GOLDEN DONUTS, INC vs NLRC

G.R. Nos. 113666-68, January 19, 2000.

FACTS:
Private respondents were the complainants in three
consolidated cases submitted with the Labor Arbiter.
Complainants were members of the Kapisanan ng
Manggagawa sa Dunkin Donut-CFW (KMDD-CFW, for short)
whose CBA with the corporation expired. During the
negotiations, the management panel arrived late causing the
union panel to walk out. The management addressed a
letter of apology to the union and requested for negotiations
to resume. The union panel did not show up despite letters
from management advising the former of the CBA meetings.
The union struck. A complaint was filed by Golden Donuts to
declare the strike illegal. Counsel for the union and
strikers pleaded for a compromise whereupon both parties
would desist from continuing their cases against each other.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision upholding the
dismissal of private respondents and ruling that they were
bound by the compromise agreement entered into by the
union with petitioners. Private respondents appealed to the
NLRC, claiming that the union had no authority to waive or
compromise their individual rights and they were not bound
by the compromise agreement entered into by the union
with petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether or not a union may compromise or waive the
right to security of tenure and money claims of its minority
members, without the latters consent.

RULING: No. Absent a showing of the unions special

authority to compromise the individual claims of private
respondents for reinstatement and backwages, there is no
valid waiver of the aforesaid rights. Thejudgment of the
Labor Arbiter based on the compromise agreement does not
have the effect of res judicata upon private respondents who
did not agree thereto since the requirement of identity of
parties is not satisfied. A judgment upon a compromise
agreement has all the force and effect of any other judgment

and is conclusive only upon parties thereto and their privies.

Private respondents have not waived their right to security of
tenure nor can they be barred from entitlement of
their individual claims. Since there was no evidence that
private respondents committed any illegal act, petitioners
failure to reinstate them after the settlement of the strike
amounts to illegal dismissal.
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PERMEX (SMP-PIILUTUCP)
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
LABOR, PERMEX PRODUCER AND EXPORTER
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 107792 March 2, 1998
FACTS:
A certification of election was conducted among employees
of respondent Permex Producer and Exporter Corporation
(Permex Producer) where respondent National Federation is
the winning union. However some employees of Permex
Producer formed a labor organization known as Samahang
Manggagawa Sa Permex (SMP) which was later affiliated to
Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union.
SMP-PILU wrote the respondent company requesting
recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative which was later recognized by Permex
Producer and went into collective bargaining with it.
However NFL filed a petition for certification election which
was dismissed by med-arbiter but the sec of labor and
employment ordered a certification of election upon appeal.
In this case, petitioner argued that they must be the
recognized collective bargaining representative of the
company for they have been recognized by the majority of
the employee of Permex Producer as their sole collective
bargaining agent that such support by the majority of the
employees justifies its finding that the CBA made by it is
valid and binding.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the contention of the petitioner is correct?

RULING:
No. Permex Producer should not have given its voluntary
recognition for SMP-PILU when the latter asked for it, the
company does not have the power to declare the union as
such for the purpose of collective bargaining, by virtue of
Executive Order no. 111 which discontinued the direct
certification previously allowed under the labor code as a
method of selecting exclusive bargaining agent of the
workers. It is not enough that the union has the majority
support of the workers. It is equally important that everyone
in the bargaining unit must be given the opportunity to
express himself.
FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL
LABOR UNION TUCP, and EULOGIO LERUM,
G.R. No. 115180 November 16, 1999
FACTS:
Respondent National Labor Union-Trade Union Trade Union
(NLU-TUCP) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and
Employment a notice of strike against the petitioner, Filipino
Pipe and Foundry Corporation, on the alleged grounds for
union busting and non-implementation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. However, without waiting for the
outcome of the conciliation conference the FPWU-NLU staged
the strike.
petitioner company interposed before the Arbitration Branch
of the Ministry of Labor and Employment, a petition to
declare the strike illegal with prayer for damages against
FPWU-NLU, NLU-TUCP and its national president, Atty. Eulogio
Lerum, later the decision of the arbiter ministry came out
rendering the strike illegal and other damages against
respondent National Labor Union-TUCP and absolved
atty.Lerum from any liability and other individual
respondents. Both Parties appealed to NLRC which assailed
said decision.

Dissatisfied with the decision, petitioner contends that NLRC

erred in ruling when it held that private respondents NLU and
Atyy. Lerum are not primarily responsible and liable for
damages suffered by petitioner on account of illegal strike
they had directly aided,assisted,abetted and participated in.
It is argued that FPWU-NLU is a mere agent of respondent
NLU-TUCP, because FPWU-NLU, which was formed by
respondent NLU-TUCP is not registered as a local unit or
chapter but directly affiliated with the latter and therefore,
could not have acted on its own. Petition is of the view that
FPWU-NLU cannot act as the principal of NLU-TUCP because
it is not a legitimate labor organization.
ISSUE:.
Whether or not petitioners contention is correct?
RULING:
No. In the case whether or not FPWU, the local chapter,
complied with the procedural requirements that would make
it a legitimate labor organization is immaterial. It would not
affect its status as the principal and basic unit of the
association. The requirement laid down in the Progressive
Development case, that the local union must be a legitimate
labor organization, pertains to the conditions before a union
may file a petition for certification election and to be
certified as sole and exclusive bargaining agent. In the
present case, there is no dispute that FPWU-NLU is the sole
and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file
employees of Petitioner Company. The union's status as a
legitimate labor organization is therefore of no moment in
the resolution of the controversy here. As the local union, it
is considered as the principal; the entity which staged the
illegal strike and the one responsible for the resulting
damages allegedly sustained by petitioner company.