You are on page 1of 3

200. American President Lines v.

Clave (Millena)
(Clave is the presidential executive assistant who affirmed the labor minister ruling)
1. 1960 - ALP entered into a contract with Maritime Security Agency (MSA) for
the latter to guar and protect MSU's vessels while they were moored at the
port of Manila. Contract was for one year but may be terminated by either
party upon 30-day notice.
2. The arrangement was that MSA was to hire and assign the guards. The
guards were not know to the petitioner. Lump sum payment was being paid
to MSA who in turn paid the individual guards.
3. Upon prior notice to MSA, the contract was terminated in 1961, or upon
4. Petitioner executed a new contract with Philippine Scouts Veterans Security
and Investigation Agency.
5. The union protested the cancellation on December 24, 1960. They sent a
telegram to APL's office in the US to the effect that the relationship had been
in existence already for 10 years and that the cause of the termination was
the ship captain's personal grudge against the owner of MSU.)
6. On Feb. 1961, MSU passed a resolution abolishing itself.
7. December1961, the union passed another resolution reviving itself. (hello.
dissolved na kayo paano pa kayo makakapasa ng bagong resolution.)
8. 1963 - Maritime Security Union (MSU) filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice against American President Lines (APL) at the Court of Industrial
9. Basis of complaint: failure of APL to negotiate an agreement with them and
had discriminated against them when they were dismissed in 1961 for no
other reason than their membership in the union.
10.Before the case could be resolved, the Labor Code was enacted so case was
transferred to NLRC.
11.The arbiter found for MSU. NLRC affirmed. Minister of Labor affirmed the
NLRC. Office of the President affirmed the Minister of Labor.
1. WON there was an EE-ER relationship between APL and the individual
watchmen of MSA who are alleged to be members of the union.
2. WON petitioner refused to negotiate a CBA with the individual watchmen and
discriminated against them by terminating their contract because of their
union activities.
1. NO. It is the agency that recruits, hires, and assigns the work of its
watchmen. The watchmen cannot perform any security service for
petitioner's vessels unless the agency first accepts him as its watchman. With
respect to the wages, the amount to be paid to the security guard is beyond
the power of APL to determine since lump sum amount is being given to MSA

APL can only request from MSA to change a particular guard and it is proof that the power lies in MSA. The negotiation resulted in a contract to commence in 1987 until 1992. leased the premises belonging to Santiago Syjuco. 3. NUWHRAIN picketed the leased premises. On May 14. 7. But the Court discussed the second issue as such: 2. A complaint for damages and preliminary injunction and/or TRO was filed by Sundowner. 237. Syjuco filed a complaint against Mabuhay in the MTC. Mabuhay offered to sell its assets and personal properties to petitioner to which petitioner agreed. Neither was there power to dismiss the watchmen. Mabuhay offered to amicably settle the case surrendering the premises to Syjuco and to sell its assets and personal property to any interested party. their desire to negotiate an agreement should be expressed through a written notice. There was nothing unfair in the termination of the contract. Drilon. Under Ra 875. 6. barricaded the entrance to the leased premises and denied petitioner’s officers. National Union of Workers in Hotel. 5. Apart from their oral declarations. MSA cannot be an agent of APL because to so hold would be absurd considering that MSA represents the watchmen in its contract with APL. Sundowner Development Corporation v. The judge issued a TRO but NUHWRAIN maintained their strike. A deed of assignment was executed by Mabuhay in favor of Sundowner. Inc. Drilon issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute pursuant to Article 263g of the labor code and required to employees to return to work and for Mabuhay to accept the employees pending final determination of the issue on absorption of the former employees of Mabuhay. Oh diba. and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). Syjuco offered the said premises to Sundowner. 1987. 4. Thus. it follows that here is no ULP. Restaurant.who in turn determines how much is to be paid to the watchmen. 1987. Since there was no EE-ER relationship. Mabuhay. Sundowner complained to Syjuco. in its answer alleged that it sold all its assets and personal properties to Sundowner and there was no sale or transfer of its shares and that Mabuhay completely ceased operation effective April 28. 2. NO. The hard fact is that the contract had a lifetime of one year. . Due to non-payment of rentals. An agent can not represent two conflicting interests that are diametrically opposed. Hotel Mabuhay Chapter Facts: 1. employees and guests free access to and egress from said premises. there is no written proof that that there was requests made to APL to negotiate a CBA. On May 1987. Hotel Mabuhay Inc..

9. A labor contract merely creates an action in personam and does not create any real right which should be respected by third parties. NUWHRAIN alleges that connivance between Mabuhay and petitioner in selling the assets and closing the hotel to escape its obligations to the employees of Mabuhay. Exceptions: 1. thus binding only between the parties.447 for which reason NUWHRAIN agreed to lift the picket. ISSUE: WON the purchaser of the assets of an employer corporation can be considered a successor-employer of the latter’s employees. 2. 10. Sundowner did not assume the obligation to absorb the employees. Petitioner agreed to purchase said assets to enable Mabuhay to pay its obligations to Syjuco and its striking employees.Drilon issued an order requiring Sundowner to absorb the members of the union and to pay backwages. Neither was ther bad faith. Unless expressly assumed. It was only when Mabuhay offered to sell its assets and personal properties in the premises to petitioner that they came to deal with each other. In this case. June 26.000.8. Mabuhay surrendered the leased premises to Syjuco who found petitioner and persuaded petitioner to lease the said premises. labor contracts being in personam. General rule: Labor contracts and collective bargaining agreements are not enforceable against third party transferee of an enterprise.00 in addition to the first payment of P386. HELD: NO. This conclusion draws its force from the right of an employer to select his employees and to decide when to engage them as protected under the Constitution. If the transfer of enterprise is colored or clothed with bad faith. 1987 – Sundowner signed a tri-partite agreement with Mabuhan and NUHWRAIN whereby Mabuhay paid to NUHWRAIN the sum of P638. .