KENETTE JOY M.

FAVOR, LLB 2
KATIPUNAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA DAUNGAN (KAMADA) VS
FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R NO. 104692

September 5, 1997

FACTS:
Petitioner claims to be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the entire workers n
Ocean Terminal Services Inc. After a certification election, it concluded a collective
bargaining agreement with the company. Then respondent union, also comprising
Ocean Technical Services Inc. workers was registered. KAMADA filed a case to
cancel the registration of Respondents union, contending that the members were
already covered by the existing CBA. On the other hand, private respondent claimed
that its existence as a union could not be disturbed, as its registration was made during
the freedom period when there was no CBA concluded yet. The med-arbiter cancelled
respondents registration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was already an existing certified bargaining agreement when the
private respondents registration was obtained.
RULING:
The court stressed the present laws on union registration which are; 1) nowhere does
the law contemplates that once a union of a bargaining unit has registered with
DOLE, it will prevent all other would-be union from registering; and 2) in order to
establish order and effectively exercise this right, policies have been instituted that
application for union registration is not valid if filed within one (1) year from
certification election and/or is done during the effectivity of a CBA unless filed within
the freedom period. Hence, respondents registration is not covered by the prohibition.
Hence further, there was yet no certified bargaining agent when the private respondent
was registered as a union.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

PAGPALAIN HAULERS INC. VS TREJANO
G.R NO. 133215

JULY 15, 1999

FACTS:
Respondent Integrated Labor Organization-Pagpalain Haulers Workers Union ( ILOPHILS), in a bid to represent the rank-and-file employees (drivers and helpers) of
Pagpalain Haulers Inc., filed a petition for certification election with the DOLE.
Attached to it, are copies of its charter certificate, its CBL, its CBL, its Books of
Accounts, and list of its officers and their addresses. Petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss the petition alleging that ILO-PHILS was not a legitimate labor organization
due to its failure to comply with the requirements for registration under the Labor
Code. It claimed that the books of account submitted by ILO-PHILS were not verified
under oath by its treasurer and attested to by its president. ILO-PHILS contended that
in Department Order No. 9 Series of 1997, had dispensed with the requirement that a
local chapter of a national union submit books of account in order to be registered
with the DOLE. The Med-arbiter ordered the holding of certification election.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Med-arbiter committed grave abused of discretion in allowing
Department Order No. 9 to take precedence over the Labor Code?
RULING:
No, the Labor Code does not require the submission of books of account in order for a
labor organization to be registered as a legitimate labor organization. The requirement
that books of account be submitted as a requisite for the registration is in the
Department Order No. 9 Series of 1997. Such Department Order has been issued with
authority of the law. Under the law, the Secretary is authorized to promulgate rules
and regulations to implement the Labor Code.
Department Order No. 9 only dispenses with books of account as a requirement for
registration of a local chapter of a national union. It provides; a Labor Organization
must still maintain books of account, but it need not submit the same as a requisite for
registration.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES UNION-CGW VS. TROPICAL HUT FOOD
MARKET INC.
G.R NO. L-43493-99 January 20, 1990

FACTS:
Respondent company, organized a local union, the Tropical Hut Employees
Union(THEU), elected their officers, and adopted their CBL then immediately sought
affiliation with the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). NATU accepted
THEUs application for affiliation and Registration Certification No. 5544 IP was
issued by DOLE. However it was found out that NATU was not registered with
DOLE. CBA was concluded between parties.
NATU received a letter from the THEU informing NATU that the latter was
disaffiliating from the federation. NATU requested the dismissal of Encinor for
violation of Sect. 3 Art. III of the CBA. Respondent company, applied for clearance
with the Secretary of Labor to dismiss officers and members of THEU-CGW and also
suspend them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of petitioners employees resulting from their unions
disaffiliation from the mother federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor
practice on the part of the respondent company and federation.
RULING:
YES. When the THEU-CGW disaffiliated from its mother federation, the former did
not lose its legal personality as the bargaining union under the CBA. Further, the
union security clause embodied in the agreement cannot be used to justify the
dismissal meted to petitioners since it is not applicable to the circumstances. The CBA
imposes dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union for joining
another or fails to maintain membership therein. The instant case does not involve the
withdrawal of merely some employees from the union but the whole THEU from its
federation. Undoubtedly, since there is no violation of the union security provision in
the CBA, hence no sufficient ground to dismiss the employees.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GREENFIELDS
(MSMGOUWP) VS HON. RAMOS
G.R NO. 113907

February 28, 2000

FACTS:
MSMG is a local union affiliated with ULGWP federation. The local union election
was held, as a result the defeated candidate filed an impeachment complaint and
membership was called for. Due to the absence of some members, theres a request for
the imposition of fines for those absent members and will be deducted from their
wages. The request was denied because it is against certain laws. And this gave rise to
the local union declaration of general autonomy from the Federation. The federation
wanted to place the local union under trusteeship; the federation compelled the
company to terminate the expelled union officers. Under pressure the company
terminated the thirty (30) union officers.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the employees were illegally dismissed?
RULING:
Yes, the charges against respondent company proceeds from one main issue; the
termination of several employees upon the demand of the federation pursuant to the
union security clause; it must comply with due process. In the instant case, petitioners
were expelled for allegedly committing acts of disloyalty to the federation. The issue
is not purely intra-union matter as it was later on converted into a termination dispute
when the company dismissed the petitioners from work without the benefit of a
separate notice and hearing. As to the disaffiliation by the local union, it is settled that
a local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union in the absence of
specific provisions in the federations constitution prohibiting such.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

UST FACULTY UNION et.al VS BITONIO et.al
G.R NO. 131235

November 16, 1999

FACTS:
Private respondent Marinio, et.al, were duly elected officers of UST Faulty Union.
The union has a 5-year CBA with its employer and is set to expire on May 31, 1998.
On October 5, 1996 various UST club presidents requested a general faculty
assembly, thus, union and non-union faculty members convened. New sets of officers
were elected, in violation of the CBL and that the general assembly was held with
non-union members present. Union officers were served with a notice to vacate the
union office and the CBA was ratified by an overwhelming majority. Med-arbiter
declared the election violative of the CBL while Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
director Bitonio upheld the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to
recognize the officers elected during the general assembly?
RULING:
Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor
Code. Corollary to the right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a
labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must not only
signify the intent to become one, but also take some positive steps to realize that
intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the unions CBL.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

EVANGELINE GABRIEL VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R NO. 115949

March 16, 2000

FACTS:
Petitioners comprise the Executive Board of the Solidbank Union, the duly recognized
collective bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of Solid Bank
Corporation. Private repondents are members of said union. The Executive Boad
decided to retain anew the service of Atty. Ignacio Lacsina as Union Councel in
connection with the negotiations for a new CBA. Majority of all union members
confirmed the decision of the Executive Board to engage the services of such lawyer
as union councel.
In its resolution, it stated that ten (10) percent of the total economic benefits be given
to Atty. Lacsina as his fee. Private respondents instituted a complaint againts
petitioners and the union counsel before DOLE for illegal deductions of attorneys
fees as well as for qualifications of the benefits in the CBA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the deductions made by petitioner-company is valid?
RULING:
No, under the law, no attorneys fees, negotiation fees and other similar charges of any
kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusions of bargaining
agreement shall be imposed on any member of the contracting union. However, it can
b charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Further,
any contract or agreement to the contrary shall be null and void. Art. 241(o) provides
further, other than for the mandatory activities under the code, no special assessment,
attorneys fee or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount
due to an employee without an individual unwritten authorization duly signed by the
employee.
The General Membership Resolution of the Solid Bank Union did not satisfy the
requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence for the validity of the 10% special
assessment for unions incidental expenses, attorneys fees and negotiation expense. It
lacks individual written check off authorization of employees concerned hence, it
cannot be validly deducted.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

GOLDEN DONUTS INC. VS NLRC
G.R NOS. 113666-68

January 19, 2000

FACTS:
Complainants were members of the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Dunkin DonutCFW (KMDD-CFW) where collective bargaining agreement with the corporation
expired on November 16, 1989. During the freedom period, respondents informed the
President of the Union that initial CBA negotiation was to be held. During the
negotiations, the management panel was late and the union panel walked-out. The
management asked for an apology through a letter and requested that the CBA
negotiation be resumed; however the union panel disregarded it. The Union went
struck. A complaint was filed by Golden Donuts to declare the strike illegal. Counsel
for the union and Strikers pleaded for a compromise.
ISSUE:
Whether or not union may compromise or waive the right to security of tenure and
money claims of its minority members without the latters consent.
RULING:
NO. Even if a clear majority of the union members agreed to a settlement with the
employer, the union has no authority to compromise the individual claims of member
who did not consent to such settlement. In the case at bar, minority union members
did not authorize the union to compromise their individual claims. Absent of showing
of the unions special authority to compromise the individual claims of private
respondents for reinstatement and back wages, there is no valid waiver of the
aforesaid rights. Since private respondents did not authorize the union to represent
them in the compromise, hence, they are not bound by the terms thereof. Thus, private
respondents have not waived their right to security of tenure nor can they be banned
from entitlement of their individual claims.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INC. VS.
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO
G.R NO. 14200

January 22, 2003

FACTS:
The Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU) Philippine Transport and General
Workers Organization (PTGWO), 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 Med-Arbiter. THIGCI opposed THEUs petition for
certification elections on the ground that the list of union members submitted by it
were defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of
supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without pay (AWOL) employees, as well
as employees of the Country Club, Inc. out of the 192 signatories, only 71 were
actually worked as rank and file of THIGCI.
ISSUE:
Whether or not supervisory employees are prohibited from joining a labor union?
RULING:
No, Article 245 of the Labor Code provides that 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 organization of their own. Hence, supervisory
employees are allowed to form, assist and join their own union. What is essential is
the nature of the employees function and not the nomenclature or title given to the job
which determines whether the employee has rank-and-file or managerial status or
whether he is supervisory employee.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

ASSOCIATION OF COURT OF APPEALS EMPLOYEES (ACEA) VS.
CALLEJA
G.R NO. 94716

November 15, 1991

FACTS:
The registered respondent Union of concerned employees of the Court of Appeals
(UCECA) filed a petition for Certification Election with the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) alleging that the Association of Court of Appeals Employees
(ACAE) which the incumbent bargaining representative no longer enjoys the support
of the majority of the rank-and-file employees. It was alleged by the respondent union
that there was a mass resignation of ACAE members, ACAE opposed the allegation.
ACAE countered UCECA with misrepresentation, forgery, and perjury. Petitioner
then filed a petition for cancellation of certificate of registration of the UCECA on the
ground of fraud and misinterpretation in obtaining registration certificate.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petition for cancellation of registration of union requesting for a
certification election is a bar to the resolution of a prior petition for Certification
Election?
RULING:
The Court after careful perusal ruled in favor of UCECA by applying the established
rule correctly followed by the public respondent BLR that an order hold certification
election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the
registration certification of the respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the
time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform
such act absent an order directing a cancellation.
As to the question of the legality of labor union in government sector is well settled in
accordance with the pertinent provisions of executive order 180.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

AIRTIME SPECIALISTS INC. VS. FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R NO. 80612-16

December 29, 1982

FACTS:
Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia FFW Chapter (SAMA-ASIA)
filed, before the Ministry of Labor and Employment, National Capital Region, two
separate petitions for direct certification and/or certification election on behalf of the
regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioners Airtime Specialists and Absolute,
Inc. The other respondent Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa ATACO-FFW Chapter
also filed with similar separate petitions in behalf of the regular rank-and-file
employees of petitioners Country-Wealth Development Ad Planner and Marketing
Counsellors and Atlas Resources. All these cases were consolidated. Petitioners filed
motion to dismiss on the following grounds disaffiliation of the rank-and-file
employees, ineligibility of some signatures because they had less than one year of
service resulting in the non-compliance with the 30% requirement.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion in ordering a
certification election
RULING:
The court had made it clear that it should give discretion to the court of Industrial
Relations, or in this case, the Bureau of Labor Relations in deciding whether or not to
grant a petition for certification election considering the facts and circumstances of
which it has intimate knowledge. Moreover, a perusal of Art. 258 of Labor Code as
amended by PD 442 provides that compliance with the 30% requirement (now 20%)
makes it mandatory upon the BLR to order the holding of a certification election in
order to determine the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees. It means that with
such, the Bureau is left without any discretion but to order the holding of certification
election. Where the petition is supported by less than 20% the BLR has discretion
whether or not to order the holding of certification election depending on the
circumstance of the case.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

SAN MIGUEL UNION VS. LAGUESMA
G.R. NO. 110299

August 15, 1997

FACTS:
San Miguel Union filed a petition with DOLE, a certification election among
supervisors and exempt employees of their other branches. The Med-arbiter ordered
the conduct of certification election among employees of the different plants as one
bargaining unit. San Miguel Corporation filed a notice of appeal pointing out the
Med-arbiter error in grouping together all three separate plants into one bargaining
unit including supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential in
nature.
ISSUE:
Whether or not supervisory level 3 and 4 are confidential employees; if not, do the
employees of the three plants constitute a single bargaining unit?
RULING:
No. The said employees do not fall within the term confidential employees. They are
not qualified to be classified as managerial employees who are not eligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization. They are not also allowed to be a member in a
labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form
separate labor organizations of their own. An appropriate bargaining unit may be
defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all
of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees,
consistent with equity to the employer indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal
rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

GOLDEN FARMS, INC. vs. FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R. No. 78755

July 19, 1989

FACTS:
Private respondent filed a Petition for Direct Certification Election or
Recognition in behalf of certain office employees and foremen before DOLE.
Petitioner herein opposed said petition on the ground among others that a perusal of
the names allegedly supporting the said petition showed that said persons by the
nature of their jobs are performing managerial functions and/or occupying
confidential positions such that they cannot validly constitute a separate or distinct
group from the existing collective bargaining unit also represented by private
respondent. Private respondent Union represents the employees/workers of Petitioner
Corporation, who were the same signatories to an earlier Petition for Certification
Election filed in 1984 before the Ministry of Labor known as ROXI Case No. UR-7084, which was dismissed by a Resolution issued by Med-Arbiter Conchita Martinez
when it was established that a collective bargaining unit (NFL) between the
Corporation and the rank-and-file employees was and is in existence at the time of the
filing of the said petition for certification election until the present filing. Med-Arbiter
Martinez singled out in her classification as rank-and-file employees the foremen of
Petitioner Corporation considered from their joint affidavits and for lack of
convincing proof that their supervisory designations are coupled with the actual
performance of managerial functions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not managerial and confidential employees excluded from joining unions.
RULING:
No. The Court ruled that if these managerial employees would belong to or be
affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in
view of evident conflict of interests or that the Union can be company- dominated
with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership. A managerial
employee is defined under Art. 212 (k) of the new Labor Code as "one who is vested
with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to
effectively recommend such managerial actions. All employees not falling within this
definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book."

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PICOP) VS.
LAGUESMA
G. R. No.101738

April 12, 2000

FACTS:
Petitioner Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) is engaged in the
manufacture of paper and timber products. More or less 487 of these supervisory and
technical staff employees are signatory members of the private respondent PICOPBislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU). PBSTSEU
instituted a Petition for Certification Election to determine the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP for CBA
purposes. PICOP questioned and objected to the inclusion of some section heads and
supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassified as
managerial employees in the light of the reorganization effected by it. PICOP
advanced the view that considering the alleged present authority of these section
managers and unit managers to hire and fire, they are classified as managerial
employees, and hence, ineligible to form or join any labor organization.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section Heads and Supervisors, who have been designated as Section
Managers and Unit Managers are considered managerial employees.
RULING:
No. The Court ruled that Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers, Middle
Managers and First Line Managers. Top and Middle Managers have the authority to
devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of
First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rankand- file employees of an organization. Under this distinction, "managerial
employees" therefore fall in two (2) categories, namely, the "managers" per se
composed of Top and Middle Managers, and the "supervisors" composed of First-Line
Managers. Thus, the mere fact that an employee is designated manager" does not ipso
facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description
of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of
employment.
In the case, the concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably
show that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since they
do not lay down company policies. Hence, finding the subject supervisors and section
heads as supervisory employees, they are eligible to vote in the certification election.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL
VS. FERRER-CALLEJA
181 SCRA 119

FACTS:
The petitioner is the recognized collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees of Triumph International with which the latter has a valid and existing
collective bargaining agreement effective up to September 24, 1989. In 1987, a
petition for certification election was filed by the respondent union with the
Department of Labor and Employment. A motion to dismiss the petition for
certification election was filed by Triumph International on the grounds that the
respondent union cannot lawfully represent managerial employees and that the
petition cannot prosper by virtue of the contract-bar rule. The Labor Arbiter issued an
order granting the petition for certification election and directing the holding of a
certification election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
all monthly-paid administrative, technical, confidential and supervisory employees of
Triumph International.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the public respondent gravely abused its discretion in ordering the
immediate holding of a certification election among the workers sought to be
represented by the respondent union.
RULING:
No. The Court averred that where the supervisory employees sought to be represented
by the union are actually not involved in policy making and their recommendatory
powers are not even instantly effective since they are subject to review by at least
three (3) managers (dept. mgr., personnel mgr. And general manager), then it is
evident that these employees does not possess managerial status. This case reveals no
evidence that rules out the commonality or community of interest among the rankand-file members of the petitioners, and the herein declared rank-and-file members of
the respondent union. Instead of forming another bargaining unit, the law requires
them to be members of the existing one.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC VS. FERRER-CALLEJA
G.R. No. 79025

December 29, 1989

FACTS:
Beneco Worker's Labor Union-Association of Democratic Labor Organizations
(BWLU- ADLO) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Benguet Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO) alleging that BENECO has in its employ 214 rank and
file employees that no certification election has been conducted for the last 12
months; that there is no existing collective bargaining representative of the rank and
file employees sought to represented by BWLU- ADLO; and, that there is no
collective bargaining agreement in the cooperative. An opposition to the petition was
filed by the Beneco Employees Labor Union (BELU) contending that it was certified
as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the subject workers; that
pending resolution by the NLRC are two cases it filed against BENECO involving
bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice; and, that the pendency of these cases
bars any representation question.
BENECO, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming that it is a
non-profit electric cooperative engaged in providing electric services to its members
and patron-consumers; and, that the employees sought to be represented by BWLUADLO are not eligible to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing because they are members and joint owners of the cooperative.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the employees of a cooperative are qualified to form or join a labor
organization for purposes of collective bargaining.
RULING:
No. Under Article 256 of the Labor Code, to have a valid certification election, "at
least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor
union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent of all workers in the unit." BENECO asserts that the certification
election held was null and void since members-employees who are not eligible to
form and join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining were allowed to vote
therein.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICE VS. LAGUESMA
205 SCRA 12

(1992)

FACTS:
Private respondents Kampil-Katipunan filed petition for certification election on
behalf of the supervisors union, a union where the supervisory, administrative
personnel, production, accounting and confidential employees of the petitioner were
affiliated. Petitioner opposed the petition on the ground that Kampil Katipunan cannot
represent the supervisory employees for the purpose of collective bargaining because
said Kampil Katipunan also represents the rank-and-file employees union. The MedArbiter rendered a decision in favor of the private respondent. On appeal, the
Secretary of Labor affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. Petitioner now argue that
to allow the supervisory employees to affiliate with the Kampil Katipunan is
tantamount to allowing the circumvention of the principle of the separation of
unions under Art. 245 of the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
Whether a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a
national federation of labor organizations of rank-and-file employees for purpose of
CBA?
RULING:
NO. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that a conflict of interest may
arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes. Members of the
supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary measures against their comember rank-and-file employees.
Under Article 245 of the Labor states 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.
The Court construes Article 245 to mean that supervisors shall not be given an
occasion to bargain together with the rank-and-file against the interests of the
employer regarding terms and conditions of work. Thus, if the intent of the law is to
avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank and-file or where the
supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting interests, then a local
supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of
union of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively participates in union
activity in the company.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
G.R. No. 96189

FERRER-CALLEJA

July 14, 1992

FACTS:
The Organization of Non-Academic Working Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) filed a
petiotion for certification election with the BLR. Petitioner UP did not object the
petition but another labor union, the All UP Workers Union (All UP) filed a motion
for intervention. It alleged that its membership covers both academic and nonacademic personnel, and that it aims to unite all rank-and-file employees in one union.
It assented to the holding of the certification election provided the appropriate
organizational unit was first clearly defined. It observed in this connection that the
Research, Extension and Professorial Staff (REPS), who are academic non-teaching
personnel, should not be deemed part of the organizational unit. The herein
respondent BLR Director Calleja decided that the appropriate organizational unit
should embrace all the regular rank-and-file employees and that No evidence to
justify the grouping of non-academic personnel separate from academic personnel.
She thus ordered the holding of a certification among all rank-and-file employees,
teaching and non-teaching.
ISSUE:
Whether or not professors, associate professors and assistant professors high-level
employees?
RULING:
No. The functions of the DAPC and UAPB are merely recommendatory. Ultimately,
the power to hire, fire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, dismiss, assign or discipline
employees rests with the Board of Regents. It is also clear that all academic personnel
cannot be considered high-level employees, because not all of them are members of
the DAPC/UAPB. They must be appointed or elected. Neither can membership in the
University Council elevate the professors to the status of high-level employees.
In addition, the policy-determining functions of the University Council refer to
academic matters, i.e. those governing the relationship between the University and its
students, and not the University as an employer and the professors as employees. It is
thus evident that no conflict of interest results in the professors being members of the
University Council and being classified as rank-and-file employees.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

REYES VS. TRAJANO
209 SCRA 484

June 2, 1992

FACTS:
The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20,
1987. The competing unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor
Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of
the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to
be qualified voters, only 240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the
supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast
their votes were 141 members of the INK. The ballots provided for three (3) choices.
They provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of the two (2) contending
labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and, conformably with
established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: NO UNION.
The respondent acting as the officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations
sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one
(141) members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), all employed in the same company, at
a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right
to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the members of the INC be allowed to have collective bargaining.
RULING:
Yes. Under the Art. 242 of the Labor Code which states the rights of legitimate labor
organizations. A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: (a) to act as the
representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining; and (b) to be
certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.

KENETTE JOY M. FAVOR, LLB 2

NEGROS ORIENTAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 1 VS SECRETARY OF
DOLE
G.R. No. 143616

May 9, 2001

FACTS:
On December 10, 1997, Philippine agricultural commercial and industrial workers
union. Trade union congress of the Philippines (PACIWU-TUCP) filed a petition for
certification election on behalf of NORECO 1 chapter, seeking to represent the
seventy-seven (77) rank-and-file employer of NORECO 1. PACIWU-TUCP alleged
in its petition that it had created a local chapter in NORECO 1 which had been duly
reported to DOLE. It was further averred therein that NORECO 1 is an unorganized
establishment, and that there is no other labor organization presently existing at the
said employer establishment. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition. The record
shown that the petitioner has just applied for registration. The corresponding
certificate has not yet acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner
filed a MR but was denied.
The appellate court ruled that the secretary of Labor properly treated
PACIWU-TUCPs MR (Motion for Reconsideration) as an appeal, and the chapter was
deemed to have acquired legal personality from submission of the documents. The
court also dismissed petitioner contention assailing the composition of the private
respondent union.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in allowing certification elections when all the member of
the union is members of the cooperative.
RULING:
No. in Cooperative Bank of Davao City, Inc. VS Ferrer Calleja: an employee of a
cooperative who is member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective
bargaining however, in so far as it involves cooperative with employees who are not
member or co-owners; such employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all worker
to organization, collective bargaining, negotiation and others as are enshrined in the
constitution and existing laws of the country. No proof was shown that anyone of the
union members are members or co-owners of the cooperative. It also declared that not
all member of the petitioning union are members of the cooperative. The SC said that
in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are not members or coowners, such employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all the workers to
organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others.