You are on page 1of 7



WON Dir. Bitonio committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying the appeal of petitioners.

Collective Bargaining
(Art 250-257)

No. The Court upheld Dir. Bitonio's Decision and
dismissed the petition.

65. UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU), et al. vs.
DIR. BITONIO JR., et al.
G.R. No. 131235 - November 16, 1999
Herein Private Respondents-Appellees were the
duly elected officers of the USTFU, which had a
subsisting 5-year CBA with UST until May 1998.
After the holding of a GA that culminated in the
election of new union officers, which was actually
issued with a TRO, they filed for injunctive reliefs
seeking nullification of the results contending that
it was a violation of the Constitution and By-Laws
(CBL) of the union.
Following the TRO issued by the MA, the
respondents filed a motion for another TRO,
brought about by their receipt of a notice to
vacate the union office. According to the
appellants, however, the MA has no jurisdiction
over petitions for prohibition including the
ancillary remedies, which are merely incidental to
it - Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
In December 1996, appellees again moved for
the issuance of a TRO to prevent appellants from
making further representations especially with
regard to a new agreement with UST and
reiterated their earlier stand that appellants were
usurping the their duties and functions. Over the
appellants’ insistence that the issue of jurisdiction
should first be resolved, the MA issued a TRO
directing the respondents to cease and desist
from performing any and all acts pertaining to the
duties and functions of the officers and directors
Petitioners then appealed the Resolution to the
SoL, who transmitted the records of the case to
the BLR, which rejected their contention. Dir.
Bitonio held that contrary to their claim, the CBL,
which constituted the covenant between the
union and its members, could not be suspended
during the GA of all faculty members, since that
assembly had not been convened or authorized
by the union. He also said that the election could
not be legitimized by the recognition of the newly
“elected” set of officers by UST or by the alleged
ratification of the new CBA by the general
membership of the USTFU.

As properly decided by Dir. Bitonio, the union’s
CBL is the fundamental law that governs the
relationship between and among the members of
the union. It is where the rights, duties and
obligations, powers, functions and authority of
the officers as well as the members are defined. It
is the organic law that determines the validity of
acts done by any officer or member of the union.
Without respect for the CBL, a union as a
democratic institution degenerates into nothing
more than a group of individuals governed by
mob rule.
Furthermore, the privilege of determining who the
union officers will be belongs exclusively to the
members of the union. Said privilege is exercised
in an election proceeding in accordance with the
union's CBL and applicable law. To allow
appellants to become union officers on the
strength of management's recognition of them is
to concede to the employer the power of
determining who should be USTFU's leaders. This
is a clear case of interference in the exercise by
USTFU members of their right to selforganization.
The Petitioners’ frustration over the performance
of private respondents, as well as their fears of a
“fraudulent” election to be held under the latter’s
supervision, could not justify the method they
chose to impose their will on the union.
----The election held can neither be called a union
election nor a certification election, because the
procedure laid down in the USTFU’s CBL for the
election of officers was not followed.
participation of non-union members in the
election aggravated its irregularity.

G.R. No. 106830 November 16, 1993


it was held as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of such employees. Laguesma rendered a Resolution granting the appeal and directed CMC to negotiate a CBA with respondent union CMC-AFW. which was granted. After the election. ISSUE: WON USec.February 4. CMC-AFW answered that the petition to conduct a CE was immoral and in manifest disregard of the decisions rendered by the SoL and by the Court. would be to negate and render a mockery of the proceedings undertaken before the DOLE and would put an unjustified premium on the failure of the respondent hospital to perform its duty to bargain collectively. CMC-AFW appealed from the said Order. It was even constrained to strike in 1993 and that majority of the signatories who supported the petition were managerial and confidential employees and not members of the R&F. Appellant union filed a petition for CE among the R&F EEs of the Capitol Medical Center (CMC). It claimed that CMC employed “legal obstructionism‘s“ in order to let 12 pass without a CBA having been concluded between them so as to pave the way for the entry of petitioner union. The latter. Laguesma dismissed both petitions.UFSW) vs. In the meantime.” The union was left with no other recourse but to file a “notice of strike” against CMC for ULP. 118915 . G. HELD: No.R. It cannot materially alter the substance and merit of the assailed resolution. Since no CE was held within one year from the date of issuance of a final CE result and there was no bargaining deadlock between CMC-AFW and the employees that had been submitted to conciliation or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. refused to negotiate and instead challenged the union’s legal personality through a “petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration. But when USec. CMC-EAALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS (CMCEA-AFW) and CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER INC. It stressed that it was not remiss in asserting its right for it continuously demanded the negotiation of a CBA despite the hospital‘s avoidance to bargain collectively. which was without invalid disaffiliation of its members. and in directing the hospital to negotiate a CBA with the said respondent union. Undersecretary LAGUESMA. there is no bar to the holding of a CE. And for CMC-ACE to capitalize on the ensuing delay which was caused by the hospital and which resulted in the non-conclusion of a CBA within the certification year. MA Fadrigon issued an Order granting the petition for CE among the R&F EEs. It contended that since there is no evidence on record that there exists a CBA deadlock. It was not even denied due process as it was given an opportunity to be heard but lost it when it refused to file an appellee‘s memorandum the record shows and it failed to file its opposition. arguing that it is the certified bargaining agent of the R&F EEs of the hospital. to which CMC-ACE did not file any opposition to. contrary to petitioner‘s allegations. which dismissed the petition filed by CMC-ACE for CE and further directed CMC to negotiate a CBA with respondent union CMC-ASAFW. Laguesma.“ as the petitioner claims. despite attempts to bring an employer to the negotiation . opposed the petition and moved for its dismissal. which eventually led to a strike. It claimed that there is no legal impediment to the conduct of a certification election as more than 12 months have lapsed since CMC-AFW was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent and no CBA was concluded thereafter. It thereafter invited CMC to the bargaining table by submitting its economic proposal for a CBA. CMC-AFW filed a “petition for certification election” among the R&F EEs of the CMC. the other union. both unions separately filed motions for reconsideration while the hospital contended that it cannot be ordered to bargain collectively with a union since the only issue involved is the determination of the bargaining agent of the employees. however. Petitioner CMC-ACE. Laguesma committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certification election of CMC-ACE. If the law proscribes the conduct of a certification election when there is a bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration. with more reason should it not be conducted if. Such errors do indicate that the assailed resolution was prepared with “indecent haste. the law allowing the conduct of a CE after twelve months must be given effect in the interest of the right of the workers to freely choose their sole and exclusive bargaining agent. however. 1997 FACTS: This petition for certiorari and prohibition seeks to reverse and set aside the Order of USec. The errors pointed to by petitioner can be classified as mere typographical errors. No. USec.

vs. A motion to dismiss the petition for certification election was filed by Triumph International on the grounds that the respondent union cannot lawfully represent managerial employees and that the petition cannot prosper by virtue of the contract-bar rule. The LA. A "deadlock" is the counteraction of things producing entire stoppage resulting from the action of equal and opposed forces. The EEs bargaining power with management is strengthened thereby. personnel and general manager). 31 local union members signed a joint letter withdrawing their membership in NATU.R. ISSUE: WON the LA gravely abused its discretion in ordering the immediate holding of a certification election among the workers sought to be represented by the respondent union. HELD: Where the supervisory employees sought to be represented by the union are actually not involved in policy making. and their recommendatory powers are not even instantly effective since they are subject to review by at least three 3 managers (department.table by the "no reasonable effort in good faith" on the employer certified bargaining agent.R. 68. In the case at bar. G. issued an order granting the petition for CE and directed the holding of it to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all monthly-paid administrative. 1983 FACTS: The La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory Provincial and Metro Manila Sales Force Association applied for and was granted chapter status by the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). The local union and NATU filed a petition for certification election. The word is synonymous with the word "impasse. It is only just and equitable that the circumstances in this case should be considered as similar in nature to a "bargaining deadlock" when no certification election could be held. considering that it is the nature of their functions and NOT SAID NOMENCLATURES which determines their respective status. despite noble intentions. The company opposed on the ground that it was not supported by at least 30% (now 25%) of the proposed bargaining unit because: (a) of the alleged 48 members of the local union. and (b) 14 of the alleged members of the union were not employees of the company but were independent . The fact that their work designations are either managerial or supervisory is of no moment. however. 85915 – January 17. The ends of unionism are better served if all the rank-and-file members with substantially the same interests and who invoke their right to selforganization are part of a single unit so they can deal with their ER with just one and yet potent voice. A careful examination of the records of this case reveals no evidence that rules out the commonality or community of interest among the rank-and-file members of the petitioners. Instead of forming another bargaining unit. a petition for CE was filed by the respondent union with the DOLE. FERRERCALLEJA and TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL G. then it is evident that these employees does not possess managerial status. No. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS. there is no dispute that the petitioner is the exclusive bargaining representative of R&F EEs of Triumph International. and the herein declared rank-and-file members of the respondent union. the law requires them to be members of the existing one. technical. LA SUERTE CIGAR COMPANY vs. No. 69. In 1987. ET AL. L-55674 July 25. Sometime later. 31 had withdrawn prior to the filing of the petition. does not conclude in agreement between the parties. 1990 FACTS: The petitioner is the recognized CB agent of the R&F employees of Triumph International with which the latter has a valid and existing CBA effective up to September 1989. there was to bargain collectively." which presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which. confidential and supervisory employees of Triumph International. PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL-UNITED LUMBER AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILS.

Moreover. Among the 240 who cast their votes. We hold and rule that the 14 members of respondent local union are dealers or independent contractors. Of the 384 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters. The SC reversed decision of the BLR. whereas withdrawals made after the filing of the petition are deemed involuntary. The MA. coercion or for valuable consideration. BLR denied their petition. making a total of 45. any such withdrawal or retraction shows voluntariness in the absence of proof to the contrary. certified the TUEU-OLALIA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-andfile employees.” TUEU-OLALIA opposed the petition. HELD: . 70. They are independent contractors and not employees of the company based on the dealership contracts stating that the terms and stipulations. it becomes apparent that such employees had not given consent to the filing of the petition. it appearing that the 31 union members have withdrawn their support to the petition BEFORE the filing of said petition. the distinction must be that withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed voluntary unless there is convincing proof to the contrary. from joining or forming any labor organization. The competing unions were the TUEU-OLALIA and TUPAS. 141 were members of the Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) The ballots provided for 2 choices: (a) TUPAS. TOYOTA The BLR director denied the company’s objection. and (c) NO UNION. It would be otherwise if the withdrawal was made AFTER the filing of the petition for it would then be presumed that the withdrawal was not free and voluntary. In other words. It contended that petitioners “do not have legal personality to protest the results of the election because they are not members of either the contending unions. HELD: Yes.R. With the withdrawal by 31 members of their support to the petition prior to or before the filing thereof. They voluntarily executed with La Suerte a formal dealership agreement which signifies that they were acting as independent businessmen. hence the subscription requirement has not been met. but of the INK which prohibits its followers to. No. ISSUE: WON the withdrawal of 31 union-members affected the petition for certification election insofar as the 30% requirement is concerned. The reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawal or retraction is made before the filing of the petition. on religious grounds. And upon appeal. Logically. They were segregated and excluded from the final count because the competing unions agreed earlier that the INK members should not be allowed to vote “because they are not members of any union and refused to participate in the previous certification election. (b) TUEU-OLALIA. ISSUE: WON the INK members may vote in a CE. the names of employees supporting the petition are supposed to be held secret to the opposite party. 84433 – June 2. They are not employees of petitioner company. ALEXANDER REYES vs. CRESENCIO TRAJANO G. 1992 FACTS: BLR authorized the conduct of CE among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation. They filed a petition to cancel the election alleging that it “was not fair” and the result thereof did “not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the employees. the remainder of 3 out of the 48 alleged to have supported the petition can hardly be said to represent the union. The presumption would arise that the withdrawal was procured through duress. seeing no merit in the INK employees’ petition. Such were clear and left no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. The challenged votes were those cast by the 141 INK members.” The INK employees protested the exclusion of their votes. only 240 actually took part in the election.

They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of their CBA and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. which in its view is illogical and imposes an unnecessary burden upon it. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. received ALDBE's Position Paper in January 1995. such majority decision must be respected. Compulsory arbitration is a system whereby the parties to a dispute are compelled by the government to forego their right to strike and are compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party. affiliate with. preferably from the listing of qualified voluntary arbitrators duly accredited by the Board. to an impartial third person for a final and binding resolution. referral of a dispute by the parties is made. Ester S. All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled within seven (7) calendar days from the date of its submission shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA. Ideally. Atty. in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator. ISSUE: WON the decision of a VA may be directly be appealed to the SC. arbitration awards are supposed to be complied with by both parties without delay. whether union members or not. the Board shall designate the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. failed to submit its Position Paper. In a Certification Election. without LDB's Position Paper. Arbitration may either be compulsory or voluntary. The parties agreed to submit their respective Position Papers in December1994.Yes. and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization. Obiter as regards the issue on VA: In labor law context. as may be necessary. on the other hand. pursuant to a voluntary arbitration clause in their collective agreement. LDB. arbitration is the reference of a labor dispute to an impartial third person for determination on the basis of evidence and arguments presented by such parties who have bound themselves to accept the decision of the arbitrator as final and binding. so also. Pursuant thereto. For this purpose. The fact that a person has opted to acquire membership in a labor union does not preclude his subsequently opting to renounce such membership. After all. such that once an award has been rendered by an arbitrator. The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising said right. HELD: The Court referred the case to the CA stating that elevating a decision or award of a VA to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari is in effect equating the VA with NLRC or the Court of Appeals. they have . In May of the same year. and to maintain membership therein. 72. Hence. affiliate with. VA Garcia rendered a decision finding that the Bank has not adhered to the CBA provision nor the MOA on promotion. the parties shall name and designate in advance a VA or panel of VAs. is subsumed in the right to join. Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration. they are presumed to have freely chosen arbitration as the mode of settlement for that particular dispute. no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. nothing is left to be done by both parties but to comply with the same. The Court held that the right NOT to join. this petition. on the other hand. or include in the agreement a procedure for the selection of such voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. In case the parties fail to select a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. as expressed in the certification election. or assist any union. Under voluntary arbitration. Union membership is not prerequisite. or assist any union. If majority of the unit members do not want a union. Garcia. ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES 249 SCRA 162 (1995) FACTS: LDB and the Association submitted to arbitration to resolve WON the company has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision and the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 1994. have the right to vote. The parties to a CBA shall include provisions that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by law. all members of the unit. on the promotion of employees. 260. Art.

R. they have mutually agreed to de bound by said arbitrator's decision. (Basis: Art 217 (c) cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of the collective bargaining agreements shall be disposed of by the labor arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration. Above all. Following the said Order. as the case involves "termination. . to which PSSLU filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the LA was without jurisdiction over the case. and the issue of jurisdiction shall be covered in the final determination. with a prayer for the resolution of the issue of jurisdiction. KAMAO. Such recommendation provided that the dismissal of the members is without prejudice to their right to receive termination pay should the management decide to grant them. implementation or enforcement stage. No. it is cognizable by the LA. and so it considered them dismissed as of March 1991. 7 August 1991: resolution suspended until both parties fully presented their position papers. HELD: Yes. but where there was already actual termination or violation of rights. PSSLU filed another motion to resolve motion to dismiss complaint LA. 73. and suggested a dialogue before the Grievance machinery before their actual dismissal. The Court reiterated the view of the SolGen." not "interpretation or implementation" of a collective bargaining agreement or "interpretation or enforcement" of company policies. hence this petition.July 8.chosen a mutually acceptable arbitrator who shall hear and decide their case. Two months after. The Court held that the LA and not the Grievance Machinery provided for in the CBA has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaints of the private respondents. the case was dismissed. 101619 . with him distinguishing that where the dispute lies in the interpretation. such fact does not come within the phrase "grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of a CBA and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. PSSLU informed the management of the cancellation of the membership of several employees due to antiunion activities and for joining another union. Obviously. In the instant case. It also requires that the parties to a CBA shall name or designate their respective representatives to the grievance machinery and if the grievance is not settled in that level. 1992 ISSUE: WON the LA has jurisdiction over the case. In February 1990. The company did not receive any information on whether or not said employees appealed to PSSLU. It ruled that while it appears that the dismissal was made upon the recommendation of PSSLU pursuant to the union security clause provided in the CBA. et al. 4 September 1991: assumed jurisdiction over the complaint. The same CBA contained a union security clause which required that all union members retain their membership in good standing with the union as condition for their continued employment with the company. LA CANIZARES. SANYO PHILIPPINES WORKERS UNIONPSSLU vs. the parties to a CBA are the union and the company thus. LA. and that there was nothing in the CBA needs interpretation or implementation. and for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the same. Following their continuous exercise of the violations even after executing a pledge of cooperation with PSSLU. they were recommended for dismissal. FACTS: PSSLU signed a CBA with Sanyo Philippines Inc. G. The Labor Code provides that a GM shall be established to ensure the mutual observance of the terms and conditions of the CBA. which was to run from July 1989 to June 1994. Acordingly. it may be referred to the grievance machinery set up in the CBA or by voluntary arbitration. only disputes involving them shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. the dismissed employees filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal.) The employees opposed the motion to dismiss. both the union and the company have agreed on the dismissal of private respondents. arguing that the LA had jurisdiction over the case which was a termination dispute. it shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitrators." the jurisdiction of which pertains to the Grievance Machinery or to a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. There is no grievance between them which could be brought to GM.

before age 60. Unexpectedly. Art. usage and law. when said employee. can early on be put to productive and profitable uses by way of income-generating investments. in presumably better physical and mental condition.e. And the same cannot be considered a diminution of employment benefits. one of the advantages of early retirement is that the corresponding retirement benefits. It binds not only the union but also its members. At the age of 52. The basis of his retirement was the compulsory retirement provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner and the union. providing for early retirement does not constitute diminution of benefits. NLRC and URBANO SUÑIGA G. early retirement. can enjoy them better and longer.. ISSUE: WON the CBA stipulation on compulsory retirement after twenty-five years of service is legal and enforceable? RULING: Yes. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS. 95940 July 24. 2 other cases of similar facts and issues was consolidated to case with the Labor Arbiter deciding in favor of the complainant and ordered PANTRANCO for their reinstatement. had to contend with life's vicissitudes within the parameters of his fortnightly or weekly wages. It is also further argued that. In almost all countries today. 11 The parties are bound not only to the fulfilment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which. whether lump-sum or otherwise — at an earlier age. Moreover. i. The grievance machinery with members designated by the union and the company cannot be expected to be impartial against the dismissed employees. Hence. 287 of the Labor Code as worded permits employers and employees to fix the applicable retirement age at below 60 years. it has to be settled before an impartial body. being a union member. he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner. after having rendered twenty five years' service. this petition. INC. Thus we are now seeing many CBA's with such early retirement provisions. thereby affording a more significant measure of financial security and independence for the retiree who.R. As a matter of fact. may be in keeping with good faith. private respondent is bound by the CBA because its terms and conditions constitute the law between the parties. Due process demands that the dismissed workers grievances be ventilated before an impartial body. vs. which issued the questioned Resolution affirming the labor arbiter's decision in toto..And as the problem or dispute is between the union and the company on the one hand and some union and non-union members who were dismissed. 1996 FACTS: Private respondent was hired by petitioner in 1964 as a bus conductor and eventually joined the Pantranco Employees Association-PTGWO. usually consisting of a substantial cash windfall. 74. on the other hand. Petitioner appealed to public respondent. Since there has already been an actual termination. . No. he retired with a retirement fee given to him. up till then. according to their nature. the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. We agree with petitioner and the Solicitor General. is considered a reward for services rendered since it enables an employee to reap the fruits of his labor — particularly retirement benefits.