Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

LABOR ORGANIZATION

1. KNITJOY MANUFACTURING INC. VS PURA FERRER-CALLEJA


FACTS: Petitioner Knitjoy had a collective bargaining agreement with the Federation of Filipino
Workers (FFW) wich covers the regular rank and file employees paid on a daily or piece-rate
basis. Prior to the expiration of FFW, it was split into two (2) factions, the Johnny Tan and the
Aranza Mendez factions. The latter eventually became the Confederation of Filipino Workers.
On June 24, 1987, private respondent KMEU filed a petition for certification election among
Knitjoys regular rank and file employees paid on monthly basis. The petition was dismissed by
the Med-Arbiter. KMEU appealed. On December 1, 1987, public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja,
Director of BLR, reversed said order of the Med-Arbiter.
ISSUE: WON there is grave abuse of discretion when public respondent reversed the decision.
HELD: No. CFW covers only the regular rank and file employees paid on a daily or piece-rate
basis. It did not include the regular rank and file employees paid on monthly basis. Thus, the
premises of KMEU, Knitjoys monthly paid employees, is hereby granted subject to the
exclusion of the monthly paid employees who are deemed managerial. Let, therefore, the
certification election proceed without delay. The companys last payroll shall be the basis in
determining the list of eligible voters.
2. VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNION
FACTS: Plaintiff is a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers Union who later resigned from his
affiliation of the said union by reason of the prohibition of his religion for its members to
become affiliated with any labor organization. The union has subsequent closed-shop agreement
in their collective bargaining agreement with their employer that all permanent employees of the
company must be a member of the union and later was amended by RA No. 3350 with the
provision stating but shuch agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which
prohibits affiliation of their members in any such labor organization. By his resignation, the
union wrote a letter to the company to separate the plaintiff from the service after which he was
informed by the company that unless he makes a satisfactory agreement with the union, he will
be dismissed from the service.. the union contends that RA 3350 impairs obligation of contract
stipulated in their CBA and discriminatorily favors religious sects in providing exemption to be
affiliated with any labor unions.
ISSUE: WON RA 3350 impairs the right to form association.
HELD: The court held that what the constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognize and
guarantee is the right to form or join association which involves two broad notions namely
liberty or freedom and power whereby an employee may join or refrain from joining an
association. The exceptions provided by the assailed RA is that members of said religous sects
cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed-shop
agreement 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 agent. Thus, this exception does not
infringe upons the constitutional provisions on freedom of association but instead, reinforces it.
3. JUAT VS CIR
FACTS: On December 1, 1959, a collective bargaining agreement was entered into between the
Bulaklak publications and the Busocope Labor Union, to remain in effect for three years. Section
4 of said agreement contains closed-shop proviso. On December 27, 1960, said section 4 of
agreement was amemded, and that all employees and/or workers who worked on January 1, 1960
are members of the union with good standing in accordance with its constitution and by-laws and
all members who become members after that date shall, as a condition of employment, maintain
their membership of the union for the duration of this agreement. Petitioner Santos Juat filed a
case before the Court of Industrial Relations against respondent Bulaklak publications and its
executive officer for unfair labor practice when his employer terminated him without just cause
on March 15, 1961. The respondent alleged, among others, that complainant Juat was suspended
for a cause; that Juat was asked by his respondent employer to join the Busocope Labor Union
but he refused to do so; that it was complainant Juat who had caused his separation when he
ignored the letter sent to him by the executive officer of respondent company, requiring him to
report to work, after being suspended for 15 days.
ISSUE: WON the proviso of said collective bargaining agreemnt applies to the petitioner.
HELD: Yes. Although the petitioner has been working in the respondent company since 1953,
and the closed-shop proviso in question was entered into only on December 1, 1959, and
amemded on December 27, 1960, it was also established that the petitioner was not a member of
any labor union when that collective bargaining agreement was entered into. It should be
declared, therefore, as a settled doctrine, that the closed-shop proviso of a collective bargaining
agreement entered into between an employer and a duly authorized labor union applies, and
should be applied, to old workers or employers who are non-members of any labor union at the
time the collective bargaining agreement was entered into.
4. PORT WORKERS UNION VS LAGUESMA
5. GALLEGO VS KAPISANAN TIMBULAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA
FACTS: Kapisanan Timbulan ng mga Manggagawa, an organization of tenants and farm
laborers duly registered in accordance with law, filed a complaint against Manuel Gallego, et al.,
owners of Haciendas situated in the Municipalities of Cuyapo and Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija.
Respondents complaint alleged that their members are tenants of petitioners who by mean of
threat, intimidation, fraud, and deceit, took advantage of the ignorance of the tenants and forced
them to enter into contracts the provisions of which are against law and public policy. Petitioners
moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground, among others, that there is no legal
capacity to sue. The said motion was denied by the Court of Industrial Relations.

ISSUE: WON the respondent has legal capacity to sue from the annulment of contract of its
members.
HELD: A labor organization duly registered in accordance with law, is enough to give said
organization a legal personality for purposes of filing a complaint with the Court of Industrial
Relations. Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 2113 provides that all association which are duly
organized and registered...shall have the right to collective bargaining with employer for the
purposes of seeking better working hours for laborer and in general, to promote the material,
social, and moral well-being of their members. The petition for the writ of certiorari, being
unmeritorious as above stated, is dismissed. Petitioners shall pay the costs.
6. ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER VS TORRES
FACTS: When the collective bargaining agreement for the period August 1, 1987 to July 30,
1990 was forged between petitioner and private respondent, the incumbent national President of
Alliance of Filipino Workers (AFW) was Gregorio Del Prado. Before the expiration of the 198790 CBA, the AFW was plagued by internal squabble splitting leadership between Del Prado and
Ramirez. On January 22, 1991, a resolution was issued in the consoldated cases which eventually
declared Del Prado and his group as the legitimate officials of the AFW and acknowledged group
to represent AFW. On January 28, 1991, public respondent Secretary of Labor Ruben D. Torres
issued an order containing a disposition on both the economic and non-economic issues raised in
the petition.
ISSUE: WON public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when he curtailed the
parties right to free collective bargaining.
HELD: Public respondent, in the exercise of his power to assume over subject labor dispute, and
considering public respondents expertise on the subject, the assailed order deserves to be
accorded great respect by this court. As to who may negotiate to the petitioner, only the
collective bargaining agent, the local union SLMCEA, possesses legal standing to do such.
Appending AFW to the local unions name does not mean that the federation absorbed the
latter. No such merger can be construed. Rather, what is conveyed is the idea of affiliation, with
the local union and the larger national federation.
7. MANILA ORIENTAL SAWMILL CO. VS NLU AND CIR
FACTS: The United Employees Welfare Association, is the duly registered union in the
Department of Labor whose members are employees of Manila Oriental Sawmill Co. They
entered into an agreement of working conditions pursuant to a settlement concluded of the Court
of Industrial Relations, which is to last for one year. Subseuently, 36 out of its 37 members
tendered in their resignations from the union and joined the local chapter of the National Labor
Union. There is no evidence that these resignations were made with the approval of the company.
ISSUE: WON the transfer of the employees from the union to the National Labor Union is
illegal.

HELD: It is evident that the purpose of their transfer is merely to disregard and circumvent the
contract entered into between the same employees and the petitioner on May 4, 1950, knowing
full well that the contract was effective for one year and was entered into with the saction of the
Court of Industrial Relations. A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate
purpose of settling labor disputes. That is why it is given personality and recognition in
concluding collective bargaining agrrements. But if it is made use as a subterfuge or as a means
to subvert valid commitments, it outlives its purpose for far from being an aid, it tends to
undermine the harmonious relations between management and labor.
8. ELISCO-ELIROL LABOR UNION
FACTS: On July 10, 1975, the petitioner union, during a special meeting, to disaffiliate from
their mother union, the National Federation of Labor Unions since it can no longer safeguard the
rights of its members in so far as working conditions and other terms of employment are
concerned. The respondent company, without justifiable reason refused and continues to refuse
to recognize petitioner as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, and
flnow actually dismissed the petitioner unions officers and board members. In this connection, a
complaint for unfair labor practice was filed by petitioners against respondent for the latters
refusal to bargain collectively. The said petition was dismissed.
ISSUE:WON the dismissal of the petitione was meritorious.
HELD: No. The employees and members of the local union did not form a new union but
merely registered the local union as was their right. Petitioner, consisting of employees and
members of the local union was the principal party to the agreement. NAFLU as the mother
union in participation in the execution of the bargaining agreement with the respondent company
acted merely as agent of the local union, which remained the basic unit of the association
existing principally and freely to serve the common interest of all its members, including the
freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances so warranted. The petition is granted and the
assialed resolution is set aside and the petitioner is declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees.
9. ALEX FERRER VS NLRC
FACTS: On May 16, 1989, petitioner Ferrer and companion filed with the Department of Labor
and Employment a complaint seeking the expulsion from SAMAHAN of its officers headed by
President Capitle. The complaint was founded on the said officers alleged lack of attention to the
economic demands of the workers. However, on September 4, 1989, petitioners conducted a
special election of officers of the SAMAHAN. FFW, to which the SAMAHAN is affiliated,
questioned the election. On September 11, 1989, the union officials headed by Capitle expelled
Ferrer, et al from the union. Thus, contending that their dismissal was without cause and in utter
disregard of their right to due process, petitioners through the FEDLU, filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.

ISSUE: WON the expulsion and dismissal is meritorious.


HELD: No hearing was ever conducted by the SAMAHAN to look into petitioners explanation
of their moves to oust the union leadership under Capitle, or their subsequent affiliation with
FEDLU. While it is true that petitioners action precipitated divisiveness and, later, showed
disloyalty to the union, still, the SAMAHAN should have observed its own constitution and bylaws by giving petitioners an opportunity to ar their side and explain their moves. If, after an
investigation, the petitioners were found to have violated union laws, then and only then should
they be subjected to proper disciplinary measures. While petitioners act of holding a special
election to oust Capitle, et al may be considered as an act of showing disunity among the
SAMAHAN members and perhaps, disloyalty to the union officials, which could have been dealt
with by the union as a disciplinary matter, it certainly cannot be considered as constituting
disloyalty to the union.
10. LIBERTY COTTON MILLS LABOR UNION VS LIBERTY COTTON MILLS
FACTS: A motion was filed on September 24, 1975 by petitioners Liberty Cotton Mills Labor
Union for the reconsideration and/or modification of decision dated September 4, 1975. It
appears that on May 17, 1964, thirty two (32) out of thirty six (36) mebers of the locl union,
Liiberty Cotton Mills, disaffiliated themelves from respondent PAFLU in accordance with article
10 of the local unions Constitution and By=Laws. Respondent PAFLU received the resolution of
disaffiliation on May 25, 1964 and immediately informed the respondent company that the
disaffiliation was null and void. Two days later, on May 29, 1964, PAFLU advised the company
for the petitioners dismissal. On May 30, 1964, four (4) petitioners were dismissed.
ISSUE: WON the respondent company acted in good faith.
HELD: No. Bad faith on the part of the respondent company may be gleaned from the fact that
the petitioner workers were dismissed hastily and summarily, without giving them the benefit of
hearing (dismissed the workers on May 30, after its receipt of the request of PAFLU on May 29),
disregarding their right to due process, self-oraganization and security of tenure. The respondent
company is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate complainant workers, at current rates paid
by it to workers occupying the same or similar positions, without loss of seniority and other
privileges, within thirty days from notice of this decision. The mother federation PAFLU and
respondent company are hereby sentenced to pay jointly and severally complainant-workers the
equivalent of three (3) years backwages without deduction or qualification and respondent
PAFLU is in turn sentenced to reimburse and pay respondent company and all such amount that
said respondent company may pay hereunder by way of backwages to the complainant-workers.
11. PICEWO VS PEOPLES IND. AND COMMERCIAL CO
FACTS: The Federation of Tenants and Laborers Organization (FTLO) Rizal Chapter entered
into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with People's Industrial and Commercial
Corporation ( PINCOCO). At the time the agreement was consummated, petitioners were
employees of PINCOCO and members of FTLO. Petitioners disaffiliated themselves from the
mother federation and changed the name of Rizal Chapter of the FTLO to People's Industrial and

Commercial Employees and Workers Organization (PICEWO). Respondent federation contends


that the act of disaffiliation is disloyalty to the union.
ISSUE: Whether the contention of respondent has merit.
HELD: No. The federation and the union are two different entities and it was the federation
which actively initiated the dismissal of the individual petitioners. A local union does not owe its
existence to the federation to which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary
association owing its creation and continued existence to the will of its members. The very
essence of self-organization is for the workers to form a group for the effective enhancement and
protection of their common interests.
12. TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS TROPICAL HUT FOOD
MARKET
FACTS: Rank and file workers of Tropical Hut organized a union (THEU) and sought affiliation
with NATU. Registration certificate was issued by Department of Labor. But NATU itself was
not registered as federation. THEU wrote NATU saying they want to disaffiliate from the
federation. THEU affiliated with CGW. Upon request of NATU, Tropical Hut Food Market
suspended and applied for clearance to dismiss members and officers of THEU-CGW.
ISSUE: WON dismissal of petitioner employees resulting from their union disaffiliation from
the mother union federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor practice.
HELD: Yes. The union security clause embodied in the agreements cannot be used to justify the
dismissals. CBA imposses dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union for
joining another federation or for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain
membership therein. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of merely some employees
from the union but of the whole THEU itself from the federation. With regard to the process by
which the workers were suspended or dismissed, this court finds that it was hastily and
summarily done without the necessary due process.
13. PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS SOLE
FACTS: On June 19, 1990, respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa (KILUSAN) -TUCP
filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a petition for certification election
among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor
federation and its local chapter, Progressive Development Employees Union, was issued charter
certificate No. 90-6-1-153. Kilusan claimed that there was no existing collective bargaining
agreement and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining unit.
Furthermore, the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted in the BLR, while
attested to by the chapter's president, were not certified under oath by the secretary
ISSUE: When does a branch, local or affiliate of a federation become a legitimate labor
organization?

HELD: A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon
submission of the following to the BLR: 1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance
by the labor federation or national union, and 2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the
set of officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or
treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president. Absent
compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not become a
legitimate labor organization.
14. CEBU SEAMENS ASSOCIATION VS FERRER-CALLEJA
FACTS: On August 1950, a group of dock officers and marine enginers on board vessels
organized into an association and registered as Cebu Seamens Association, Inc. (CSAI) with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Later on June 1969, the same group registered its
association with the Bureau as a labor union known as the Seamens Association of the
Philippines, Inc. (SAPI). SAPI has an existing collective bargaining agreement with the Aboitiz
Shipping Corporation. In consonance with the CBA, said company has been remitting checkedoff union dues to said union until two groups of officers, headed by Nacua and the other,
Gabayoyo, claimed that they are the duly set of officers of the union. Before the controversy,
private respondent Nacuawas elected president of the labor union, SAPI. It had an existing CBA
with Aboitiz Shipping Corporation. Before the end of the term of private respondent Nacua,
some members of the union which included the petitioner Gabayoyo, showed signs of
discontentment with the leadership of Nacua and issued an undated resolution expelling Nacua
from the association. Sometime in February 1987, it held its own election of officers supervised
by the SEC.
ISSUE: Who is entitled to the release of union dues from Aboitiz? Nacua representing SAPI or
Gabayoy representing CSAI?
HELD: Nacua representing SAPI. The expulsion of Nacua from the corporation has not affected
her membership with the labor union. In fact, in the elections of officers for 1987-1989, she was
re-elected as the president of the labor union. In this connection, we cannot agree from the
contention of Manuel Gabayoyo that Nacua was already expelled from the union. Whatever acts
their group had done in the corporation do not bind the labor union. Moreover, Gabayoyo cannot
claim leadership of the labor group by virtue of his having been elected as a president of the
dormant CSAI.
15. FILIPINO- PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION VS NLRC
FACTS: On February 10, 1986, respondent NLU-TUCP, a National Federation of Labor Unions,
filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment, in behalf of its local chapter, the FPWUNLU a notice of strike against petitioner company alleging as grounds for union busting and
non-implementation of the collective bargaining agreement. The initial conciliation was set but
due to lack of notice thereof to the petitioner company, as well as failure of FPWU-NLU to
furnish the latter a copy of the notice of strike, the initial conciliation conference was re-set to
March 3, 1986. However, in the early morning of March 3, 1986, without waiting for the

outcome of the conciliation conference, the FPWU-NLU staged a strike. Petitioner company
interposed before the arbitration branch, a petition to declare the strike illegal.
ISSUE: WON the strike is illegal.
HELD: Yes. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring the strike staged by respondents from march
3-June 13, 1986 illegal. Accordingly and in conformity with the return-to-work agreement,
respondent National Labor Union-TUCP is hereby directed to pay the complainant company for
costs.
16. PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES VS SOLE
FACTS: Sometime in June 1990, the Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UDEF (union) filed a
petition for certification election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive bargaining
agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI). On July 12, 1990, the Med-Arbiter
granted the petition, with the explicit statement that it was an affiliate of Union de Obreros
Estevadores de Filipinas (Federation) together with two (2) rank and file union. On July 30,
1990, PEPSI filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to set aside, cancel and/or
revoke charter affiliation of the union on the grounds that (a) the members of the union were
managers, and (b) a supervisors union can not affiliate with a federation whose members include
the rank and file union of the same company.
ISSUE: WON a supervisors union can affiliate with the same federation of which two (2) rank
and file unions are likewise members.
HELD: No. The prohibition against a supervisors union joining a local union of rank and file is
replete with jursiprudence. The court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of
supervisors wanting to join a rank and file union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors local
union applying for membership in a national federation the members of which includes local
union of rank and file employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where the supervisors
will be co-mingling with those employees with whom they directly supervise in their own
bargaining unit.
17. PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS LAGUESMA
FACTS: NLM-Katipunan filed a petitione for certification election with the Department of
Labor and Employment in behalf of he rank and file employees of the Progressive Development
Corporation (pizza hut). Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging fraud, falsification and
misrepresentation in the respondent. The motion specifically alleged that; (a) respondent union
registration was tainted with false, forged, double or multiple signatures of those who allegedly
took part in the ratification of the respondent unions constitution and by-laws and in the election
of its officers where there were two )2) sets of supposed attendees to the alleged organizational
meeting that was alleged to have taken place on June 26, 1993; (b) while the application for
registration of the charter was supposed to have been approved in the organizational meeting
held on much less;(c) application for registration of the charter was supposed to have been
approved in the organizational meeting held on 1993, the charter certificate issued by the

federation KATIPUNAN was dated one day prior to the formation of the chapter, thus, there
were serious falsities in the dates of issuance of the charter certificate and the organization
meeting of the alleged chapter; (d) voting was not conducted by secret ballot in violation of
article 241 section c of the labor code.
ISSUE: Challenge the legal personality of the respondent union.
HELD: To determine the validity of labor unions, article 234 requirements of registration must
be 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 as a legitimate labor organization. Wherefore,
inasmuch as the legal personality of respondent union had been seriously challenge, it would
have been more prudent to have granted petitioners request for the suspension of proceedings in
the certification election case, until the issue of the legality of the unions registration shall have
been resolved. Failure of the Med-Arbiter and public respondent to heed the request constituted
grave abuse of discretion.
18. BELYCA CORPORATION VS FERRER-CALLEJA
FACTS: Petitioner ALU-TUCP in its petition and position paper alleged, among others, (1) that
there is no existing collective bargaining agreement between the respondent employer and any
other existing legitimate labor union; (2) that there had never been a cetificate of election
conducted in the proposed bargaining unit within the last twelve(12) months; (3) that more than a
majority of respondent employers rank and file employees/workers in the proposed bargaining
unit or 138 as of the date of filing of the petition, have signed membership with ALU-TUCP and
have expressed their written consent and authorization to the filing of the petition. The
respondent company stated in its position paper, due to the nature of business in which its
livestock-agro division is engaged, very few of its employees in the division are permanent, and
overwhelming majority of which are seasonal and casual and not regular employees.
ISSUE: WON the proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate bargaining unit.
HELD: Yes. The court laid down the test of proper grouping, which is community and mutuality
of interest. Undeniably, the rank and file employees of the livestock-agro division fully constitute
a bargaining unit that satisfies both requirements of classification according to employment
status and of the substantial similarity of work and duties which will ultimately assure its
members the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
19. DEMOCRATIC LABOR ASSOCIATION VS CEBU STEVEDORING CO.
20. GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWARE CORP VS BLR
FACTS: Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing rubber sandals and
oilier rubber products. In 1985, ANGLO was formed by the daily paid rank and file employees as
their union for collective bargaining after the expiration on October 15,1985. Be it noted
however that on July 17, 1985, the monthly paid employees of the petitioner-corporation, after

forming their own collective bargaining unit, the National Association of Trade Unions of
Monthly Paid Employees- NATU, filed a petition for direct certification with the Bureau of
Labor Relations which petition was opposed by herein petitioner. On September 2, 1985, the
Med-Arbiter issued an order for the holding of a certification election after finding that a
certification election is in order in this case and observing that it is he fairest remedy to
determine whether employees of petitioner desire to have a union or not. On appeal, the BLR
denied both the appeal and motion for reconsideration interposed by petitioner and affirmed the
ruling of the Med-Arbiter.
ISSUE: WON there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Bureau of labor Relations in
issuing the assailed order which sanctioned the creation of two (2) bargaining units within
petitioner-corporation.
HELD: No grave abuse of discretion. Article 246 of the Labor Code explicitly provides that
managerial employees are ineligible to join or form any labor organization. As defined in the
Labor Code, a managerial employee is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay
down and execute management policies and/or to hire, tranfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge,
assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions. Members
of supervisory unions who do not fall within this definition shall become eligible to join or assist
the rank and file labor organization, and if none exist, to form or assist in the forming of such
rank and file organization. The monthly paid rank and file employees should be allowed to join
the union of the daily paid rank and file employees of petitioner so that they can also avail of the
CBA benefits or to form their own rank and file union, without prejudice to the certification
election that has been ordered.
21. KAMADA VS CALLEJA
FACTS: Petitioner claims to be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all workers in Ocean
Terminal Services, Inc (OTSI). After a certification election, it concluded a collective bargaining
agreement with the company. Soon thereafter, in September 1990, private respondent union
(ASTEUO), allegedly composed of OTSI workers, was registered. Upon learning of such fact,
petitioner KAMADA filed a suit to cancel the registration of ASTEUO on the ground that the
latters members were already covered by the existing collective bargaining agreement. Private
respondents registration was ancelled by the Med-Arbiter. Private respondent appealed to the
Bureau of Labor Relations. Director Pura Frrer-Calleja reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter.
ISSUE: WON there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent FerrerCalleja.
HELD: No. Petitioners contentions are utterly devoid of merit. The one-company, one-union
policy must yield to the right of the employees to form unions or associations for purposes not
contrary to law. Moreover, the issue of which union truly represents the working force should be
raised during the certification election, not during the registration period. The petition is
dismissed for utter lack of merit.
22. BORBON VS LAGUESMA

FACTS: On December 28, 1991, the med-Arbiter issued an order. Dissatistied, petitioner
Borbon filed a partial motion for reconsideration while private respondent Hipolito filed a
motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, public respondent rendered the assailed decision denying
the partial appeal of petitioner Borbon and granting the appeal of respondent Hipolito. On
August 19, 1991, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration for the above decision but the
same was, as initially noted, denied in the order of September 2, 1991.
ISSUE: WON the so-called 127 contractual employees are really employees of San Miguel
Corporation.
HELD: Even assuming in gratia argumenti that at the time of the election, they were regular
employees of san Miguel Corporation, nonetheless, these workers are no longer connected with
San Miguel Corporation in any manner because magnolia has ceased to be a division of San
Miguel Corporation and has been formed into a separate corporation with a personality of its
own. This development, which was brought to our attention by private respondents, necessarily
renders moot and academic with any further discourse on the propriety of the election which
petitioners impugn via the present recourse. Wherefore, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit
and the decision of respondent Undersecretary of Labor and Employment Bienvenido B.
Laguesma is affirmed in toto.
23. BARBIZON
24. SMC EMPLOYEES UNION VS CONFESSOR
25. PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS LAGUESMA
FACTS: NLM-Katipunan filed a petitione for certification election with the Department of
Labor and Employment in behalf of he rank and file employees of the Progressive Development
Corporation (pizza hut). Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging fraud, falsification and
misrepresentation in the respondent. The motion specifically alleged that; (a) respondent union
registration was tainted with false, forged, double or multiple signatures of those who allegedly
took part in the ratification of the respondent unions constitution and by-laws and in the election
of its officers where there were two )2) sets of supposed attendees to the alleged organizational
meeting that was alleged to have taken place on June 26, 1993; (b) while the application for
registration of the charter was supposed to have been approved in the organizational meeting
held on much less;(c) application for registration of the charter was supposed to have been
approved in the organizational meeting held on 1993, the charter certificate issued by the
federation KATIPUNAN was dated one day prior to the formation of the chapter, thus, there
were serious falsities in the dates of issuance of the charter certificate and the organization
meeting of the alleged chapter; (d) voting was not conducted by secret ballot in violation of
article 241 section c of the labor code.
ISSUE: Challenge the legal personality of the respondent union.
HELD: To determine the validity of labor unions, article 234 requirements of registration must
be 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 as a legitimate labor organization. Wherefore,
inasmuch as the legal personality of respondent union had been seriously challenge, it would
have been more prudent to have granted petitioners request for the suspension of proceedings in
the certification election case, until the issue of the legality of the unions registration shall have
been resolved. Failure of the Med-Arbiter and public respondent to heed the request constituted
grave abuse of discretion.
26. MARQUEZ VS SOLE
FACTS: Private respondent Kaisahan ng mga mnggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL)KATIPUNAN, in behalf of seventy-nine (79) of its members who are employed in the Little
Folks Snack Mobile, filed with the office of the Director of the NCR, Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) a complaint for underpayment of minimum wage, non-payment of
ECOLA, non-payment of incentive leave benefits and non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay,
premium pay on rest day and other benefits. On October 30, 1986, Minerva Peran, employees
representative during the proceedings before the hearing, filed a motion to dismiss claiming that
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Little Folks Snack Mobile had already settle amicably their dispute
through a compromised agreement.
ISSUE: WON Peran, acting as representative of the union, can decide and enter into an amicable
settlement on behalf of the members.
HELD: no. The jurisdiction is that money claims due to laborers cannot be the object of
settlement or compromise effected by the union. Union officers or counsel without the specific
individual consent of each laborer concerned. This is so because the agrrieved parties are the
individual complainants themselves. Their representative can only assist but not decide for them.
27. PEPSI COLA SALES AND ADVERTISING UNION VS SOLE
FACTS: From 1964 until sometime about 1985, Roberto Alisasis was an employee of the Pepsi
Cola Bottling Co. Inc and later of the Pepsi Cola Products Products (Philippines), Inc. on May 7,
1986, Alisasis filed with the NLRC Arbitration Branch, Capital Region, manila, a complaint for
illegal dismissal against pepsi Cola Inc. this resulted in a judgment by the labor arbiter dated
January 28, 1988 declaring him to have been illegally dismissed and ordering the employer to
reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages for
one year from the time he was not allowed to report for work. The judgment was subsequently
affirmed with modification.
ISSUE: WON private respondent have been dismissed for just cause.
HELD: there was valid and lawful cause in the dismissal of complainant by respondent,
however, the manner in which it was effected was not in accordance with law. Complainant was
not given written notice but was only verbally advised, thus, he is entitled to reinstatement and
backwages under article 279 of the Labor Code. However, considering that respondent had

already lost trust and confidence in complainant which is founded on a reasonable ground, there
is no point in requiring respondent to reinstate complainant to his former position.

28. GOLDEN DONUTS INC VS NLRC


FACTS: Private respondents were the complainants in the three consolidated cases submitted
with the Labor Arbiter. Complainants were members of the KMDD-CFW, 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 the negotiation to resume. The union panel did not show up despite the letters from
management. The union struck. A complaint was filed by Golden Donuts to declare the strike
illegal. Consel for the union and strikers pleaded for a compromise whereupon both parties
would desist fron 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 the
petitioners.
ISSUE: WON a union may compromise or waive the right to security of tenure and money
claims of its minority members, without the latters consent.
HELD: 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. Private respondents have not waived their rights 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.
29. CARLOS P. GALVADORES VS CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO
FACTS: Atty. Jose C. Espinas has been the legal counsel of Free Telephone Workers Union
since 1964. For his services, he was hired on a case to case contingent fee basis. He was again
hired by the union in the labor dispute at PLDT regarding the PLDTs last offer to the deadlock
in CBA negotiations which is expected by the union to result in compulory arbitration.
Petitioners, initially numbering 600 and finally 5,285, filed a letter- complaint before the MOLE
through their authorized representative, Galvadores, assailing the imposition of P130.00 (later
corrected to P155.00) per employee as attorneys fees of respondents counsel. Petitioners said
that it was not only unreasonable but also in violation of Article 241 of the Labor Code and that
the deductions cannot be given legal effect by mere Board Resolution but needs the ratification
by the general membership of the union.

ISSUE: WON the check-off for attorneys fees from the benefits awarded to PLDTs employees
amounting to P1M, more or less, is legal and in affirmative answer the same should be taken
from the union funds.
HELD: The provisions of Article 222 (b) and Article 241 (o) of the Labor Code and Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code are clear. No check-offs from any amount due employees
may be effected without individual written authorizations duly signed by the employee
specifically stating the amount, purpose, and beneficiary of the deduction. The required
individual authorizations in this case are wanting. In fact, petitioner employees are vigorously
objecting. The attorneys fees may be charged against union funds pursuant to Article 222 (b) of
the Labor Code, as may be agreed upon between them.
30. PABLO ARIZALA, ET AL. VS COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: The petitioners occupied the supervisory positions in the GSIS. Demands were made on
all four of them to resign from the GSIS Employees Association, in view of their supervisory
positions. They refused to do so. Consequently, two (2) criminal cases for violation of the
Industrial Peac Act were lodged against them in the City Court of Cebu.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners criminal liability for a violation of Industrial Peac At may be
deemed to have been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation and the provisions of the
1973 and 1987 constitutions.
HELD: Yes. The right to self-organization and collective bargaining had been withdrawn by the
labor code from the government employees including those in government-owned and controlled
corporations, chiefly for the reason that the term and conditions of government employees, all
embraced in civil service, may not be modified by collective bargaining because it is already set
by law. It is therefore immaterial, they say, whether supervisors are members of the rank-and-file
unions or not; after all, the possibility of employers control of the members of the unon thru
supervisors is no longer of any consequence.
31. MANILA ELECTRIC CO VS SOLE
FACTS: On November 22, 1988, the staff and technical employees association of MERALCO
filed a petition for cetification election to represent MERALCO non-managerial employees
disqualified to join the MEWA. MERALCO moved to dismiss the petition contending that
employees from pay grade VIII are classified as managerial, the creation of union would violate
Article 232, and section 2, Rule V, Book V excludes security guards to join bargaining unit. A
year after, FLAMES filed a similar petition to represent employees with salary grades VII to XIV
for the supervisory union. Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election. Secretary affirmed and
also included FLAMES among the choices in the certification election. The Supreme Court
dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the secretary.

ISSUE: WON security guards are prohibited from joining a labor union and whether said
employees with SG VII up are managerial employees.
HELD: No. On December 24, 2986, EO III eliminated the disqualification of security guards
and thus, they may now freely join a labor organization of the rank-and-file or that of amended
article 245 of the labor code ...supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a
labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form a separate labor
organization of their own.

32. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK SUPERVISORS CHAPTER VS TORRES


FACTS: On March 17, 1989, NATU filed a petition for certification election to determine the
bargaining representative of the respondent banks employees occupying supervisory positions.
On April 24, 1989, the Bank moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the supposed
supervisory employees were actually managerial and/or confidential employees thus, inelligible
to join, assist or form a union. On August 17, 1989, Med-Arbiter Manasas T. Cruz granted the
petition. The payroll three months prior to the filing of the petition shall be utilized in
determining the list of eligible voters. Respondent Bank appealed in order to the secretary of
labor on the main ground that several employees sought to be included in the certification
election particularly the Department Managers, Assistant managers, Branch Managers/OICs,
Cashiers, and controllers.
ISSUE: WON the Department Managers, Assistant managers, Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers,
and controllers are eligible to join the union.
HELD: Petition is partially granted. The decision of public respondent secretary of labor dated
march 23, 1990 and his prder dated April 20, 1990 are modified, hereby declaring that only the
Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers, and controllers are eligible to join or assist NATU- Republic
Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter, or join, assist or form any other labor organization.
33. PIER 8 ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING SERVICES VS ROLDAN-CONFESSOR
FACTS: On June 22, 1992, private respondents CBA proposals were recieved by petitioner.
Counter-proposals were made by the petitioner. Negotiations collapsed and on August 24, 1992,
private respondent filed a notice to strike with National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB). The NCMB tried but failed to settle the parties controversies. On September 30, 1992,
public respondent Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the despute. She resolved the
bargaining deadlock between the parties through an order dated march 4, 1993. Petitioners

questions public respondent for not excluding four foremen, a legal secretary, a time keeper and
an assistant time keeper from the bargaining unit composed of rank-and-file employees.
ISSUE: 1.) WON Honorable Secretary of Labor committed grav abuse of discretion in not
excluding certain positions from the bargaining unit. 2.) WON the Honorable Secretary of Labor
committed grave abuse of discretion in making the CBA effective on September 30, 1992 when
he assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and not on March 4, 1993 when she rendered
judgment over the despute.
HELD: The court ruled on numerous occasions that the test of supervisory or managerial status
is whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer which authority
is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. If the
nature of the employees job does not fall under the definition of managerial or supervisory in the
labor code, he is eligible to be a member of the rank-and-file bargaining unit. Public respondent
order, dated March 4, 1993, and resolution dated June 8, 1993, are hereby modified to exclude
foremen and legal secretaries from rank-and-file bargaining unit and to fix the date of effectivity
of the five year collective bargaining agreement on march 4, 1993. No costs.
34. MERALCO VS SECRETARY OF LABOR
FACTS: On November 22, 1988, the staff and technical employees association of MERALCO
filed a petition for cetification election to represent MERALCO non-managerial employees
disqualified to join the MEWA. MERALCO moved to dismiss the petition contending that
employees from pay grade VIII are classified as managerial, the creation of union would violate
Article 232, and section 2, Rule V, Book V excludes security guards to join bargaining unit. A
year after, FLAMES filed a similar petition to represent employees with salary grades VII to XIV
for the supervisory union. Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election. Secretary affirmed and
also included FLAMES among the choices in the certification election. The Supreme Court
dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the secretary.
ISSUE: WON security guards are prohibited from joining a labor union and whether said
employees with SG VII up are managerial employees.
HELD: No. On December 24, 2986, EO III eliminated the disqualification of security guards
and thus, they may now freely join a labor organization of the rank-and-file or that of amended
article 245 of the labor code ...supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a
labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form a separate labor
organization of their own.
35. CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOP VS SECRETARY OF LABOR

FACTS: Petitioner cooperative entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the
respondent union, representing the rank-and-file employees. Respondent union wrote SENECO
proposing that negotiations be conducted for a new CBA but it was denied.
ISSUE: WON the employees of SENECO who withdraw their membership are entitled to form
or join union for the proposed CBA.
HELD: Yes. Membership in an electric cooperative which merely vests in the membership a
right to vote during the annual meeting becomes insubstantial.
36. ATLAS VS LAGUESMA
FACTS: The petitioners agrues that KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN, a federation, already represents its
rank-and-file employees and therefore, to allow the supervisors of those employees to affiliate
with the private respondent is tantamount to allowing the circumvention of the principle of the
separation of unions under Article 245 of the labor code. It further argues that the intent of the
law is to prevent a single labor organization from representing different classes of employees
with conflicting interests. The public respondent on the other hand, contends that despite
affiliation with a national federation, the local union does not lose its personality which is
separate and distinct from that of the federation.
ISSUE: WON a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national
federation of rnk-and-file employees.
HELD: If the intent of the law os to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with rankand-file or where the supervisors labor organization would represent conflicting interests, then a
local supercisors union should not be allowed to affiliate with a naional federation of rank-andfile employees where that federation actively participated in union activity in the company.
37. PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMP INTERNATIONAL VS FERRERCALLEJA
FACTS: The petitioner is the recognized collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees of Triump International with which the later had a valid and effective collective
bargaining agreement 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. But the Labor Arbiter issued an order granting
the petition for certification election and directing the holding of the certification election to

determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all monthyly paid administrative,
tehnical, confidential, and supervisory employees of the Triumph International.
ISSUE: WON the public respondents gravely abused its discretion in ordering the immediate
holding of a certification election.
HELD: Where the supervisory employees sought to be represented by the union are actually not
involved in the policy making, and their recommendatory powers are not even instantly effective
since they are subject to review by at least three (3) managers, then it is evident that these
employees does not possess managerial status.
38. FRANKLIN BAKER AND CO. VS TRAJANO
FACTS: On April 23, 1984, private respondent Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association- ATU
filed a petition for certification election among the office and technical employees of petitioner
company. Among other things, it alleges that Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines had in
it employ approximately ninety (90) regular technical and office employees, which group is
separate and distinct from the regular rank-and-file employees and is excluded from the coverage
of existing collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner company did not object to the holding of
such an election but manifested that out of ninety (90) employees sought to be represented by the
respondent union, seventy four (74) are managerial employees, while two (2) others are
confidential employees, hence, must be excluded from the certification election and from the
bargaining unit that may result from such election. On September 17, 1984, Med-Arbiter
Martinez issued an order, granting the petition and a certification election among the office and
technical employees of the respondent company.
ISSUE: WON public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, when he ruled that the 76 employees subject to this petition are not managerial
employees and therefore may participate in the certification election among the office and
technical employees.
HELD: No. After a careful review of the records, no plausible reason could be found to disturb
the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the ministry of labor. Even if we regard the
employees concerned as managerial employees, they can still join the union of the rank-and-file
employees. They cannot however form their own exclusive union as managerial employees.
39. PHILIPPINE APPLIANCE CORPORATION VS LAGUESMA
FACTS: In filing/charging of overtime, the petitioners are guided by the standard procedure on
overtime charging. They did not participate in its formulation. They interview, and determine,
from the set of applicants recommended by the personnel department, who should be hired for a

particular job. As to the power to discipline, suspend, and discharge employees, they merely
impose the company rules and regulations against the erring employees. It is the corporate legal
service which actually conducts formal investigation. As to the power to assign or transfer
employees, the petitioning employees execute the shifting rotation made by the plant manager.
They had requested for a certification election of all supervisory employees of PHILCOR. This
was opposed by the employer on the ground that petitioners were managers.
ISSUE: WON the petitioning employees are supervisory employees eligible to form a
supervisory union.
HELD: Yes. The test of supervisory or managerial status depends on whether a person possesses
authority to act in the interest of his employer in the manner specified in Article 212 (m) of the
Labor Code and Rule 1 (o) of Book V of its implementing rules whether such authority is not
merely routinary or clerical in nature but it requires the use of independent judgment. Thus,
where such recomendatory power are subject to evaluation, review nd final action by the
Department Head, the same are not effective and not an exercise of indepandent judgment as
required by law.
40. NAWASA VS NAWASA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS
FACTS: Petitioner national Waterworks and Sewerage Authority is a gvernment-owned and
controlled corporation created under RA 1383, while respondent NAWASA Consolidated Unions
are various labor organizations composed of laborers and employees. The other respondents are
intervenors Jesus Centino, et al. Hereinafter referred to as intervenors. On December 13, 1957,
petitioner and respondent unions, conformably to a suggestion of the court of industrial relations,
submitted a joint stipulations of facts on the issues concerning 40-Hour Week Law, distress
pay, minimum wage of P5.25, filing of vacancies, night compensation, and salary adjustments,
reserving he right to present evidence on matters not covered therein. On December 4, 1957,
respondent intervenors filed a petition in intervention on the issue for additional compensation
for night work. Later, however, they amended their petition by including a new demand for
overtime pay in favor of the employees receiving P4, 200.00 per annum or more.
ISSUE: Whether the intervenors are managerial employees within the meaning of RA 2377.
HELD: The Court iof Industrial Relations found that their primary duties do not bear any direct
relation with the management of NAWASA, neither do they participate in the formulation of its
policies nor in the hiring or firing of its employees. The chiefs of Divisions and Sections are
given ready policies to execute, and standard practices to observe for their execution. Hence, it
oncludes, that they have little freedom of action, as their main function is merely to carry out the
companys orders, plans, and policies. They do not therefore come within the category of

managerial employees within the meaning of the law, and thus entitled to the benefits of
Commonwealth Act No. 444, as amended.