Globe Doctrine

The Globe Doctrine refers to the method of determining the will or desire of the employee which is an important factor in
determining the appropriate bargaining unit. The best way to determine such preference is through referendum or
plebiscite.

MECHANICAL DEPART LABOR UNION v. CIR G.R. No. L- 28223 / 24 SCRA 925

Topic: Unit Severance and Globe Doctrine

FACTS:

The case began on 13 February 1965 by a petition of the respondent "Samahan ng mga Manggagawa, etc." calling
attention to the fact that there were three unions in the Caloocan shops of the Philippine National Railways: the
"Samahan", the "Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company", and the Mechanical Department Labor
Union;

That no certification election had been held in the last 12 months in the Caloocan shops; that both the "Samahan" and
the Mechanical Department Labor Union had submitted different labor demands upon the management for which
reason a certification election was needed to determine the proper collective bargaining agency for the Caloocan shop
workers.

The petition was opposed by the management as well as by the Mechanical Department Labor Union, the latter averring
that it had been previously certified in two cases as sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees and laborers of
the PNR'S mechanical department, and had negotiated two bargaining agreements with management in 1961 and 1963;
that before the expiration of the latter, a renewal thereof had been negotiated and the contract remained to be signed;
that the "Samahan" had been organized only in 21 January 1965; that the Caloocan shops unit was not established nor
separated from the Mechanical Department unit;

That the "Samahan" is composed mainly of supervisors who had filed a pending case to be declared non-supervisors;
and that the purpose of the petition was to disturb the present smooth working labor management relations.

TRIAL COURT: reviewed the collective bargaining history of the Philippine National Railways and allowed the
establishment of new and separate bargaining unit in one company, even in one department of the same company the
Mechanical Department Labor Union appealed to this Court questioning the applicability under the circumstances of the
"Globe doctrine" of considering the will of the employees in determining what union should represent them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employees at the Caloocan Shops can desire the respondent union, "Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa Caloocan Shops", to be separated from the Mechanical Department Labor Union, with a view to the
former being recognized as a separate bargaining unit, applying the Globe Doctrine

RULING: Yes, the Globe Doctrine is applicable in this case.

Yes because even though Appellant Mechanical contends that the application of the "Globe doctrine" is not warranted
because the workers of the Caloocan shops do not require different skills from the rest of the workers in the Mechanical
Department of the Railway Company. This question is primarily one of facts.

The Industrial Court has found that there is a basic difference, in that those in the Caloocan shops not only have a
community of interest and working conditions but perform major repairs of railway rolling stock, using heavy equipment
and machineries found in said shops, while the others only perform minor repairs. It is easy to understand, therefore,
that the workers in the Caloocan shops require special skill in the use of heavy equipment and machinery sufficient to
set them apart from the rest of the workers.

In addition, the record shows that the collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the appellant union have been in
existence for more than two (2) years; hence, such agreements can not constitute a bar to the determination, by proper
elections, of a new bargaining representative (PLDT Employees' Union vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., 51
Off. Gaz., 4519).

As to the charge that some of the members of the appellee, "Samahan Ng Manggagawa", are actually supervisors, it
appears that the question of the status of such members is still pending final decision; hence, it would not constitute a
legal obstacle to the holding of the plebiscite. At any rate, the appellant may later question whether the votes of those
ultimately declared to be supervisors should be counted.

Whether or not the agreement negotiated by the appellant union with the employer, during the pendency of the
original petition in the Court of Industrial Relations, should be considered valid and binding on the workers of the
Caloocan shops is a question that should be first passed upon by the Industrial Court.
Philips Industrial Development, Inc. vs NLRC

Facts:
- PIDI is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of electronic products. Since 1971, it had a
total of 6 collective bargaining agreements with private respondent Philips Employees Organization-FFW (PEO-FFW), a
registered labor union and the certified bargaining agent of all rank and file employees of PIDI.
- In the first CBA, the supervisors (referred to in RA 875), confidential employees, security guards, temporary employees
and sales representatives were excluded in the bargaining unit. In the second to the fifth, the sales force, confidential
employees and heads of small units, together with the managerial employees, temporary employees and security
personnel were excluded from the bargaining unit. The confidential employees are the division secretaries of
light/telecom/data and consumer electronics, marketing managers, secretaries of the corporate planning and business
manager, fiscal and financial system manager and audit and EDP manager, and the staff of both the General
Management and the Personnel Department.
- In the sixth CBA, it was agreed that the subject of inclusion or exclusion of service engineers, sales personnel and
confidential employees in the coverage of the bargaining unit would be submitted for arbitration. The parties failed to
agree on a voluntary arbitrator and the Bureau of Labor Relations endorsed the petition to the Executive Labor Arbiter
of the NCR for compulsory arbitration.
- March 1998, Labor Arbiter: A referendum will be conducted to determine the will of the service engineers and sales
representatives as to their inclusion or exclusion in the bargaining unit. It was also declared that the Division Secretaries
and all staff of general management, personnel and industrial relations department, secretaries of audit, EDP, financial
system are confidential employees are deemed excluded in the bargaining unit.
- PEO-FFW appealed to the NLRC; NLRC declared PIDI's Service Engineers, Sales Force, division secretaries, all Staff of
General Management, Personnel and Industrial Relations Department, Secretaries of Audit, EDP and Financial Systems
are included within the rank and file bargaining unit, citing the Implementing Rules of E.O 111 and Article 245 of the
Labor Code (all workers, except managerial employees and security personnel, are qualified to join or be a part of the
bargaining unit)

Issue:
-Whether service engineers, sales representatives and confidential employees of petitioner are qualified to be part of
the existing bargaining unit
- Whether the "Globe Doctrine" should be applied

Held:
NLRC decision is set aside while the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter is reinstated. Confidential employees are
excluded from the bargaining unit while a referendum will be conducted to determine the will of the service engineers
and sales representatives as to their inclusion or exclusion from the bargaining unit, but those who are holding
supervisory positions or functions are ineligible to join a labor organization of the rank and file employees but may join,
assist or form a separate labor organization of their own.

Globe Doctrine states that in determining the proper bargaining unit, the express will or desire of the employees shall be
considered, they should be allowed to determine for themselves what union to join or form. The best way is through a
referendum, as decreed by the Executive Labor Arbiter. However, in this case, since the only issue is the employees'
inclusion in or exclusion from the bargaining unit in question, the Globe Doctrine has no application in this case. The
doctrine applies only in instance of evenly balanced claims by competitive groups for the right to be established as the
bargaining unit. (many unions 'competing' to be the bargaining representative?)
Doctrine of Judicial Stability

This doctrine in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of
justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction
having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of
jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment, to the exclusion of all other
coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. (Atty. Cabili vs. Judge Balindong; A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225,
September 6, 2011)

BARROSO VS JUDGE OMELIO

GR. No. 194767, OCT. 14, 2015

FACTS:

Barroso filed a complaint for collection of sum of money, damages, and attorney’s fees against Dennis Li. The complaint
includes a writ of attachment which was granted with the corresponding attachment bond. Dennis Li, on the other hand,
filed a counter-attachment bond issued by Travelers Insurance and Surety Corporation (Travelers). Thereafter, Barroso
filed a motion for approval of compromise agreement which was granted by the Court and issued a writ of execution.
Regardless of the agreement, Dennis Li still failed to pay the sums of money and a writ of execution was returned by
sheriff unsatisfied.

An alias writ of execution was later issued against Dennis Li and Travelers based on the counter bond filed by Dennis Li.
Travelers asked a period of 7 days to validate the counter-bond, however, they filed a separate case for Declaration of
Nullity, Prohibition, Injunction and Damages which was raffled to RTC 14. Judge Omelio of RTC 14 issued a preliminary
injunction.

ISSUE:

Did the Judge Omelio, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?

RULING:

Yes.

Under the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in regular courts or judgments of a co-equal court is an
elementary principle in the administration of justice that “no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or
orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant relief sought by the injunction.

The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and
renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts for its
execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in
connection with this judgment.

Thus, a case where an execution order has been issued is considered as still pending in court, so that all the proceedings
on the execution are still proceedings in the suit.
FIRST GAS POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondent.

Facts:

Through a Petition filed before the RTC, petitioner sought for the original registration of two parcels of land. Initial
hearing was conducted. However, no oppositor appeared during the said hearing except Prosecutor Amelia Panganiban
who appeared in behalf of the Office of the Solicitor General (respondent). Consequently, the RTC issued the
corresponding Order of Special Default.

For land registration purposes, the subject lots were both investigated and inspected separately by Special Land
Investigator Rodolfo A. Fernandez and Forester I Loida Y. Maglinao of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). Based on their findings, the subject lots are within the alienable and disposable zone. During the
reception of evidence, the government, through respondent OSG, was given the opportunity to examine the
authenticity of the documents presented by petitioner in support of its application for land registration as well as cross-
examine the latter’s witnesses. Without any objection from the former, all exhibits offered by petitioner were admitted
by the RTC. Meanwhile, respondent did not present any evidence to contradict petitioner’s application.

The RTC granted petitioner’s application for the registration of the subject lots and directed the issuance of the
corresponding decree by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) . It found that petitioner was able to substantiate its
bona fide claim of ownership over the subject lots as it was shown, that: (a) petitioner purchased subject lands from its
previous owners, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale (b) petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
peaceful, continuous, public, and uninterrupted possession of the subject lots even before 1945; and (c) the subject lots
had already been declared for taxation purposes under the name of petitioner and the corresponding realty taxes have
been equally paid by it

CA granted respondent’s certiorari petition and thereby, annulled and set aside the RTC Decision and Amended Order as
well as the final decree of registration issued in favor of petitioner over the subject lots. On the ground that there exist a
previous decision for the application for registration of the said lots in a cadastral case.

ISSUE: WON, the CA erred in annulling and setting aside the RTC Decision and Amended Order as well as the final decree
of registration issued in favor of petitioner over the subject lots.

HELD:NO!

It is a long-standing rule that an applicant who seeks to have a land registered in his name has the burden of proving
that he is its owner in fee simple, even though there is no opposition thereto.

In this case, records disclose that petitioner itself manifested during the proceedings before the RTC that there subsists a
decision in a previous cadastral case, which covers the same lots it applied for registration. Since it had been duly
notified of an existing decision which binds over the subject lots, it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove that the said
decision would not affect its claimed status as owner of the subject lots in fee simple.

As the CA correctly pointed out, land registration proceedings are in rem in nature and, hence, by virtue of the
publication requirement, all claimants and occupants of the subject property are deemed to be notified of the existence
of a cadastral case involving the subject lots.28In this regard, petitioner cannot, therefore, take refuge on the lack of any
personal knowledge on its part previous to its application. Case law dictates that a cadastral proceeding is one in rem
and binds the whole world.Under this doctrine, parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues already
determined by final judgment.
The RTC’s decision and Amended Order was issued in violation of the doctrine of judicial stability. This doctrine states
that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be interfered with by any court of concurrent
jurisdiction-- a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its
judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in
furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.

The Court’s duty to uphold the principles of law and jurisprudential pronouncements as herein discussed remains
staunch and unyielding. Definitively, the Court cannot sanction the registration of the subject lots when there stands an
existing decision binding over the same. Neither can the Court allow the RTC to set aside the ruling of a co-equal and
coordinate court. Based on these reasons, the Court is therefore constrained to sustain the nullification of the RTC
Decision and Amended Order as well as the final decree of registration issued in favor of petitioner.