713. The six complaints were
submitted for compulsory arbitration and the seventh was discussed in its position
paper. On the alleged nonpayment of extra loads handled by the employees on
when classes were suspended, LA stated that Consuelo Abad, the petitioner's

president, had no cause to complain because her salary was fully paid and that,
since there were "no complainants for the alleged nonpayment of extra loads for
two days,". LA ruled that because at the time P.D. No. 1123 took effect on May 1,
1977, the University had not increased its tuition fees, there was of "nothing to
integrate." However, from June 16, 1979 when the University increased its tuition
fees, it was obligated to cause the integration of the across-the-board increase of
P60.00 in emergency allowance into the basic pay as mandated by P.D. Nos. 1123
and 1751. The complaints were resolved in favor of the university. On appeal, NLRC
affirmed LAs decision. Petitioner contends that they have the capacity to represent
its members in the complaints it filed thru its president, Miss Consuelo Abad,
against private respondent, and the complaints are pertaining to the members who
are entitled under the law to the claims sought, not to Miss Abad alone.
Issue: Whether cases filed by petitioners president should affect all the other
union members.
Ruling: Yes. The uncontroverted allegation of the petitioner is that it is the holder of
Registration Certificate No. 9865C, having been registered with the then Ministry of
Labor and Employment. As such, petitioner possessed the legal personality to sue
and be sued under its registered name. Corollarily, its president, Consuelo Abad,
correctly filed the complaints even if some of them involved rights and interest
purely or exclusively appertaining to individual employees, it appearing that she
signed the complaints "for and in behalf of the University of Pangasinan Faculty
Union."
The University's contention that petitioner had no legal personality to institute and
prosecute money claims must, therefore, fail. To quote then Associate Justice
Teehankee in Heirs of Teodelo M. Cruz v. CIR, "what should be borne in mind is that
the interest of the individual worker can be better protected on the whole by a
strong union aware of its moral and legal obligations to represent the rank and file
faithfully and secure for them the best wages and working terms and conditions.
Although this was stated within the context of collective bargaining, it applies
equally well to cases, such as the present wherein the union, through its president,
presented its individual members' grievances through proper proceedings. While
the complaints might not have disclosed the identities of the individual employees
claiming monetary benefits, such technical defect should not be taken against the
claimants, especially because the University appears to have failed to demand a bill
of particulars during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.
On the merits of the petition, the NLRC did not abuse its discretion in resolving the
appeal from the decision of Executive Labor Arbiter Tumang except for the
disallowance of the emergency cost of living allowance to members of the
petitioner.

G.R. No. 183317, December 21, December 21, 2009

MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC., Petitioner,

- versus THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, CHIEF OF
THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF DOLE REGIONAL OFFICE NUMBER
IV-A & SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS,
INC. (SMMSC-INDEPENDENT), Respondents.
Facts: Respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics,
Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate
labor organization by the DOLE Region IV-A. Petitioner filed a Petition for
Cancellation of Union Registration claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of the
Labor Code for not complying with the 20% requirement due to union members who
executed affidavits recanting their union membership, and that it committed
massive fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 of the same code.
The Regional Director granted the petition. Aggrieved, respondent appealed to BLR.
The latter granted the appeal. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.
On appeal, CA denied the same. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether CA erred in ruling that private respondent union complied with the
20% membership requirement.
Ruling: A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. For this
reason, retractions are looked upon with disfavor and do not automatically exclude
the original statement or declaration based solely on the recantation. It is
imperative that a determination be first made as to which between the original and
the new statements should be given weight or accorded belief, applying the general
rules on evidence. In this case, inasmuch as they remain bare allegations, the
purported recantations should not be upheld.
While it is true that the withdrawal of support may be considered as a resignation
from the union, the fact remains that at the time of the unions application for
registration, the affiants were members of respondent and they comprised more
than the required 20% membership for purposes of registration as a labor union.
Article 234 of the Labor Code merely requires a 20% minimum membership during
the application for union registration. It does not mandate that a union must
maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all throughout its existence.