83.

ADAMSON AND ADAMSON vs CIR

ISSUE:
Whether or not a union is eligible to represent the supervisory employees notwith
standing the affiliation of the said union with the same national federation with
which the unions of non-supervisors in the company are also affiliated?

RULING:
Yes. The Court found without merit the contentions of petitioner that if affilation
will be allowed, only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-
and-file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an indirect affiliation
of supervisors and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; that
there would be emerging of two bargaining units ; and that the respondent union
will loose its independence because it becomes an alter ego of the federation
Also, the CIR correct when it ruled that “The confusion seems to have stemmed fr
om the prefix of FFW after the name of the local unions in the registration of both
. Nonetheless, the inclusion of FWW in the registration is merely to stress that the
y are its affiliates at the time of registrations. It does not mean that said local unio
ns cannot stand on their own Neither can it be construed that their personalities a
re so merged with the mother federation that for one difference or another they
cannot pursue their own ways, independently of the federation. This is borne by t
he fact that FFW, like other federation is a legitimate labor organization separate
and distinct from its locals and affiliates and to construe the registration certificat
es of the aforecited unions, along the line of the Company’s argument. would tie
up any affiliates to the shoe string of the federation.”
The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, I
nc., Salesmen Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-
laws. They are separately and independently registered of each other. Both sent t
heir separate proposals for collective bar agreements with their employer. There
could be no employer influence on rank-and-file organizational activities nor
there could be any rank and file influence on the supervisory function of the super
visors because of the representation sought to be proscribed.

1
84. ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC FREE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS vs LAGUESMA
GR NO. 108625 MAR. 11, 1996

ISSUE:
Whether or not a certificate of registration can be cancelled without hearing?

RULING:
Subject to the requirements of notice and due process, the registration of any legi
timate labor union, chartered local and worker’s association may be cancelled by
the Regional Director, or in the case of federations, national or industry unions an
d trade union centers, by the Bureau Director, by filing of an independent complai
nt or petition for cancellation.
The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out th
e life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses as a rule its rig
hts under the Labor Code. Under the circumstances, petitioner was indisputably e
ntitled to be heard before a judgment could be rendered cancelling its certificate
of registration. In David vs. Aguilizan it was held that a decision rendered without
any hearing is null and void.

2
85. ITOGON-SUYOC MINES vs ITOGON-SUYOC WORKERS UNION
GR NO. L-24189 AUG 30, 1968

ISSUE:
Whether or not a union which registration was cancelled cannot sue?

RULING:
No. First, Sañgilo’s registration is still valid. There is no order final in character can
celling Sañgilo’s registration permit and dropping its name from the roster of legiti
mate labor unions. Sangilo’s status does not appear in the record to have changed
Therefore, Sañgilo still enjoys all the rights accorded by law to a legitimate labor
union. One of those rights is the right to sue.
Even assuming that Sañgilo later lost its registration permit in the course of the pr
esent proceedings, still Sañgilo may continue as a party without need of substituti
on of parties, “subject however to the understanding that whatever decision may
be rendered therein will only be binding upon those members of the union who h
ave not signified their desire to withdraw from the case before its trial and decisio
n on the merits.”
The Court perceives of no reason why the judgment in favor of the fifteen individu
al respondent laborers should be overturned simply because the union of which t
hey were members ceased to be a legitimate labor union. It cannot be disputed th
at CIR’s prosecutor brought this case not merely for Sañgilo; it was also on behalf
of the 107 employees enumerated therein. This accounts for the fact that CIR’s ju
dgment for reinstatement and backpay was rendered in favor of the fifteen respo
ndent laborers. To accept petitioner’s argument as valid is to shunt aside substanc
e to give way to form. Error, if any, was harmless. It does not affect the substantia
l rights of the parties in interest. It is no ground for reversal. At this stage this Cour
t may even strike out Sañgilo-Itogon Workers’ Union and leave the fifteen
individual respondents alone.

3
86. PAFLU vs SEC OF LABOR
GR NO. L-22228 FEB 27, 1969

ISSUE:
Does the provision of the law providing for the cancellation of union registration
violate the union’s freedom to assembly and association?

RULING:
No. basis. The registration prescribed in paragraph (b) of said section is not a
limitation to the right of assembly or association, which may be exercised with or
without said registration. The latter is merely a condition sine qua non for the
acquisition of legal personality by labor organizations, associations or unions and
the possession of the "rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor
organizations". The Constitution does not guarantee these rights and privileges,
much less said personality, which are mere statutory creations, for the possession
and exercise of which registration is required to protect both labor and the public
against abuses, fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers, although not truly
accredited agents of the union they purport to represent. Such requirement is a
valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor
organizations, associations and union of workers are engaged affect public
interest, which should be protected. Furthermore, the obligation to submit
financial statements, as a condition for the non-cancellation of a certificate of
registration, is a reasonable regulation for the benefit of the members of the
organization, considering that the same generally solicits funds or membership, as
well as oftentimes collects, on behalf of its members, huge amounts of money
due to them or to the organization.

4
87. TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES vs TUNGOL
GR NO. L-47848 AUG 23, 1978

ISSUE:
Whether or not illegal strike is a ground for cancellation of registration.?
Ruling:
The argument is false and misleading. For expediency, we quote in entirety the
aforesaid Article relied upon by the petitioner for cancellation of the registration
and permit of the union: 'Article 239. Ground for cancellation of union
registration. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union
registration: (e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or
otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law. Suppletory to the above
provision is Section 6 (c) of Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, which reads as
follows: 'Section 6. Denial of Registration of local unions-The Regional Office may
deny the application for registration on any of the following grounds: (c) Engaging
in the "cabo " system or other illegal practices.' It is a fact that [Association of
Democratic Labor Organization] is not a labor contractor or is it engaged in the
'cabo' system or is it otherwise engaged in any activity of such nature which is
prohibited by law. The above-quoted article should not be interpreted or
construed to include an illegal strike engaged into by any union. This is so because
the phrase 'or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law' should be
construed to mean such activity engaged into by a union that partakes of the
nature of a labor contractor or 'cabo' system. The law does not intend to include
in the said phrase illegally declared strike simply because strike per se is legal.
Also, if the law intends to include illegally declared strike, the same could have
been expressly placed therein as had been previously done in Presidential Decree
No. 823." 11 Clearly, an awareness of the relevance of the maxims noscitur a
sociis and ejusdem generis ought to have cautioned counsel for petitioner to shy
away from this approach.

5
88. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED INC vs BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION
GR NO. 24711 APRIL.30, 1968

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Doctrine of Substitution is applicable?
Ruling:
The possible certification of a union different from that which signed the
bargaining contract was a mere contingency then since the elections were still to
be held. Clearly, the Court was not called upon to rule on possible effects of such
proceedings on the bargaining agreement. BENGUET's reliance upon the Principle
of Substitution is totally misplaced. This principle, formulated by the NLRB as its
initial compromise solution to the problem facing it when there occurs a shift in
employees' union allegiance after the execution of a bargaining contract with
their employer, merely states that even during the effectivity of a collective
bargaining agreement executed between employer and employees thru their
agent, the employees can change said agent but the contract continues to bind
them up to its expiration date. They may bargain however for the shortening of
said expiration date. In formulating the "substitutionary" doctrine, the only
consideration involved was the employees' interest in the existing bargaining
agreement. The agent's interest never entered the picture.