Atlas Lithographic VS Laguesma national federation, the local union does
not lose its personality which is separate
Facts
The supervisory, administrative, personnel
production, accounting and confidential
employees of the petitioner Atlas
Lithographic Services, Inc. (ALSI) affiliated
with private respondent Kaisahan ng
Manggagawang Pilipino, national labor
organization.
The local union adopted the name Atlas
Lithographic Services Inc. Supervisory,
Administrative, Personnel production,
Accounting and confidential employees
association or ALSI – SAPPACEA – KAMPIL in
short and which we shall refer as the
“supervisors” union.
Private respondent Kampil Katipunan filed
on behalf of the “supervisors” union a
petition for certification election so that it
could be the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the supervisory employees.
The petitioners opposed the private
respondent’s petition claiming that under
Article 245 of the Labor Code the private
respondent cannot represent the
supervisory employees for CBA purposes
because the private respondent also
represent the rank - and – file employees
union. Moreover, the petitioners argued
that the intent of the law is to prevent a
single labor organization from representing
different classes of employees with
conflicting interests.
The public respondent, on the other hand,
contends that despite affiliation with a
and distinct from the national federation.
Med – Arbiter Ruling – ruled in favour of
the private respondent
DOLE Ruling – affirmed the decision of the
Med – Arbiter. Motion for reconsideration
was filed by the petitioner but it was also
denied.
ISSUE:
 W/N under Article 245 of the Labor
Code, a local union of supervisory
employees may be allowed to
affiliate with a national federation
of labor organizations of rank – and
– file employees and which
national federation actively
represents its affiliates in Collective
Bargaining negotiations with the
same employer of the supervisors
and in the implementation of
resulting collective bargaining
agreements.
HELD
 No, a local union of supervisory
employees is disqualified to affiliate
with a national federation of labor
organization which includes the
rank – and – file employees.
 The interests of supervisors on the
one hand, and the rank – and – file
employees on the other, are
separate and distinct. The functions
of supervisors being
 recommendatory in nature, are which includes local unions of rank
more identified with the interest of – and – file employees.
the employer. The performance of 
those functions may, thus, run Managerial Supervisory
counter to the interest of the rank Employees Employees
and file. Is one who is is one who
 The peculiar role of supervisors is vested with effectively
power or recommends
such that while they are not
prerogatives to managerial
managers, when they recommend lay down and actions in the
action implementing management execute interest of the
policy or ask for the discipline or management employer.
dismissal of subordinates, they policies.
identify with the interest of the
employer and may act contrary to
the interest of the rank – and – file.
Thus, resulting to a conflict of
interest which may arise in the
areas of discipline, collective
bargaining negotiations and strikes.
 The intent of the law is clear, the
supervisors will be comingling with
those employees whom they
directly supervise in their own
bargaining unit. Thus, supervisor
employees shall not be eligible for
membership in a labor organization
of the rank and file employees but
they may join, assist or form
separate labor organization of their
own.
 The court emphasizes that the
limitation is not confined to a case
of supervisors wanting to join a rank
and file local union. The prohibition
extends to a supervisors local union
applying for membership in a
national federation the members of
 PHILPHOS VS. Torres
Facts
Philphos Movement for progress, Inc.
(PMPI) filed with the Department of Labor
and Employment a petition for certification
of election among supervisory employees of
petitioner Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer
Corporation (PHILPHOS) alleging, that a
supervisory union duly registered with the
DOLE, it was seeking to represent the
supervisory employees of Philippine
Phosphate Fetilizer Corporation.
The petition for certification election filed
by PMPI was not opposed by PHILPHOS
provided that the necessary requisites of
law were properly observed, but exempting
from the union its superintendents who
were managerial and not supervisory
employees as they managed a division, and
were vested with powers or prerogatives to
lay down and execute management
policies. PHILPHOS also asserted that its
professional or technical employees were
not within the definition of supervisory
employees under the Labor Code as they
were immediately under the direction and
supervision of its superintendents and
supervisors. Moreover, the professional and
technical employees did not have a staff of
workers under them. Thus, petitioner
prayed for the exclusion of its
superintendents and
professional/technical employees from the
PMPI supervisory union.
Med – Arbiter issued an order directing the
holding of certification of election among
the supervisory employees of petitioner,
excluding therefrom the superintendents
and the professional and technical
employees.
PMPI – filed an amended petition with the
Med – Arbiter wherein it sought to
represent not only the supervisory
employees of petitioner but also its
professional/technical and confidential
employees. PHILPHOS – opposed on this
amended petition
Med – Arbiter ruling – issued an order
granting the petition and directing the
holding of a certification election among the
supervisory, professional and confidential
employees
Sec. of Labor and Employment Decision –
PHILPHOS appealed but the Sec. of Labor
dismissed the appeal. PHILPHOS moved for
reconsideration but the same was denied.
ISSUE: W/N Professional/technical and
confidential employees may validly join
PMPI union which is composed of
supervisors?
HELD:
 The SC is with the petitioner that
being a supervisor union, PMPI
cannot represent the
professional/technical and
confidential employees of
petitioners whose positions we find
to be more of the rank and file than
supervisory.
 Moreover, Mr. Duhaylungsod, the
personnel officer of petitioner,
attested and presented a 
certification that its
professional/technical employees
occupy positions that are non –
supervisory that said employees
belong to the rank and file.
 Obviously, these
professional/technical employees
cannot effectively recommend
managerial actions with the use of
independent judgement because
they are under the supervision of
superintendents and supervisors.
 Consequently, these
professional/technical employees
cannot be allowed to join a union
composed of supervisors.
Conversely, supervisory employees
cannot join a labor organization of
employees under their supervision
but may validly form a separate
organization of their own. This is
provided in Art. 245 of the Labor
Code as amended by RA 6715.
 The intent of the law is to avoid a
situation where supervisors would
merge with the rank and file or
where the supervisors’ labor
organization would represent
conflicting interest, especially
where, as in the case at bar, the
supervisors will be commingling with
those employees whom they directly
supervise in their own bargaining
unit. Members of the supervisory
union might refuse to carry out
disciplinary action against their co –
member rank and file employees.
Classification of employees – with
the enactment of RA 6715,
employees were reclassified into
three
o Managerial employees
o Supervisory employees
o Rank and File employees
 Supervisors Defined – are those
who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such
managerial actions if the exercise of
such authority is not merely
routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent
judgement
 Managerial employees – is limited
to those having authority to hire and
fire, while those who only
recommend effectively the hiring or
firing or transfer or personnel are
considered closer to rank and file
employees. The exclusion therefore
of mid – levels executives from the
category of managers has brought
about a 3rd classification which is the
supervisory employees, the peculiar
role of the supervisory employees is
such that while they are not
managers, when they recommend
action implementing management
policy or ask for the discipline or
dismissal of subordinates, they
identify with the interest of the
employer and may act contrary to
the interest of rank and file
employees.
 Villar VS Inciong
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 MOLE.
The petition was opposed by the 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. Dolores Villar,
representing herself to be the authorized
representative of the Amigo Employees
Union, filed a petition for certification
election in the Company.
The Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
intervened and moved for the dismissal of
the petition for certification election filed by
Villar, on the ground, among others that
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 filed by
Villar, which dismissal is still pending appeal
before Bureau of Labor Relations. Amigo
Employees Union-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 Trial Committee to
investigate the local union’s charges against
the petitioners for acts of disloyalty. PAFLU
and the Company concluded a new 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 on PAFLU'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 said
clearances to terminate the petitioners. The
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:
W/N DOLE Secretary erred in affirming
the grant of clearance of termination of
petitioners.
Ruling: NO

 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. But the SC held
that a closed shop is a valid form of
union security and such provision in
a CBA is not a restriction of the right
of freedom of association
guaranteed by the constitution.
 The mother union has the right to
investigate members of a local union
affiliated to it under the mother
union’s by – laws and procedure,
and if found guilty to expel such
members. Thus, the PAFLU had the
authority to investigate petitioners
on the charges filed by their co –
employees in the local union and
after finding them guilty as charged,
to expel them from the roll of
membership of the Amigo
Employees Union – PAFLU is clear
under the constitution of the PAFLU
to which the local union was
affiliated.
 Thus, the local unions by – laws shall
not apply in the investigation of
charges against its members filed by
its officers, who, under said by –
laws will also act as judges. In such
case, the mother’s union’s by laws
shall apply. It is true that under the
implementing rules and regulations
of the labor code, that in case of
intra – union disputes, redress must
be first sought within the
organization itself and its by – laws.
However, it has been held that this
requirement is not absolute but
yields to exception under varying
circumstances.