91. BENJAMIN VICTORIANO vs ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION G.R. No.

L-25246, September 12, 1974

Facts:

Benjamin Victoriano is a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC). He was also a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers’
Union which had a CBA with Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. containing a closed shop provision. Being a member of a
religious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its members with any labor organization, Victoriano presented his
resignation to the Union. Thereupon, the Union asked the employer to separate Victoriano from his employment
in view of the fact that the latter was resigning from the Union as a member. In this petition, the Union asserts that
the closed shop provision in the CBA cannot be violative of religious freedom.

Issue: Does a closed shop agreement violate the right to religious freedom of an employee belonging to a sect
which prohibits the affiliation of its members with labor organizations?

Ruling: Yes. The exemption clause in the (old) Labor Code provides that members of religious sects with such
prohibition cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop
agreements with employers; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sectors cannot
be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the union.
The Court emphasized that the free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case
of conflicts, the latter must, therefore, yield to the former.

92. HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL vs HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS G.R. No. 179146, July 23, 2013

Facts: A petition for certification election was filed by private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis
– Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HCCS-TELUPIGLAS). Petitioner Holy Child
Catholic School (HCCS) Petitioner raised that members of the union do not belong to the same class; it is not only a
mixture of managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employees – as three (3) are vice-principals, one (1) is a
department head/supervisor, and eleven (11) are coordinators – but also a combination of teaching and non-
teaching personnel – as twenty-seven (27) are non-teaching personnel. It insisted that, for not being in accord with
Article 245 of the Labor Code, the union is an illegitimate labor organization lacking in personality to file a petition
for certification election and an inappropriate bargaining unit for want of community or mutuality of interest.

Issue: Can the commingling of supervisory and managerial and rank-and-file employees in a union be a ground for
the cancellation of its petition for certification election?

Ruling: No. The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless
such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in
Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code. The employer cannot collaterally attack the legitimacy of the
union by praying for the dismissal of the petition for certification election. As stated by the Court, Except when it is
requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such
proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization
will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is
the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot
interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere
allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial
employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only right in
the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof. Further, the determination of whether union membership
comprises managerial and/or supervisory employees is a factual issue that is best left for resolution in the
inclusion-exclusion proceedings, which has not yet happened in this case so still premature to pass upon. In case of
alleged inclusion of disqualified employees in a union, the proper procedure for an employer like petitioner is to
directly file a petition for cancellation of the union’s certificate of registration due to misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code, as amended.
93. NELSON A. CULILI vs EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011

Facts: Due to financial losses, employer Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) was compelled to
reduce its workforce only to those that were necessary and which it can sustain. With this, ETPI offered a Special
Retirement Program to those who will be laid off. Nestor Culili, a Senior Technician, was among those employees
whose positions were already considered redundant. Culili asserts that the employer was guilty of unfair labor
practice because his functions were sourced out to labor-only contractors and he was discriminated against when
his co-employees were treated differently when they were each offered an additional motorcycle to induce them
to avail of the Special Retirement Program.

Issue:

Is an employer guilty of unfair labor practice when it terminated an employee because of redundancy of job
positions?

Ruling:

No. In the past, the Court ruled that "unfair labor practice refers to ‘acts that violate the workers' right to
organize.’ The prohibited acts are related to the workers' right to selforganization and to the observance of a CBA."
It have likewise declared that "there should be no dispute that all the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor
practice in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization.” Thus, an employer may only be held liable for
unfair labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his employees to self-
organize. In the case at bar, there is no showing that ETPI, in implementing its Right-Sizing Program, was motivated
by ill will, bad faith or malice, or that it was aimed at interfering with its employees’ right to self-organize. In fact,
ETPI negotiated and consulted with ETEU before implementing its Right-Sizing Program. Culili has the burden of
proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor practice. Culili failed to discharge
this burden and his bare allegations deserve no credit.

94. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION vs JUDGE AMADOR E. GOMEZ, et. al. G.R. No. L-25999, February 9, 1967

Facts: ALU and SUGECO entered into a CBA. Prior to its expiry, renewal was sought through negotiations but
SUGECO’s employees resigned from the union, which in turn broke the negotiations. Request was made that
unless the 12 resigned employees could produce a clearance from the Union, they be not allowed in the meantime
to report for work. SUGECO made it understood that after the 12 men would have returned into the Union fold,
said company would then be "in a position to negotiate again for the renewal of the collective bargaining
contract." The Union wrote Sugeco, charged the latter with bargaining in bad faith, and its supervisors with
"campaigning for the resignation of members of this Union". SUGECO sought recourse from the CFI to enjoin the
strike engaged by the union. Judge Gomez issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction. The union also lodged
with the CIR a charge for unfair labor practice against SUGECO, averring that the employers coerced and exerted
pressure upon the union members to resign, as they did resign, from the Union; and that such resignations were
seized upon by SUGECO to refuse further negotiations with the Union. In this petition, the union assails the
jurisdiction of the CFI over the complaint for injunction.

Issue:

Is the CFI lodged with jurisdiction over ULP cases and its ancilliary remedies?

Ruling:

No. The coercion or cajolery of employees heretofore described, by management or union, is unfair labor practice.
Therefore, the alleged act of coercing or instigating union members to resign therefrom is clearly within the
coverage of the prescription. It is aimed at crippling the Union, throwing it off balance, destroying its bargaining
authority. It is an attack against the Magna Carta of Labor. By the same token, the charge levelled by Sugeco
against the Union that the latter "is coercing the resigned employees to rejoin the Union" is no less an unfair labor
practice. Jurisdiction then is exclusively vested in the Court of Industrial Relations. Nor will Sugeco's averment that
it suffers damages, by reason of the strike, work to defeat the CIR's jurisdiction to hear the unfair labor practice
charge. Reason for this is that the right to damages "would still have to depend on the evidence in the unfair labor
practice case" — in the CIR. To hold otherwise is to sanction split jurisdiction — which is obnoxious to the orderly
administration of justice.
95. GERONIMO Q. QUADRA vs CA G.R. No. 147593, July 31, 2006

Facts:

Geronimo Q. Quadra was the Chief Legal Officer of respondent Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) when
he organized and actively participated in the activities of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Employees Association
(CUGCO), and then later the Association of Sweepstakes Staff Personnel and Supervisors (CUGCO) (ASSPS
[CUGCO]). He was administratively charged for neglect of duty and misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the
interest of the service and was penalized with dismissal. He filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of
the Civil Service Commission. Also, together with ASSPS (CUGCO), he filed with the CIR a complaint for unfair labor
practice against respondent PCSO and its officers. The CIR issued its decision finding PCSO guilty of unfair labor
practice for having committed discrimination against the union and for having dismissed petitioner due to his
union activities. In this petition, Quadra assails the decision of the CA on the jurisdiction of the over claims of moral
and exemplary damages. He asserts that the CIR has jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary damages arising
out of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.

Issue:

Does the CIR have jurisdiction over claims for damages arising out of illegal dismissal and ULP?

Ruling:

YES. In a precedent case, the Court found it proper to award moral and exemplary damages to illegally dismissed
employees as their dismissal was tainted with unfair labor practice. The filing of a petition for damages before the
CIR did not constitute splitting of cause of action under the Revised Rules of Court. The Revised Rules of Court
prohibits parties from instituting more than one suit for a single cause of action. Splitting a cause of action is the
act of dividing a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, and bringing suit for one of such
parts only, intending to reserve the rest for another separate action. The purpose of the rule is to avoid
harassment and vexation to the defendant and avoid multiplicity of suits. The prevailing rule at the time that the
action for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal was filed and tried before the CIR was that said court had no
jurisdiction over claims for damages. Hence, petitioner, at that time, could not raise the issue of damages in the
proceedings. However, the Supreme Court rendered its ruling in Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ferrer, et
al. upholding the jurisdiction of the CIR over claims for damages incidental to an employee's illegal dismissal.
Petitioner properly filed his claim for damages after the declaration by the Court and before the ruling on their
case became final. Such filing could not be considered as splitting of cause of action.

95-A. GOYA, INC. vs GOYA, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW G.R. No. 170054, January 21, 2013

Facts: Goya, Inc. hired contractual employees from PESO Resources Development Corporation (PESO) to perform
temporary and occasional services in its factory in Parang, Marikina. Goya, Inc. Employees Union-FFW noted that
these contractual workers have been assigned to work in positions regularly handled by regular workers and union
members; thus it asserted that said hiring is not a management prerogative and in gross violation of the CBA
tantamount to ULP.

Issue:

Does the hiring of contractual workers for work in positions handled by union members constitute ULP?

Ruling:

Yes, if such hiring violates the CBA between the employer and the workers. To emphasize, declaring that a
particular act falls within the concept of management prerogative is significantly different from acknowledging
that such act is a valid exercise thereof. The company’s act of contracting out/outsourcing is within the purview of
management prerogative. However, such act is not a valid exercise thereof. Obviously, this is due to the
recognition that the CBA provisions agreed upon by the Company and the Union delimit the free exercise of
management prerogative pertaining to the hiring of contractual employees. The right of the management to
outsource parts of its operations is not totally eliminated but is merely limited by the CBA. The exercise of
management prerogative is not unlimited; it is subject to the limitations found in law, collective bargaining
agreement or the general principles of fair play and justice