2.

GALVADORRES VS TRAJANO

G.R. No. 70067 September 15, 1986

FACTS:

Petitioner employees of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) and
members of respondent Free Telephone Workers Union, now the Manggagawa ng
Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (simply referred to hereinafter as the Union), question the
legality of the check-off for attorney's fees amounting to P1M, more or less, of
respondent Atty. Jose C. Espinas (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Counsel") from
the monetary benefits awarded to PLDT employees in a deadlocked collective bargaining
agreement negotiations between the PLDT and the Union.

Respondent Counsel has been the legal counsel of respondent Union since 1964. For his
services, he was hired on a case-to-case contingent fee basis. On September 9, 1983, the
Minister of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over all unresolved issues in the
bargaining deadlock between PLDT and the Union and proceeded to resolve the same by
compulsory arbitration. On October 29, 1983, the Executive Board of the Union passed a
resolution requesting PLDT to deduct P115.00 per employee for the legal services
extended to the Union by respondent Counsel.

On November 2, 1983, petitioners initially numbering 600 and finally 5,258, filed
a letter-complaint before the MOLE through their authorized representative, petitioner
Carlos Galvadores assailing the imposition of P130.00 (later corrected to P155.00) per
employee as attorney's fees of respondents counsel. Petitioners took the position that the
attorney's fees of respondent counsel were not only unreasonable but also violative of
Article 242(o) of the Labor Code; and that the deductions cannot given legal effect by a
mere Board resolution but needs the ratification by the general membership of the Union.
Respondents Union and Counsel, on the other hand, proferred the argument that the
attorney s fees being exacted pertained to his services during compulsory arbitration
proceedings and cannot be considered as negotiation fees or attorney's fees within the
context of Article 242(o) of the Labor Code and that contrary to petitioners' claim that
Respondent Counsel surfaced only as lawyer of the Union when the employees
themselves engaged in mass action to force a solution to the deadlock in their
negotiations, he appeared continuously from September 8, 1983 until the decision in the
case was rendered on October 23, 1983. Petitioners proposed a solution offering to pay
P10.00 per employee, but Respondent Counsel refused.

On March 22, 1984, the Union filed a Manifestation to the effect that about 6,067
members of the Union ratified the October 29, 1983 resolution of the legislative council
in a plebiscite called for that purpose. On the basis thereof, Counsel moved for the
payment of his legal fees under the September 7, 1983 contract.

Petitioners questioned the plebiscite on the ground that Question No. 2 was misleading
and deceptive as it assumed that there was no dispute regarding the deduction of
attorney's fees from the monetary benefits awarded to PLDT employees:

Question No. 2. Do you approve of the use of P1 million (P500,000.00 to be withdrawn

from PECCI and another P500,000.00 from IBAA) from our CBA negotiation fund
together with the attorney's fees (P1 million) that was collected and to be loaned to the
MKP/FTWU as our counterpart of the seed money to start the housing program as agreed
by the PLDT management and our union panel and included in the award of the MOLE?

Respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed petitioners' complaint

for lack of merit reasoning that "the outcome of the plebiscite negates any further
question on the right of the union counsel to collect the amount of P115 from each of the
employees involved

This Decision is assailed by petitioners principally on the ground that the individual
written authorization of an the employees must first be obtained before any assessment
can be made against the monetary benefits awarded to them pursuant to Article 242(o) of
the Labor Code; and that assuming that Respondent Counsel is entitled to attorney's fees,
the same should be taken from Union funds.

Respondents Union and Counsel argue that compulsory arbitration is a "mandatory

activity" and an exception to Article 242(o) of the Labor Code, and that the Union
members approved the questioned deduction in the plebiscite of January, 1984

ISSUE: Whether or not compulsory arbitration is a mandatory activity?

RULING: NO. Contrary to respondent Union's and Counsel's stand, the benefits awarded
to PLDT employees still formed part of the collective bargaining negotiations although
placed already under compulsory arbitration. This is not the "mandatory activity" under
the Code which dispenses with individual written authorizations for check-offs,
notwithstanding its "compulsory" nature. It is a judicial process of settling disputes laid
down by law. Besides, Article 222(b) does not except a CBA, later placed under
compulsory arbitration, from the ambit of its prohibition. The cardinal principle should be
borne in mind that employees are protected by law from unwarranted practices that
diminish their compensation without their knowledge and consent.

(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessment,
attorney's fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off "from
any amount due an employee without individual written authorization duly signed by the
employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and
beneficiary of the deduction.

DOCTRINE: Article 222 (b) does not exempt a CBA, later placed under compulsory
arbitration, from the ambit of its prohibition. Hence, individual written authorizations for
check-offs are not dispensed with, even if the CBA provides so.

(b) No attorney's fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from
any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective bargaining
agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union;
Provided, however, that attorney's fees may be charged against union funds in an amount
to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to
the contrary shall be null and void.

5. Topic: Test for Existence of Rights/Jurisdiction Exhaustion of Internal

Remedies

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, at the time of the present dispute, was the existing bargaining
agent of the employees in private respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. (hereinafter
referred to as Company). The Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a
collective bargaining agreement governing their labor relations, which agreement was
then about to expire on February 28, 1977. Within the last sixty (60) days of the CBA,
events transpired giving rise to the present dispute.

On January 5, 1977, upon written authority of at least 30% of the employees in the
company, including the petitioners, the Federation of Unions of Rizal (hereinafter
referred to as FUR) filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbiter's
Office, Regional Office No. 4 of the Ministry of Labor and Employment. The petition
was, however, opposed by the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (hereinafter
referred to as PAFLU) with whom, as stated earlier, the Amigo Employees Union was at
that time affiliated. PAFLU's opposition cited the "Code of Ethics" governing inter-
federation disputes among and between members of the Trade Unions Congress of the
Philippines (hereinafter referred to as TUCP). Consequently, the Med-Arbiter indorsed
the case to TUCP for appropriate action but before any such action could be taken
thereon, the petitioners disauthorized FUR from continuing the petition for certification
election for which reason FUR withdrew the petition.

On February 7, 1977, the same employees who had signed the petition filed by FUR
signed a joint resolution stating among others the declaration of their disaffiliation with
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) and them having an independent
Union called Amigo Employees Union by filing Petition for Certification Election with
Department of Labor.

Subsequently, on February 9, 1977, petitioner Dolores Villar, representing herself to be

the authorized representative of the Amigo Employees Union, filed a petition for
certification election in the Company before Regional Office No. 4, with the Amigo
Employees Union as the petitioner however it was dismissed by Med-Arbiter after
finding that the petition involved the same parties and causes of action as the case
previously indorsed to the TUCP.

In the meantime, on February 14, 1977, the Amigo Employees Union- PAFLU called a
special meeting of its general membership.

Pursuant to the Resolution approved by the Amigo Employees Union- PAFLU, the
PAFLU, through its national President, formed a Trial Committee to investigate the local
union's charges against the petitioners for acts of disloyalty inimical to the interest of the
local union, as well as directing the Trial Committee to subpoena the complainants
(Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU) and the respondents (herein petitioners) for
investigation, to conduct the said investigation and to submit its findings and
recommendations for appropriate action.

And on the same date of February 15, 1977, the Amigo Employees Union- PAFLU and
the Company concluded a new CBA which, besides granting additional benefits to the
workers, also reincorporated the same provisions of the existing CBA, including the
union security clause reading, to wit:

ARTICLE III
UNION SECURITY WITH RESPECT TO PRESENT MEMBERS

All members of the UNION as of the signing of this Agreement shall remain members
thereof in good standing. Therefore, any members who shall resign, be expelled, or shall
in any manner cease to be a member of the UNION, shall be dismissed from his
employment upon written request of the UNION to the Company.

Subsequently, petitioners were summoned to appear before the PAFLU Trial Committee
for the aforestated investigation of the charges filed against them by the Amigo
Employees Union-PAFLU. Petitioners, however, did not attend but requested for a "Bill
of Particulars" of the charges, which charges were stated by the Chairman of the
committee as follows:

1. Disaffiliating from PAFLU and affiliating with the Federation of Unions of Rizal
(FUR).
2. Filling petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations and
docketed as Case No. R04-MED-830-77 and authorizing a certain Dolores Villar as your
authorized representative without the official sanction of the mother Federation- PAFLU.

3. Maligning, libelling and slandering the incumbent officers of the union as well as of
the PAFLU Federation.

4. By spreading false propaganda among members of the Amigo Employees Union-

PAFLU that the incumbent union officers are 'merely appointees' of the management.

5. By sowing divisiveness instead of togetherness among members of the Amigo

Employees Union-PAFLU.

6. By conduct unbecoming as members of the Amigo Employees Union- PAFLU which

is highly prejudicial to the union as well as to the PAFLU Federation.

All these charges were formalized in a resolution of the incumbent officers of the Amigo
Employees Union-PAFLU dated February 14, 1977.

Based on the findings and recommendations of the PAFLU trial committee, the PAFLU
President, on March 15, 1977, rendered a decision finding the petitioners guilty of the
charges.

AMIGO MANUFACTURING, INC. is hereby requested to terminate them from their

employment in conformity with the security clause in the collective bargaining agreement

Issue:

1. W/N the preventive suspension and subsequent dismissal of petitioners

is infringement of their right to freedom of association?

2. W/N respondent Minister erred in upholding the decision of the RO4 OIC which
sustained the availment of the respondent PAFLU's constitution over that of the
local union constitution in the settlement of intra-union dispute?

Held:

1. It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is
implicit in the freedom of association ordained by the Constitution. 13 But this
 Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form of union security,
and such provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the
right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution

In the case at bar, it appears as an undisputed fact that on February 15, 1977, the
Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU entered into a Collective
Bargaining Agreement with a union security clause provided for in Article XII
thereof which is a reiteration of the same clause in the old CBA. The quoted
stipulation for closed-shop is clear and unequivocal and it leaves no room for
doubt that the employer is bound, under the collective bargaining agreement, to
dismiss the employees, herein petitioners, for non- union membership. Petitioners
became non-union members upon their expulsion from the general membership of
the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU on March 15, 1977 pursuant to the Decision
of the PAFLU national president.

2. The contention of petitioners that the charges against them being intra-union
problems, should have been investigated in accordance with the constitution and
by-laws of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU and not of the PAFLU, is not
impressed with merit. It is true that under the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of the Labor Code, in case of intra-union disputes, redress must first be sought
within the organization itself in accordance with its constitution and by-laws.
However, it has been held that this requirement is not absolute but yields to
exception under varying circumstances. Thus, in Kapisanan ng
mgaManggagawasa MRR vs. Hernandez, 20 SCRA 109, We held:
In the case at bar, noteworthy is the fact that the complaint was filed against
the union and its incumbent officers, some of whom were members of the
board of directors. The constitution and by-laws of the union provide that
charges for any violations thereof shall be filed before the said board. But
as explained by the lower court, if the complainants had done so the board
of directors would in effect be acting as respondent investigator and judge
at the same time. To follow the procedure indicated would be a farce under
the circumstances, where exhaustion of remedies within the union itself
would practically amount to a denial of justice or would be illusory or vain,
 it will not be insisted upon, particularly where property rights of the
members are involved, as a condition to the right to invoke the aid of a
court.
The facts of the instant petition stand on all fours with the aforecited case that the
principle therein enunciated applies here as well. In the case at bar, the petitioners
were charged by the officers of the Amigo Employees Union- PAFLU themselves
who were also members of the Board of Directors of the Amigo Employees
Union-PAFLU. Thus, were the petitioners to be charged and investigated
according to the local union's constitution, they would have been tried by a trial
committee of three (3) elected from among the members of the Board who are
themselves the accusers. (Section 2, Article 11, Constitution of the Local Union).
Petitioners would be in a far worse position had this procedure been followed.
Nonetheless, petitioners admit in their petition that two (2) of the six (6) charges,
i.e. disaffiliation and filing a petition for certification election, are not intra-union
matters and, therefore, are cognizable by PAFLU.

9. ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER, INC. VS. TORRES,

G.R. No. 99395 June 29, 1993

FACTS:

Private respondent SLMCEA-AFW brought to the attention of petitioner via a letter

dated July 4, 1990 that the 1987-1990 was about to expire, and manifested in the process
that private respondent wanted to renew the CBA. This development triggered round-
table talks on which occasions petitioner proposed, among other items, a maximum
across-the-board monthly salary increase of P375.00 per employee, to which proposal
private respondent demanded a P1,500.00 hike or 50% increase based on the latest salary
rate of each employee, whichever is higher.

A deadlock on issues, especially that bearing on across-the-board monthly and meal

allowances followed and to pre-empt the impending strike as voted upon by a majority of
private respondent's membership, petitioner lodged the petition below. The Secretary of
Labor immediately assumed jurisdiction and the parties submitted their respective
pleadings.
On January 28, 1991, public respondent Secretary of Labor issued the Order now under
challenge. Said Order contained a disposition on both the economic and non-economic
issues raised in the petition. One of the rulings in the order is the granting of the
retroactive effect to the enforceability of the CBA.

Petitioner argues that the Order of January 28, 1991 is violative of Article 253-A of the
Labor Code, particularly its provisions on retroactivity. Said Article pertinently provides:

xxx xxx xxx

Any agreement on such other provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered
into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as
fixed in the collective bargaining agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately
following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties
shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the
renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their rights
under this Code.

Petitioner argues that in granting retroactive effect to the enforceability of the CBA,
public respondent committed an act contrary to the above provision of law, pointing out
that the old CBA expired on July 30, 1990 and the questioned order was issued on
January 28, 1991. Petitioner theorizes that following Article 13 of the Civil Code which
provides that there are 30 days in one month, the questioned Order of January 28, 1991
was issued beyond the six-month period, graphically shown thus:

July 30, 1990 Expiration

July 31 = 1 day
August 1-31, 1990 = 31 days
September 1-30, 1990 = 30 days
October 1-31, 1990 = 31 days
November 1-30, 1990 = 30 days
December 1-31, 1990 = 31 days
January 1-28, 1991 = 28 days

TOTAL = 182 days

(6 months and 2 days)

Private respondent agrees with the Labor Secretary's view that Article 253-A of the Labor
Code does not apply to arbitral awards such as those involved in the instant case.
According to private respondent, Article 253-A of the Labor Code is clear and plain on its
face as referring only to collective bargaining agreements entered into by management
and the certified exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees therein within
six (6) months from the expiry of the old CBA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CBA should be given retroactive effect.

RULING: The effectivity of the Order of January 28, 1991, must retroact to the date of
the expiration of the previous CBA, contrary to the position of petitioner. Under the
circumstances of the case, Article 253-A cannot be property applied to herein case. As
correctly stated by public respondent in his assailed Order of April 12, 1991 dismissing
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration

Anent the alleged lack of basis for the retroactivity provisions awarded, we would stress
that the provision of law invoked by the Hospital, Article 253-A of the Labor Code, speak
of agreements by and between the parties, and not arbitral awards . . .

Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of the

effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article 263 (g)
of the Labor Code, such as herein involved, public respondent is deemed vested with
plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof.

10. PAMBANSANG KAPATIRAN NG MGA ANAK PAWIS vs. SECRETARY OF

LABOR
G.R. No. 111836, February 1, 1996

FACTS:

The rank and file workers of Formey Plastic, Inc. (FORMEY), formed a local union
known as Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey Plastic (KAPATIRAN)
under the auspices of the National Workers Brotherhood (NWB). They ratified their
Constitution and By-Laws on 4 April 1993.
On 22 April 1993 KAPATIRAN filed a Petition for Certification Election alleging that
there was no existing and effective CBA between FORMEY and any union; neither was
there any recognized union within the company.

FORMEY moved to dismiss the petition while Kalipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino

(KAMAPI) intervened and likewise moved to dismiss on the ground that there was
already a duly registered CBA covering period Jan. 1, 1992 to Dec. 31, 1996, therefore
the contract bar rule will apply.

KAPATIRAN opposed both motion to dismiss claiming that the CBA executed between
FORMEY and KAMAPI was fraudulently registered with the DOLE and that it was
defective since what was certified as bargaining agent was KAMAPI which as federation
only served as mere agent of the local union and without any legal personality to sign in
behalf of the latter.

Med-Arbiter found that there is a valid and existing CBA between FORMEY and
KAMAPI which effectively barred the filing for petition for certification election.
KAPATIRAN appealed imputing grave abuse of discretion to the Med-Arbiter in
applying the contract bar rule. Secretary of Labor upheld the decision of Med-Arbiter.
KAPATIRAN filed a motion for reconsideration which was likewise denied.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petition for certification election was properly filed.
2. Whether or not there was a valid CBA between FORMEY and KAMAPI.

HELD:

1. No, the petition for certification election was not properly filed. The CBA entered
into between FORMEY and KAMAPI was made effectively Jan. 1, 1992 and will
expire Dec. 31, 1996. The petition for certification election was filed on April 22,
1993 which was filed before the so-called 60-day freedom period.
 2. Yes, the court affirmed that there was a valid CBA between FORMEY and
KAMAPI. Art. 253-A of the labor code provides that no petition questioning the
majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no
certification election shall be conducted by the DOLE outside the 60-day period
immediately before the date of expiry of such 5 year term of the CBA.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment dated 15 August 1993 sustaining the order of the Med-Arbiter dated 31 May
1993 is AFFIRMED.

13. G.R. No. L-35120 January 31, 1984

ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and ADAMSON & ADAMSON
SUPERVISORY UNION (FFW), respondents.
Respondent Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) was organized to
represent the supervisors of the petitioner, Adamson and Adamson, Inc. On the same date
was the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Salesmen Association (FFW) representing the rank
and file salesmen had formed their own union. Subsequently, the rank and file employees
formed their own union, naming it Adamson and Adamson Independent Workers (FFW).

The petitioner argues that the affiliation of the respondent union of supervisors, the
salesmen's association, and the Adamson and Adamson independent Workers Union of
rank and file personnel with the same national federation (FFW) violates Section 3 of the
Industrial Peace Act, as amended, because (1) it results in the indirect affiliation Of
supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; (2) since
respondent union and the unions of non-supervisors in the same company are governed
by the same constitution and by-laws of the national federation, in practical effect, there
is but one union; and (3) it would result in the respondent union's losing its independence
because it becomes the alter ego of the federation.
The petitioner also submits that should affiliation be allowed, this would violate the
requirement of separateness of bar units under Section 12 of the Act because only one
union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-file employees of the
petitioner.

The respondents on the other hand argue that the supervisory employees of an employer
may validly join an organization of the rank-and-file employees so long as the said rank
and file employees are not under their supervision. They submit that Adamson and
Adamson Supervisory Union (FFW) is not composed of sales supervisors and, therefore,
the salesmen of the company are not under the supervision of the supervisory employees
forming the union. Respondents also argue that even if the salesmen of the petitioner
company are under the supervision of the members of the supervisory union, the
prohibition would not apply because the salesmen and the supervisory employees of the
company have their separate and distinct labor organizations

CIR issued in favor of the respondent unions and thus, this petition for review on
certiorari. The petitioner made a lone assignment of error, to wit:
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ERRED IN
SUSTAINING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT UNION TO REPRESENT
THE PETITIONER'S SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES NOT-WITHSTANDING THE
AFFILIATION OF THE SAID UNION WITH THE SAME NATIONAL FEDERATION
WITH WHICH THE UNIONS OF NON-SUPERVISORS IN THE PETITIONER
COMPANY ARE ALSO AFFILIATED.
ISSUE:

Whether or not a supervisor's union may affiliate with a federation with which unions of
rank and-file employees of the same employer are also affiliated.

HELD:

YES, the supervisor's union may affiliate with a federation with which unions of rank
and-file employees of the same employer are also affiliated.

The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc.,
Salesmen Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-laws. They
are separately and independently registered of each other. Both sent their separate
proposals for collective bar agreements with their employer. There could be no employer
influence on rank-and-file organizational activities nor their could be any rank and file
influence on the supervisory function of the supervisors because of the representation
sought to be proscribed.

Instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The questioned order and the
resolution en bancof the respondent Court of Industrial Relations are AFFIRMED.

14. VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION v.

BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION FOR
METAL WORKERS, DMG, INC., PEOPLES CAR, INC., KARBAYAN, INC., and
RTC TRADING, INC.

FACTS:
Petitioner Volkschel Labor Union was once affiliated with the Associated Labor
Union for Metal Workers (ALUMETAL). Both unions jointly entered into a CBA. They
have agreed that the company would make payroll deductions twice a month as union
membership dues, provided that the same is covered by the individual check-off
authorization of the union members.
A majority of petitioners members decided to disaffiliate from ALUMETAL in
order to operate on its own as an independent labor group pursuant to Art. 241 of the
Labor Code, which reads: Incumbent affiliates of existing federations or national unions
may disaffiliate only for the purpose of joining a federation or national union or region in
which it properly belongs or for the purpose of operating as an independent labor
group.
Petitioners members revoked their check-off authorization in favor of
ALUMETAL. However, ALUMETAL advised respondent companies to continue
deducting from employees wages and remitting union dues to the former. Thus, the
respondent companies sought the legal opinion of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
Med-Arbiter Eduvallafound the disaffiliation legal but opined that petitioners
members should continue paying their dues to ALUMETAL as to agency fees.
 Upon appeal to the director of BLR, petitioner contended that Med-Arbiters
opinion that petitioners members remained obligated to pay dues was inconsistent with
the finding that petitioners disaffiliation was valid. ALUMETAL, on the other hand,
contended that the disaffiliation should have been declared contrary to law. BLR reversed
the Med-Arbiters Resolution and held that it recognized the continued affiliation of
petitioner with ALUMETAL.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner unions disaffiliation from ALUMETAL is valid

HELD:
Yes. The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled.
In previous cases, it has been repeatedly held that a local union, being a separate and
voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the
freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. The right is consistent with the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association (Art. IV, Sec. 7).

15. Alex Ferrer vs NLRC

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.

SamahangManggagawa 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.
Issue:

Whether or not the dismissal was valid

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 sinumangkasapi ay maaringitwalag (sic) ng

Samahanpangsamantala o tuluyansapamamagitan (sic) ng tatlotikaapat ()
nabahagi ng dami ng bilang ng
PamunuangTagapagpaganap.Pagkaraanlamangsapandinigsakanyangkaso.Bataysas
umusunod: (a) Sinumanggumawa ng mgabagaybagaynalabag at lihissapatakaran
ng Samahan. (b) Sinumanggumawa ng mgabagaynamaaaringikabuwag ng
Samahan. (c) Hindi paghuhulog ng butawsaloob ng tatlongbuwannawalangsakit o
Doctors Certificate. (d) Hindi pagbibigay ng abuloynaitinatadhana ng Samahan.
(e) Sinumangkasapinanatanggalsakapisanan at gustong, sumapiuli ay
magpapanibago ng bilang, mulasataon ng kanyangpagsapiulisaSamahan.

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. 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

PambansaBlg. 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
FEDLUafterthe union and the OFC had tried to terminate their employment. Petitioners
should not be made accountable for such an act.

17. Topic: Rules on Legality of Act of Disaffiliation

PHILIPPINE SKYLANDERS, INC., MARILES C. ROMULO and FRANCISCO

DAKILA, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER
EMERSON TUMANON, PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR
UNIONS (PAFLU) SEPTEMBER (now UNIFIED PAFLU) and SERAFIN
AYROSO, respondents.

Facts:

In November 1993 the Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA), a local

labor union affiliated with the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU)
September (PAFLU), won in the certification election conducted among the rank and file
employees of Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its rival union, Philippine
SkylandersEmployees Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested the
result of the election before the Secretary of Labor.
Several months later, pending settlement of the controversy, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice
of disaffiliation citing as reason PAFLU's supposed deliberate and habitual dereliction of
duty toward its members. Attached to the notice was a copy of the resolution adopted and
signed by the officers and members of PSEA authorizing their local union to disaffiliate
from its mother federation.
PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with the National Congress of Workers (NCW),
changed its name to Philippine Skylanders Employees Association - National Congress of
Workers (PSEA-NCW), and to maintain continuity within the organization, allowed the
former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected officers
in the newly-forged PSEA-NCW.
On 17 March 1994 PSEA-NCW entered into a collective bargaining agreement with PSI
which was immediately registered with the Department of Labor and Employment.
Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to PSEA's shift of allegiance, PAFLU Secretary General
SerafinAyroso wrote Mariles C. Romulo requesting a copy of PSI's audited financial
statement. Ayroso explained that with the dismissal of PSEA-WATU's election protest the
time was ripe for the parties to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.
On 30 July 1994 PSI through its personnel manager Francisco Dakila denied the request
citing as reason PSEA's disaffiliation from PAFLU and its subsequent affiliation with
NCW.
Agitated by PSI's recognition of PSEA-NCW, PAFLU through SerafinAyroso filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice against PSI, its president Mariles Romulo and
personnel manager Francisco Dakila. PAFLU alleged that aside from PSI's refusal to
bargain collectively with its workers, the company through its president and personnel
manager, was also liable for interfering with its employees' union activities.6
Two (2) days later or on 6 October 1994 Ayroso filed another complaint in behalf of
PAFLU for unfair labor practice against Francisco Dakila. Through Ayroso PAFLU
claimed that Dakila was present in PSEA's organizational meeting thereby confirming his
illicit participation in union activities. Ayroso added that the members of the local union
had unwittingly fallen into the manipulative machinations of PSI and were lured into
endorsing a collective bargaining agreement which was detrimental to their interests.7 The
two (2) complaints were thereafter consolidated.
PSI, its president Mariles C. Romulo, and its personnel manager Dakila moved for the
dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the issue of disaffiliation was an inter-union
conflict which lay beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. On the other hand, PSEA-
NCW took the cudgels for its officers who were being sued in their capacities as former
officers of PSEA-PAFLU and asserted that since PSEA was no longer affiliated with
PAFLU, Ayroso or PAFLU for that matter had no personality to file the instant complaint.
In support of this assertion, PSEA-NCW submitted in evidence a Katunayan signed by
111 out of 120 rank and file employees of PSI disauthorizingAyroso or PAFLU from
instituting any action in their behalf.
Issue:
W/N PSEA, which is an independent and separate local union, validly disaffiliate from
PAFLU?
Held:
Yes.
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is not a novel thesis
unillumined by case law. In the landmark case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs.
Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc.16 we upheld the right of local unions to separate from their
mother federation on the ground that as separate and voluntary associations, local unions
do not owe their creation and existence to the national federation to which they are
affiliated but, instead, to the will of their members. The sole essence of affiliation is to
increase, by collective action, the common bargaining power of local unions for the
effective enhancement and protection of their interests. Admittedly, there are times when
without succor and support local unions may find it hard, unaided by other support
groups, to secure justice for themselves.
Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own interests
subject to the restraints imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the national
federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the terms laid down in the
agreement which brought such affiliation into existence.

18. G.R. No. L-41288 January 31, 1977

PHILIPPINES LABOR ALLIANCE COUNCIL (PLAC), petitioner,
vs.
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS-
ORION CHAPTER, GERARDO ROSANA and ORION MANILA,
INC. respondents.
PLAC is the bargaining agent of the respondent company. It alleged that there was a
renewal of the collective bargaining agreement with a union shop clause on March
9,1974 between petitioner union and respondent company to last for another period of
three (3) years incorporating therein new economic benefits to expire on December 31,
1977. The claim was that at that time it was the only bargaining agent of the respondent
company unchallenged by any labor organization. It asserted that on May 27, 1974, with
due notice to all the members of the petitioner union, and with more than 1,500 of them
present, such collective bargaining agreement was ratified by a unanimous vote . It was
then so certified by the former National Labor Relations Commission on June 4,
1974. The Secretary of Labor affirmed NLRC's decision.

Thereafter, on June 20, 1974, respondent Federation of Free Workers, setting forth that its
members represent more than 60% out of 1,500 members, more or less, rank-and-file
employees of respondent company, sought a certification election. Respondent Federation
on January 15, 1975, filed a complaint with the respondent Bureau of Labor Relations,
the present Labor Code having become effective, alleging that some employees,
numbering 848 in all, in a resolution attached to the complaint disaffiliated from
petitioner union and affiliated with it. Thus, it could not be possible that PLAC was
renewed as the bargaining agent of the company since majority or its members already
disaffiliated with it and thus, did not ratify it.

Bureau of Labor Relations issued an order setting aside the certification of the collective
bargaining agreement and ordering a certification election within 20 days from receipt of
the order. It further ruled that with respect to the complaint of the confirmation of
disaffiliation of the members of respondent Philippine Labor Alliance Council, the same
should be resolved in the most expedient and simple method of determining the exclusive
bargaining representativethe holding of a certification election.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prior disaffiliation invalidates the certification of the renewed
collective bargaining agreement of PLAC with its employer.

HELD: Yes, the SC ruled that the certification is not valid.

It is not disputed that the collective bargaining agreement certified by the National Labor
Relations Commission was not ratified by the majority of the employees within the
bargaining unit. This is defective. It is blatant non-observance of the basic requirement
necessary to certification. The SC also agreed with the Bureau of Labor Relations that
With the decertification of the collective agreement, the representation issue comes back
to the fore. Petitioner wants this resolved by ruling on the affiliation and disaffiliation of
the union, The Bureau holds, however, that certification election can better reolve the
issue. parenthetically, it should be stated that a certification election can still be held even
if the collective agreement were certified, considering the peculiar facts of the case. Good
policy and equity demand that when an agreement is renegotiated before the appointed
60-day period, its certification must still give way to any representation issue that may be
raised within 60-day period so that the right of employees to choose a bargaining unit
agent and the right, of unions to be chosen shall be preserved.

Petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed.

19. Alliance of Nationalist Union vs SAMANA BAY

Facts:

Petitioner Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization (ANGLO) is a

duly registered labor organization while respondent union Samahan Ng
MgaMangagawangNagkakaisasa Manila Bay Spinning Mills and J.P. Coats (SAMANA
BAY) is its affiliate. In representation of SAMANA BAY, ANGLO entered and concluded
a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Manila Bay Spinning Mills and J.P. Coats
Manila Bay, Inc. On December 4, 1993, the Executive Committee of SAMANA BAY
decided to disaffiliate from ANGLO in view of the latter's dereliction of its duty to
promote and advance the welfare of SAMANA BAY and the alleged cases of corruption
involving the federation officers. Said disaffiliation was unanimously confirmed by the
members of SAMANA BAY.

On April 4, 1994, a petition to stop remittance of federation dues to ANGLO was

filed by SAMANA BAY with the Bureau of Labor Relations on the ground that the
corporations, despite having been furnished copies of the union resolution relating to said
disaffiliation, refused to honor the same. ANGLO counteracted by unseating all officers
and board members of SAMANA BAY and appointing, in their stead, a new set of
officers who were duly recognized by the corporations. In its position paper, ANGLO
contended that the disaffiliation was void considering that a collective bargaining
agreement is still existing and the freedom period has not yet set in. The Med-Arbiter
resolved that the disaffiliation was void but upheld the illegality of the ouster officers of
SAMANA BAY. Both parties filed their respective appeals with the Department of Labor
and Employment.The DOLE reversed and modified the ruling of the Med-Arb.

Issue:

Whether or not the disaffiliation was valid

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the disaffiliation was valid. The rule that all employees enjoy
the right to self-organization and to form and join labor organizations of their own
choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining. This is a fundamental right of labor and
derives its existence from the Constitution. In interpreting the protection to labor and
social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws, rules or regulations the
liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights has always been adopted. This
Court is not ready to bend this principle to yield to a mere procedural defect, to wit:
failure to observe certain procedural requirements for a valid disaffiliation. Non-
compliance with the procedure on disaffiliation, being premised on purely technical
grounds cannot rise above the fundamental right of self- organization

Although P.D. 1391 provides:

"Item No. 6. No petition for certification election, for intervention and disaffiliation shall
be entertained or given due course except within the 60-day freedom period immediately
preceding the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement,"

said law is definitely not without exceptions. Settled is the rule that a local union has the
right to disaffiliate from its mother union when circumstances warrant.[5] Generally, a
labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or independent union
only during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA.
However, even before the onset of the freedom period, disaffiliation may be carried out
when there is a shift of allegiance on the part of the majority of the members of the union.