G.R. No.

115077 April 18, 1997

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PIZZA HUT, petitioner,
vs.
HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, in his capacity as Undersecretary of Labor, and NAGKAKAISANG
LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA (NLM)-KATIPUNAN, respondents.

FACTS: On July 9, 1993, Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan (respondent Union) filed a
petition for certification election with the Department of Labor (National Capital Region) in behalf of the rank and
file employees of the Progressive Development Corporation (Pizza Hut)
Petitioner filed on August 20, 1993, a verified Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification
and misrepresentation in the respondent. Unions registration making it void and invalid: a) respondent Unions
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 that there were two
sets of supposed attendees to the alleged organizational meeting that was alleged to have taken place on June 26,
1993; that the alleged chapter is claimed to have been supported by 318 members when in fact the persons who
actually signed their names were much less; and b) while the application for registration of the charter was supposed
to have been approved in the organizational meeting held onJune 27, 1993, the charter certification issued by the
federation KATIPUNAN was datedJune 26, 1993or one (1) day prior to the formation of the chapter, thus, there
were serious falsities in the dates of the issuance of the charter certification and the organization meeting of the
alleged chapter.
On August 30, 1993, petitioner filed a Petition seeking the cancellation of the Unions registration on the
grounds of fraud and falsification, docketed as BIR Case No. 8-21-83. Motion was likewise filed by petitioner with
the Med-Arbiter requesting suspension of proceedings in the certification election case until after the prejudicial
question of the Unions legal personality is determined in the proceedings for cancellation of registration.
However, in an Order dated September29, 1993,6Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah directed the holding of
a certification election among petitioners rank and file employees.
On appeal to the office of the Secretary of Labor, Labor Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma in a Resolution
dated December 29, 1993 denied the same. The motion for reconsideration of the public respondents resolution was
denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not, after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization,
recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations merely becomes a ministerial function.
RULING: Art. 234. Requirements of registration. Any applicant labor organization, association or group of
unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements:
(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee; (b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the
labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such
meetings; (c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate; (d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and (e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union,
minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it.

A more than cursory reading of the aforecited provisions clearly indicates that the requirements embodied therein
are intended as preventive measures against the commission of fraud. After a labor organization has filed the
necessary papers and documents for registration, it becomes mandatory for the Bureau of Labor Relations to check
if the requirements under Article 234 have been sedulously complied with. falsification and serious irregularities,
especially those appearing on the face of the application and the supporting documents, a labor organization should
be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. And if a certificate of recognition has been issued, the
propriety of the labor organizations registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration
proceedings in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code, or indirectly, by challenging its petition for
the issuance of an order for certification election.
Such requirements are a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor organizations,
associations and unions of workers are engaged directly affect the public interest and should be protected.
the employer needs the assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona fide organization, one which has not
submitted false statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau. Clearly, fraud, falsification and misrepresentation
in obtaining recognition as a legitimate labor organization are contrary to the Med-Arbiters conclusion not merely
collateral issues. The invalidity of respondent Unions registration would negate its legal personality to participate in
certification election.
Once a labor organization attains the status of a legitimate labor organization it begins to possess all of the rights and
privileges granted by law to such organizations.
Inasmuch as the legal personality of respondent Union had been seriously challenged, it would have been
more prudent for the Med-Arbiter and public respondent 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 a grave abuse of
discretion.

G.R. No. L-33987 May 31, 1979

LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS UNION, RAFAEL NEPOMUCENO, MARCIANO CASTILLO,
NELLY ACEVEDO, RIZALINO CASTILLO, and RAFAEL COMBALICER petitioners,
vs.
LIBERTY COTTON MILLS, INC., PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNION (PAFLU), and
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS: It appears that on May 17, 1964, thirty-two (32) out of the thirty-six (36) members of the local union,
Liberty Cotton Mills Union, disaffiliated themselves from respondent PAFLU in accordance with Article X, on
Union Affiliation, of the local union's Constitution and By-Laws, which provides that:
Section 1. The Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-Paflu ... shall remain an affiliate as long as
ten or more of its members evidence their desire to continue the said local union's affiliation ...
Respondent PAFLU received the resolution of disaffiliation on May 25, 1964 and immediately informed the
respondent company on May 27, 1964 that the disaffiliation was null and void and that it is taking over the
administration of the local union in dealing with the management.

Two days later, on May 29, 1964, PAFLU advised the company that the petitioner workers, who were
among those who signed the disaffiliation resolution, were expelled from their union membership in the mother
federation because they were found guilty of acts unbecoming of officers and members of the union and disloyalty
to the mother federation for instigating union disaffiliation, and at the same time requested for their dismissal. On
May 30, 1964, the company terminated the employment of the petitioner workers pursuant to the Maintenance of
Membership provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
ISSUE: WON the company acted in bad faith when they terminated the employees upon request of the Labor Union.
HELD: The company acted in bad faith in dismissing petitioner workers without giving them the benefit of a
hearing. It did not even bother to inquire from the workers concerned and from PAFLU itself about the cause of the
expulsion.
Moreover, even after the workers were dismissed on May 30, 1964, and had sought for a reconsideration of their
dismissal the next day, respondent company stood pat on its decision and immediately denied the request for
reconsideration on June 2, 1964 without any valid reason.
The power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer. However, this is not without limitations. The
employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees especially so when it is made
upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as in the instant case. Dismissals
must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due process must be observed in dismissing an employee because it affects not
only his position but also his means of livelihood. Employers should therefore respect and protect the rights of their
employees, which include the right to labor.
Aid furthermore, PAFLU expelled only six (6) union members, because PAFLU erroneously contends that
their disaffiliation and their refusal to retract amounted to disloyalty. It was not disloyalty; it was their dissatisfaction
with PAFLU that compelled them to disaffiliate. The constitutional guarantee of security of tenure of the worker and
his freedom of association to join or not to join a union are paramount and should prevail over a contractual
condition for continued union membership and over whimsical or arbitrary termination of his employment.
G.R. No. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983
DOLORES VILLAR, ROMEO PEQUITO, DIONISIO RAMOS, BENIGNO MAMARALDO, ORLANDO
ACOSTA, RECITACION BERNUS, ANSELMA ANDAN, ROLANDO DE GUZMAN and RITA
LLAGAS, petitioners, vs. THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor,
AMIGO MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR
UNIONS (PAFLU), respondents.
FACTS: Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization
which, was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc.
(Company). The Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a CBA governing their labor relations,
which agreement was then about to expire on February 28, 1977. Within the last 60 days of the CBA, upon written
authority of at least 30% of the employees in the company, including the petitioners, the Federation of Unions of
Rizal (FUR) filed a petition for certification election with Med-Arbiter's Office, Regional Office No. 4 of the
Ministry of Labor and Employment. The petition was opposed by the PhilippineAssociation of Free Labor Unions
(PAFLU) with whom the Amigo Employees Union was at that time affiliated. The same employees who had signed
the petition filed by FUR signed a joint resolution disaffiliating from PAFLU. Petitioner Dolores Villar, representing
herself
to
be
the
authorized
representative
of
the
Amigo
EmployeesUnion, filed a petition for certification election in the Company. The Amigo Employees UnionPAFLU intervened
and moved
for
the dismissal
of the
petition
for
certification election filed by Dolores Villar, on the ground, among others that Dolores Villar had no legal
personality to sign the petition since she was not an officer of the union nor is there factual or legal basis for her
claim that she was the authorized representative of the local union. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition
filedby Villar, which dismissal is still pending appeal before BLR. Amigo EmployeesUnion-PAFLU called a special
meeting of its general membership.
A Resolution
was
thereby unanimously approved which called for the investigation by the PAFLU
national president, of all of the petitioners and one Felipe Manlapao, for continuously maligning the union spreading
false propaganda that the union officers were merely appointees of the management; and for causing divisiveness in

the union. PAFLU formed a Trial Committee to investigate the local union's charges against the petitioners for acts
of disloyalty.
PAFLU
and
the
Company
concluded
anew CBA which also reincorporated the same provisions of the existing CBA, including the union security clause.
PAFLU President rendered a decision finding the petitioners guilty of the charges. PAFLU demanded the Company
to terminate the employment of the petitioners pursuant to the security clause of the CBA. Acting
onPAFLU's demand, the Company informed PAFLU that it will first secure the necessary clearances to terminate
petitioners.
PAFLU
requested
the
Company
to
put petitioners under preventive suspension pending the application for saidclearances to terminate the petitioners. T
he Company filed the request for clearance to terminate the petitioners before DOLE which was granted.
DOLE Secretary Inciong denied the appeal, hence, this petition for review.
ISSUE: Alleged illegality of the dismiss of the petitioners by private respondent Company upon demand of PAFLU
which invoked the security clause of the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the local union,
Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
HELD: Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a labor union affiliates with a mother union, it becomes
bound by the laws and regulations of the parent organization.
When a labor union affiliates with a parent organization or mother union, or accepts a charter from
a superior body, it becomes subject to the laws of the superior body under whose authority the local union
functions. The constitution, by-laws and rules of the parent body, together with the charter it issues pursuant thereto
to the subordinate union, constitute an enforceable contract between the parent body and the subordinate union, and
between the members of the subordinate union inter se. (Citing Labor Unions, Dangel and Shriber, pp. 279-280).
It is undisputable that oppositors were members of the Amigo Employees Union at the time that said union
affiliated with PAFLU; hence, under the afore-quoted principle, oppositors are bound by the laws and regulations of
PAFLU.
Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for that matter, is the right of self-preservation.
When members of a labor union, therefore, sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union; when they seek
the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit their rights to remain
as members of the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity, as well as the dictates of law and
justice, therefore, compelling mandate the adoption by the labor union of such corrective and remedial
measures in keeping with its laws and regulations, for its preservation and continued existence; lest by its
folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.
Correctly and legally, therefore, the PAFLU acted when, after proper investigation and finding of guilt, it
decided to remove the oppositors from the list of members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, and thereafter,
recommended to the Amigo Manufacturing, Inc.; the termination of the employment of the oppositors.
We, therefore, hold and rule that petitioners, although entitled to disaffiliate from their union and
form a new organization of their own, must, however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the
union under the security clause of the CBA.

G.R. No. 85333 February 26, 1990

CARMELITO L. PALACOL, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, MANILA CCBPI SALES FORCE
UNION, and COCA-COLA BOTTLERS (PHILIPPINES), INC., respondents.
FACTS: October 12, 1987, the respondent Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union),
as the collective bargaining agent of all regular salesmen, regular helpers, and relief helpers of the Manila Plant and
Metro Manila Sales Office of the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers (Philippines), Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the
Company) concluded a new collective bargaining agreement with the latter. Salary increase given in lump sum.
President of the Union submitted to the Company the ratification by the union members of the new CBA
and authorization for the Company to deduct union dues equivalent to P10.00 every payday or P20.00 every month
and, in addition, 10% by way of special assessment, from the CBA lump-sum pay granted to the union members.

Board Resolution of the Union dated September 29, 1987, the purpose of the special assessment sought to
be levied is to put up a cooperative and credit union; purchase vehicles and other items needed for the benefit of the
officers and the general membership; and for the payment for services rendered by union officers, consultants and
others. There was also an additional proviso stating that the matter of allocation shall be at the discretion of our
incumbent Union President. Authorization and CBA Ratification was obtained by the Union through a secret
referendum held in separate local membership meetings on various dates. The total membership of the Union was
about 800. Of this number, 672 members originally authorized the 10% special assessment, while 173 opposed the
same. One hundred seventy members of the Union submitted documents to the Company stating that although they
have ratified the new CBA, they are withdrawing or disauthorizing the deduction of any amount from their CBA
lump sum.
Later, 185 other union members submitted similar documents expressing the same intent. These members,
numbering 355 in all (170 + 185), added to the original oppositors of 173, turned the tide in favor of disauthorization
for the special assessment, with a total of 528 objectors and a remainder of 272 supporters.
The company filed an action for interpleader with the Bureau of Labor Relations in order to resolve the
conflicting claims of the parties concerned. Petitioners, who are regular rank-and-file employees of the Company
and bona fide members of the Union, filed a motion/complaint for intervention therein in two groups of 161 and 94,
respectively. They claimed to be among those union members who either did not sign any individual written
authorization, or having signed one, subsequently withdrew or retracted their signatures therefrom.
Union countered that the deductions not only have the popular indorsement and approval of the general
membership, but likewise complied with the legal requirements of Article 241 (n) and (o) of the Labor Code in that
the board resolution of the Union imposing the questioned special assessment had been duly approved in a general
membership meeting and that the collection of a special fund for labor education and research is mandated.
Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz ruled in favor of petitioners in an order dated February 15, 1988
whereby he directed the Company to remit the amount it had kept in trust directly to the rank-and-file
personnel without delay. Appealed to BLR, reversed.
RULING: convinced that the deduction of the 10% special assessment by the Union was not made in accordance
with the requirements provided by law.
The principle that employees are protected by law from unwarranted practices that diminish their
compensation without their known edge and consent is in accord with the constitutional principle of the State
affording full protection to labor.
The failure of the Union to comply strictly with the requirements set out by the law invalidates the
questioned special assessment. Substantial compliance is not enough in view of the fact that the special assessment
will diminish the compensation of the union members. Their express consent is required, and this consent must be
obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by law, which must be followed to the letter. No shortcuts are
allowed. They held local membership meetings on separate occasions, on different dates and at various venues,
contrary to the express requirement that there must be a general membership meeting. The contention of the Union
that the local membership meetings are precisely the very general meetings required by law is untenable because
the law would not have specified a general membership meeting had the legislative intent been to allow local
meetings in lieu of the latter.
submitted only minutes of the local membership meetings when what is required is a written resolution adopted at
the general meeting.
The minutes submitted to the Company contained no list of the members present and no record of the votes
cast. Handwritten authorization which complied with the law is valid. However, its withdrawal means no
authorization was given.
G.R. No. 100898 July 5, 1993
ALEX FERRER, RAFAEL FERRER HENRY DIAZ, DOMINGO BANCOLITA, GIL DE GUZMAN, and
FEDERATION OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR UNIONS, (FEDLU), petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HUI KAM CHANG (In his
capacity as General Manager of Occidental Foundry Corporation), OCCIDENTAL FOUNDRY
CORPORATION, MACEDONIO S. VELASCO (In his capacity as representative of the Federation of Free
Workers), GENARO CAPITLE, JESUS TUMAGAN, ERNESTO BARROGA, PEDRO LLENA,
GODOFREDO PACHECO, MARCELINO CASTILLO, GEORGE IGNAS, PIO DOMINGO, and JAIME
BAYNADO, respondents.

FACTS: Petitioners were regular and permanent employees of the Occidental Foundry Corporation (OFC) in
Malanday, Valenzuela, Metro Manila which was under the management of Hui Kam Chang. As piece workers,
petitioners earnings ranged from P110 to P140 a day. They had been in the employ of OFC for about ten years at the
time of their dismissal in 1989.
Samahang Manggagawa ng Occidental Foundry Corporation-FFW (SAMAHAN) and the OFC entered into
a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which would be effective for the three-year period between October 1,
1988 and September 30, 1991.
Sec. 1 The company agrees that all permanent and regular factory workers in the company
who are members in good standing of the union or who thereafter may become members, shall
as a condition of continued employment, maintain their membership in the union in good
standing
for
the
duration
of
the
agreement.
Sec. 3 The parties agree that failure to retain membership in good standing with the UNION
shall be ground for the operation of paragraph 1 hereof and the dismissal by the company of
the aforesaid employee upon written request by the union. The aforesaid request shall be
accompanied by a verified carbon original of the Board of (sic) Resolution by the UNION
signed by at least a majority of its officers/directors.
On May 6, 1989, petitioner Alex Ferrer and the SAMAHAN, filed in the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), a complaint for the expulsion from SAMAHAN of the following officers: Genaro Capitle
(president), Jesus Tumagan (vice president), Godofredo Pacheco (auditor), and Marcelino Pacheco (board member).
The complaint was founded on said officers alleged inattentiveness to the economic demands of the workers.
However, on September 4, 1989, petitioners Diaz and Alex Ferrer withdrew the petition. On September 10, 1989,
petitioners conducted a special election of officers of the SAMAHAN. Said election was, however, later questioned
by the FFW. Nonetheless, the elected set of officers tried to dissuade the OFC from remitting union dues to the
officers led by Capitle who were allied with the FFW. Later, however, Romulo Erlano, one of the officers elected at
the special election, manifested to the DOLE that he was no longer objecting to the remittance of union dues to the
officers led by Capitle. Petitioners move to stage a strike based on economic demands was also later disowned by
members of the SAMAHAN.
The intra union dispute led the union in requesting that Ferrer and others be dismissed. Petitioners sent
individual letters to Hui Kam Chang professing innocence of the charges levelled against them by the SAMAHAN
and the FFW and pleading that they be reinstated, to no avail.
Thus, contending that their dismissal was without cause and in utter disregard of their right to due process
of law, petitioners, through the FEDLU, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice before the
NLRC against Hui Kam Chang, OFC, Macedonio S. Velasco (as representative of the FFW) the FFW, and the
SAMAHAN officers headed by Capitle.
Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint. Labor arbiter concluded, the dismissal of petitioners was an exercise
of legitimate management prerogative which cannot be considered as an unfair labor practice.
Appealed to NLRC. affirmed in toto.
RULING: CBA is the law between the company and the union and compliance therewith is mandated by the express
policy to give protection to labor. Said policy should be given paramount consideration unless otherwise provided
for by law.
Sec. 4. Ang sinumang kasapi ay maaring itwalag (sic) ng Samahan pangsamantala o tuluyan sa
pamamagitan (sic) ng tatlot ikaapat () na bahagi ng dami ng bilang ng Pamunuang
Tagapagpaganap.Pagkaraan lamang sa pandinig sa kanyang kaso.Bataysa sumusunod: (a)
Sinumang gumawa ng mga bagay bagay na labag at lihis sa patakaran ng Samahan. (b)
Sinumang gumawa ng mga bagay na maaaring ikabuwag ng Samahan. (c) Hindi paghuhulog ng
butaw sa loob ng tatlong buwan na walang sakit o Doctors Certificate. (d) Hindi pagbibigay ng
abuloy na itinatadhana ng Samahan. (e) Sinumang kasapi na natanggal sa kapisanan at
gustong, sumapi uli ay magpapanibago ng bilang, mula sa taon ng kanyang pagsapi uli sa
Samahan.
No hearing (pandinig) 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. The Samahan
did not comply with their own law even if the employees are the erring parties.

While the law recognizes the right of an employer to dismiss employees in warranted cases, it frowns upon
arbitrariness as when employees are not accorded due process. an employee may be considered illegally dismissed
because he was not accorded fair investigation.
The prerogative of OFC to dismiss petitioners should not have been whimsically done for it unduly
exposed itself to a charge of unfair labor practice for dismissing petitioners in line with the closed shop provision of
the CBA, without a proper hearing.
Under Rule XIV, Sections 2, 5, and 6 of the rules implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, the OFC and the
SAMAHAN should solidarity indemnify petitioners for the violation of their right to procedural due process.
Hence, while petitioners act of holding a special election to oust Capitle, et al. may be considered as an act
of sowing 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. Faced with a SAMAHAN leadership which they had tried to remove as officials, it was but a natural
act of self-preservation that petitioners fled to the arms of the FEDLU after the union and the OFC had tried to
terminate their employment. Petitioners should not be made accountable for such an act.
G.R. No. L-25246 September 12, 1974
BENJAMIN VICTORIANO, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and ELIZALDE ROPE FACTORY, INC., defendants, ELIZALDE
ROPE WORKERS' UNION, defendant-appellant.
FACTS: Benjamin Victoriano (hereinafter referred to as Appellee), a member of the religious sect known as the
Iglesia ni Cristo, had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Company)
since 1958. As such employee, he was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as
Union) which had with the Company a collective bargaining agreement containing a closed shop provision which
states Membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for all permanent employees
workers covered by this Agreement
The collective bargaining agreement expired on March 3, 1964 but was renewed the following day, March
4, 1964. Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its members with any labor organization,
Appellee presented his resignation to appellant Union in 1962, and when no action was taken thereon, he reiterated
his resignation on September 3, 1974. Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company asking the latter
to separate Appellee from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the Union as a member. The
management of the Company in turn notified Appellee and his counsel that unless the Appellee could achieve a
satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company would be constrained to dismiss him from the service. The
judgment is rendered enjoining the defendant Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. from dismissing the plaintiff from his
present employment and sentencing the defendant Elizalde Rope Workers Union to pay the plaintiff P500 for
attorneys fees and the costs of this action.
RULING: The right to refrain from joining labor organizations recognized by Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act
is, however, limited. The legal protection granted to such right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of
law, where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may
employ only member of the collective bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members of the
union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs. Thus Section 4 (a) (4) of the Industrial Peace Act,
before its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350, provides that although it would be an unfair labor practice for an
employer to discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization the employer is, however, not precluded from
making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such
labor organization is the representative of the employees. By virtue, therefore, of a closed shop agreement, before
the enactment of Republic Act No. 3350, if any person, regardless of his religious beliefs, wishes to be employed or
to keep his employment, he must become a member of the collective bargaining union. Hence, the right of said
employee not to join the labor union is curtailed and withdrawn.
That all-embracing coverage of the closed shop arrangement, Republic Act No. 3350 introduced an
exception, when it added to Section 4 (a) (4) of the Industrial Peace Act the following proviso: but such agreement
shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor
organization. Republic Act No. 3350 merely excludes ipso jure from the application and coverage of the closed

shop agreement the employees belonging to any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members with any
labor organization. What the exception provides, therefore, is that members of said religious sects cannot be
compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers;
that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be refused employment or
dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union. It is clear,
therefore, that the assailed Act, far from infringing the constitutional provision on freedom of association, upholds
and reinforces it. It does not prohibit the members of said religious sects from affiliating with labor unions. It still
leaves to said members the liberty and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor unions. If, notwithstanding
their religious beliefs, the members of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they can do so. If in
deference and fealty to their religious faith, they refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does not coerce them to
join; neither does the law prohibit them from joining; and neither may the employer or labor union compel them to
join. Republic Act No. 3350, therefore, does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of association.

G.R. Nos. 43633-34 September 14, 1990

PABLO ARIZALA, SERGIO MARIBAO, LEONARDO JOVEN, and FELINO BULANDUS, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS: Under the Industrial Peace Act, government-owned or controlled corporations had the duty to bargain
collectively and were otherwise subject to the obligations and duties of employers in the private sector.
The Act also prohibited supervisors to become, or continue to be, members of labor organizations
composed of rank-and-file employees, and prescribed criminal sanctions for breach of the prohibition. Under the
regime of said Industrial Peace Act that the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS, forshort) became bound
by a collective bargaining agreement executed between it and the labor organization representing the majority of its
employees, the GSIS Employees Association. The agreement contained a "maintenance-of-membership" clause.
The petitioners occupied supervisory positions in the GSIS. Pablo Arizala and Sergio Maribao were,
respectively, the Chief of the Accounting Division, and the Chief of the Billing Section of said Division, in the
Central Visayas Regional Office of the GSIS. Leonardo Joven and Felino Bulandus were, respectively, the Assistant
Chief of the Accounting Division (sometimes Acting Chief in the absence of the Chief) and the Assistant Chief of
the Field Service and Non-Life Insurance Division (and Acting Division Chief in the absence of the Chief), of the
same Central Visayas Regional Office of 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 Peace Act were
lodged against them in the City Court of Cebu: one involving Arizala and Maribao and the other, Joven and
Bulandus. Which resulted to their conviction.
They argued that when the so called "1973 Constitution" took effect on January 17, 1973 pursuant to
Proclamation No. 1104, the case of Arizala and Maribao was still pending in the Court of Appeals and that of Joven
and Bulandus, pending decision in the City Court of Cebu; that since the provisions of that constitution and of the
Labor Code subsequently promulgated (eff., November 1, 1974), repealing the Industrial Peace Act-placed
employees of all categories in government-owned or controlled corporations without distinction within the
Civil Service, and provided that the terms and conditions of their employment were to be "governed by
the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations" and hence, no longer subject of collective bargaining, the appellants
ceased to fall within the coverage of the Industrial Peace Act and should thus no longer continue to be prosecuted
and exposed to punishment for a violation thereof.
They pointed out further that the criminal sanction in the Industrial Peace Act no longer appeared in the

Labor Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners' criminal liability for a violation of the Industrial Peace Act may be deemed to
have been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation and the provisions of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
RULING: YES. the right of self-organization and collective bargaining had been withdrawn by the Labor Code from
government employees including those in government-owned and controlled corporations- chiefly for the reason
that the terms and conditions of government employment, all embraced in civil service, may not be modified by
collective bargaining because set by law. It is therefore immaterial, they say, whether supervisors are members of
rank-and-file unions or not; after all, the possibility of the employer's control of the members of the union thru
supervisors thus rendering collective bargaining illusory, which is the main reason for the prohibition, is no longer of
any consequence.
The disappearance from the law of the prohibition on supervisors being members of labor organizations composed
of employees under their supervision. The Labor Code (PD 442) allowed supervisors (if not managerial) to join rank
and-file unions. And under the Implementing Rules of RA 6715, supervisors who were members of existing labor
organizations on the effectivity of said RA 6715 were explicitly authorized to "remain therein." that the
maintenance by supervisors of membership in a rank-and-file labor organization even after the enactment of a
statute imposing a prohibition on such membership, is not only not a crime, but is explicitly allowed, under present
law.
The repeal of a penal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of
the old penal law prior to its repeal.