Dec. 29, 1994
Doctrine of necessary implication
- Petition seeking to nullify decision of public respondent Secretary of Labor
- NATU filed petition for certification election to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of respondent bank’s employees occupying supervisory positions
- The Bank dismissed this on the ground that the supervisory employees were not eligible to join because they were managerial/confidential employees, and that the petition lacked the 20% signatory
requirement under the Labor Code
- Med-Arbiter Manases Cruz granted the petition, but respondent bank appealed to the secretary of labor, because department managers, branch managers, cashiers, and controllers were
managerial/confidential employees, and were thus ineligible to join, assist or form a union
- Public respondent issued decision partially granting the appeal:
o Department managers, assistant managers, branch managers, cashiers, and controllers declared managerial employees
o (NOTE!!! This dude added assistant managers. Assistant managers are not included in the ITALICIZED
o Thus, they cannot join the union of supervisors (only division chiefs, accounts officers, staff assistants, officers-in-charge)
- NATU filed for motion for reconsideration assailing that public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion
- Petitioners argue that:
o A branch is not relatively autonomous, and it has to comply with uniform policies and guidelines, which cover all various branches, and which are set by the BANK itself
o No evidence showing that bank policies are laid down through the collective action of the branch manager, cashier, and controller
o The organizational set up that the respondent uses in its claim that the branch manager, cashier, and controller are managerial employees is merely a delineation of duties and responsibilities, or
internal control measures prescribed by Central Bank
o No evidence that the subject employees are vested with powers to hire, discharge or discipline employees
o Public respondent did not have any reason for why department managers and assistant managers are not managerial employees  assistant managers were not even included in the original
- Petitioner concludes that the subject employees are not managerial employees, but supervisors. And even assuming that they are confidential employees, there is no legal prohibition against confidential
employees to join a union
- Private respondent (bank) claims that department managers, branch managers, cashiers and controllers are vested with the powers enumerated in article 212 paragraph (m) of the Labor Code:
o Art. 212 (m): A managerial employee is vested with the power to hire, discharge, and discipline employees. Supervisory employees effectively recommend such managerial actions if the
authority requires independent judgment.
- Public respondent’s decision explained that the “triad of managerial authority” among the branch manager, cashier and controller, and the fact that bank policies are executed by the three, are clear manifestations
RULING: petition PARTIALLY GRANTED (branch managers, cashiers and controllers are disqualified from joining the union)
- Branch managers, cashiers and controllers are NOT MANAGERIAL, but SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES.
Public respondent’s discussion on the division of their duties does not logically lead to the conclusion that they are managerial employees as the term is defined in article 212 paragraph m.
- Subject employees do not participate in policy making, but are given approved and established policies to execute and standard practices to observe
o Policies are promulgated by the Board of Directors
- Department managers are likewise NOT managerial employees because they are charged only with supervisory positions, “to recommend proposals to improve operations”
o No evidence submitted to substantiate public respondent’s assertion that assistant managers are managerial employees (not included in petition)
- IMPORTANT REASONING!!! Court ruled in favor of RESPONDENT BANK PARIN!!! Branch
managers, officers-in-charge, cashiers and controllers, though not managerial employees, are CONFIDENTIAL employees. Under the doctrine of necessary implication, they are
also disqualified
o Confidential employee: entrusted with confidence on delicate matters such as custody, handling and care of employer’s property
o “What is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed;” no statute can provide all details involved in its application
 Managerial employees are to act as the employer’s representatives, and cannot join unions because this may become one sided, against the employer

branch managers. officers-in-charge. against the interest of the employers  THEREFORE. cashiers and controllers are all disqualified  Baila baila baila . The same applies to confidential employees: they might unionize in order to bargain for themselves.

and 2 rank and file unions. which ordered a certification election to be conducted by the supervisory workers of Pepsi. while credit and collection managers and accounting managers are highly confidential employees o Careful study of their job descriptions show that they do not lay down company policies o Designation of the job title “manager” does not immediately make him one . chief checkers. Pepsi appealed this order.PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES INC. 245. decision of Secretary of Labor and Employment MODIFIED REASONING: . Inc (Pepsi) .Secretary of Labor and Employment: a federation is not the labor of organization referred to in art. as this may lead to conflict of interests o Prohibition extends to a supervisors union applying for membership in a national federation.Numero Uno: Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization – UOEF (Union) filed petition for certification election with med arbiter. 1999 Doctrine of necessary implication FACTS: .Petitions for certiorari relating to 3 cases filed with med-arbiter . operations managers are supervisors.National Association of Trade Unions – Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. 245.Association of the Court of Appeals Employees v Hon. v SECRETARY OF LABOR Aug. separate from those of the rank and file employees . that supervisory employees can only join separate labor organizations of their own. the members of which include rank and file unions .Bureau of Labor Relations issued registration certificate in favor of Union . there was a resolution of the union. without violating art. Laguesma ruling: o Intent of the law is to prevent supervisors from merging with rank and file employees in the union.Med-arbiter granted the petition. .Numero Dos: petitioner assails order of med-arbiter and decision of Secretary of Labor and Employment. with the statement that it was an affiliate of Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (Federation) (SPANISH = LIBOG INDICATOR). 10. Torres: o While art. but may join separate labor organizations or their own. under the doctrine of necessary implication. withdrawing form the federation o Issue of first case (WON supervisors union can be affiliated with the federation with 2 rank and file unions) became moot and academic . Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank and file employees.Pepsi: There were officials in the rank and file unions who were top ranking officials in the federation o To allow this would negate the intent of the law.MAIN ISSUE: WON a supervisors’ union can affiliate with the same federation of which 2 rank and file unions are also members.Federation argued: art.Atlas Lithographic Services v. but the secretary sustained the call for certification election . confidential employees are similarly disqualified . it still had legal personality .Court held that route managers. What is prohibited in the article is membership of supervisory employees in a labor union of the rank and file .Court DISMISSED the case for failure to sufficiently show grave abuse of discretion .Discussed are TWO cases! . Calleja: o Order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of petition for the cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union  At the time respondent union filed petition.Pepsi contended: o Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the supervisory employees were not managerial employees o The supervisory employees were prohibited from affiliating themselves with a federation already affiliated with the rank and file union o Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the institution of petition for cancellation of union registration does not constitute a prejudicial question to a petition for certification election RULING: petitions DISMISSED. seeking to be the exclusive bargaining representative of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Phils. Pepsi Cola Labor Unity (PCLU) and Pepsi Cola Employees Union of the Philippines (PEUP) .Pepsi filed with Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to cancel the charter affiliation of the union on the grounds that: o Members of the union were managers o A supervisors’ union cannot affiliate with a federation whose members include the rank and file union of the same company . 245 of the Labor Code o Art.NOTE!!! Before the case was decided. 245 of the Labor Code singles out managerial employees as ineligible to join any labor organization. 245 does NOT prohibit a supervisory employees’ union from being affiliated to a federation which has rank and file employees’ unions as affiliates .


000 with the Philippine National Bank in compliance with Book II Rule II Sec. after posting total bond of P150.000.Petitioner contends that the appeal bond is not necessary in the case of licensed recruiters for overseas employment o Already required by POEA. if NLRC affirms appeal . 223 of the Labor Code: in case of a judgment involving a monetary award. an appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond .Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside order of the National Labor Relations Commission. an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond o Rules of Procedure of NLRC.Reason for more stringent requirements for overseas recruiters is that workers abroad are subject to different risks o Bonds and escrow money are to insure more care on the part of the local agent in choosing the foreign employers .Respondent cited the following against petitioners: o Art. still required to post an appeal bond to perfect its appeal from a decision of the POEA to the NLRC? RULING: petition DISMISSED. An appeal by employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond ISSUE: Was petitioner. 5.000 to the dismissed employee  depletes the guarantees immediately! (because they only have P150.Although the bonds and money in escrow guarantee the payment of all legal claims against the employer (for monetary awards for employees).POEA rules clearly state the requirement of an appeal bond in addition to the cash and surety bonds  appeal bond intended to further insure the payment of a monetary reward in favor of the employee.000 (including escrow) .Petitioner also claimed that it has placed is escrow P200.Care should be taken that every part of a statute be given effect o Enacted as an INTEGRATED MEASURE. 1993 Construction of statute as a whole FACTS: .Also possible for monetary awards to exceed P350. 6.000  Surety bond: P50. including all liabilities which the Administration may impose” .Present case: decision sought to be appealed grants a monetary award of P170. 6: in case the decision of the Labor Arbiter involves a monetary award. The appeal shall have proof of payment of the REQUIRED APPEAL FEE and the posting of a cash or surety bond o Sec. 17: “to primarily answer for valid and legal claims of recruited workers as a result of recruitment violations or money claims” . 4 of the POEA Rules to pay:  License fee: P30. 22. but said that the provisions cited by NLRC applied only to Labor Arbiter decisions. appeal bond requirement SUSTAINED REASONING: . POEA can also go against these bonds for the recruiter’s violations of the Labor Code or POEA rules .000) .000  Cash bond: P100. Rule VI Sec.000 and placed in escrow P200. SG cited the following from Book VI Rule V of the POEA Rules: o Sec. under Book II Rule II Sec.JMM PROMOTIONS AND MANAGEMENT v NLRC Nov.Solicitor General sustained the appeal bond requirement.000  Love: Priceless o “These bonds shall answer for all valid and legal claims arising from violations of contracts of employment. They shall guarantee compliance with the provisions relating to recruitment and placement. not to conflict with other provisions o Petitioner would nullify section 6 as a superfluity o Should be seen as complementary to section 4 and section 17 o Apparently inconsistent provisions should be reconciled . which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal from a decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration on the ground petitioner’s failure to post the required appeal bond .

(defendant) Sheriff Garcia presented the notice of levy on execution before the Register of Deeds. 1983: contract to sell o Aug. 1985: deed of absolute sale was registered . 70 PD 1529: The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of 30 days from the date of registration.SAJONAS v COURT OF APPEALS July 5.Petition for review of decision of CA . no interpretation needed. Domingo Pilares (defendant) filed a civil case for collection of sum of money against Uychocde. 1985.Sajonas couple demanded the cancellation of the notice of levy on execution. HOWEVER! The notice of levy on execution was carried over to the new title .TC ruled in favor of Sajonas couple: actual notice of an adverse claim is equivalent to registration. the Uychocdes had already transferred their title to the plaintiffs o That the notice of levy is illegal and was made in bad faith.Pilares’ counterclaim: o An adverse claim against property ceases to have any legal effect 30 days after. In Feb. ordered the notice to be CANCELLED! . o CA: provision was clear enough to warrant immediate enforcement. ISSUE: WON the rule on the 30-day period for adverse claim under sec 70 of PD 1529 is absolute RULING: CA decision REVERSED. notice of levy had no legal effect. They entered into a compromise agreement where Uychocde acknowledged his monetary obligation to Pilares . the CFI issued a NOTICE OF LEVY ON EXECUTION. Upon full payment of the purchase price.When the deed of absolute sale in 1984 was registered. but shall operate only as a contract and as evident of authority to the Register of Deeds. 1996 Construction of statute as a whole FACTS: . 1983: spouses Ernesto Uychocde and Lucita Jarin agreed to sell a parcel of land to spouses Alfredo Sajonas and Conchita Sajonas. After the lapse of said period.Was the adverse claim on the TCT still in force when Pilares caused the notice of levy on execution to be annotated in the title. a sale of property does NOT prevail over an adverse claim that is already duly annotated on the certificate of title o The Court cited PNB v CA and Gardner v CA:  The subsequent sale of the property did not prevail over the adverse claim  Until the validity of an adverse claim is determined judicially. and this was annotated on the TCT of the subject land . without justifiable reason. 1984: Sajonas couple caused annotation of an ADVERSE CLAIM on contract to sell o Sept.CA reversed TC decision and upheld the annotation of the levy on execution o Relied on a portion of Sec.Sept. 1984: executed deed of sale o Aug. the Uychocdes executed a deed of sale in favor of the Sajonas couple in Sept. 1984 o Sept. the adverse claim may be cancelled. pursuant to sec. given that there was already the adverse claim annotated on the title o That Pilares. effective only for 30 days from registration o Cited sec 51 PD 1529 (Conveyance by the registered owner): No deed shall take effect or bind the land. .HOWEVER! It appears that in June 1980.Sajonas’ complaint in RTC: o At the time the notice of levy was annotated.While it is the act of registration which is the operative act.When Uychocde failed to comply with the agreement. even if the 30-day period had already lapsed since the adverse claim was annotated? . ignored the demand to cause the cancellation of said notice . it cannot be considered as a flaw on the title  The annotation of an adverse claim is designed precisely to protect the interest of a person over a piece of property and serves as a notice to third parties that someone is already claiming an interest over the property .Petition for cancellation of the inscription of a “notice of levy on execution” from a certificate of title of a parcel of real property . 70 PD 1529 o Notice of levy is proper because the property was still registered in the name of the Uychocdes o Sale of land was null and void because it was done in fraud against creditor Pilares . THE ACT OF REGISTRATION shall be the OPERATIVE ACT to convey ownership of the land. it was issued in the name of the Sajonas couple. no indication that Sajonas couple acted in bad faith. inscription of notice of levy on execution on TCT CANCELLED!!! REASONING: . but defendant Pilares refused to cancel the annotation.

16 Rules of Court: The levy on execution shall create a lien. as they were not aware of the pending case filed by Pilares o Bad faith must be established by competent proof by the party alleging the same o Good faith definition: Honest intention to abstain from taking advantage of another… i. and separates them from the intended context o CA only took into consideration the first part of sec 70 (effective for 30 days only. the annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing a verified petition. The statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim o This provision was amended by PD 1529: Sec.e. the law means that the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective. o To hold otherwise would be to deprive petitioners of their property. Otherwise. o Words and phrases should not be taken in solitude because they may convey a different meaning from what is intended. Leigh always has good faith.Petitioners were found to have been buyers in good faith.IN SUM! The disputed inscription of adverse claim on the TCT was still in effect when defendant Sheriff Garcia annotated the notice of levy on execution. He was charged with knowledge that the property sought to be levied already had an annotated adverse claim. subject to liens or encumbrances then existing. after already completing their payments .o Court looked into Sec. 70.) o Taken TOGETHERRRR. 10 Act 496 (Land Registration Act): whoever claims any interest in registered lands may make a statement setting forth his interest. . the inscription remains annotated! o The phrase “may be called” indicates as well that the Court may or may not order the cancellation of an adverse claim . Such notice CANNOT prevail over the existing adverse claim o Sec. The adverse claim shall be effective for 30 days from the date of the registration. After the lapse of said period.