You are on page 1of 7

1.

Salunga vs CIR
Salunga was an employee of San Miguel brewery. He was also a member of the UNION since 1953. But on August
18, 1961, he tendered his resignation. It was accepted by the union and then passed by the union to the company
and seeks the implementation of sec 3 (closed- shop provision)
_After being informed that the result of the resignation to the union is that he would also be dismissed as an
employee. Therefore, he wanted to withdrew his resignation to the union so that he can save his job. He even wants
the union to continue deducting his dues. BUT, the union said that he CANNOT be reinstated.
_the company don’t want to dismiss him but the union insisted. Therefore he was dismissed.
_he went to PAFLU to seek help. The CIR ruled in favor of petitioner and said that both the union and the company
are doing unfair labor practice.
_it was reversed by the CIR sitting en banc
_prior to his resignation to the union he said allegations against the officers and the members of the union about
illegal disbursement of funds.
_in effect, confirmed the fact that their refusal to allow the withdrawal of petitioner's resignation had been due to his
aforementioned criticisms. Indeed said officers tried to justify themselves by characterizing said criticisms as acts of
disloyalty to the Union, which, of course, is not true, not only because the criticism assailed, not the Union, but certain
acts of its officers
_Although, generally, a state may not compel ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto any given individual,
because membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege, 1 the rule is qualified in respect of
labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given locality, or as regards a particular employer
with which it has a closed-shop agreement.2 The reason is that
. . . The closed shop and the union shop cause the admission requirements of trade union to
become affected with the public interest. Likewise, a closed shop, a union shop, or maintenance of
membership clauses cause the administration of discipline by unions to be affected with the public interest
_the union is practicing unfair labor practice, but the court cannot agree that the company is also practicing labor
practice because. _Company advised petitioner of the provision thereof, thereby intimating that he had to withdraw
his resignation in order to keep his employment._ When the latter, thereafter, insisted on petitioner's discharge, the
Company still demurred and explained it was not taking sides and that its stand was prompted merely by "humane"
considerations. _Company When the latter, thereafter, insisted on petitioner's discharge, the Company still demurred
and explained it was not taking sides and that its stand was prompted merely by "humane" considerations
_petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as member of the Union and to his former or substantially equivalent position in
the Company, without prejudice to his seniority and/or rights and privileges, and with back pay, which back pay
shall be borne exclusively by the Union.

2. Flores vs Oximana (Stephens vs state)

Vicente Oximana is the president of the Benguet-Balatoc Workers Union (BBWU) having been elected. Oximana has
been elected continuously as such president and has performed the duties and functions of said office without
interruption in accordance with the provisions of said constitution and by-laws
-In 1926, Oximana was convicted of the crime of abusos deshonestos for which he was sentenced to 3 years 6
months and 25 days
-complaint filed by prosecutor to restrain him from being the president of the union.
-respondent”s defense. respondents alleged that it fails to state cause of action for it does not show that it bears the
sanction of at least 10% of the entire membership.
the same is not however one of the offenses contemplated by Section 17(e) of Republic Act 875.
_, it was agreed that on April 1, 1961 the President of the Philippines granted Oximana full, absolute and plenary
pardon for the crime he had committed in 1926, thereby restoring him to the full enjoyment of his civil and political
rights, one of which is the holding of the position now disputed by complainants.
_Judge Bugayong dismissed the complaint, He said that were it not for the absolute pardon granted to Oximana he
would have been disqualified. But said pardon has erased all the ill effects of his conviction and had restored to him
all his rights and privileges as a citizen as if he had not committed the crime at all. One of such rights is to hold an
office in any labor organization as the one now being held by respondent Oximana
-affirmed by en banc
- "A full and complete pardon, granted after conviction, removes all penalties and legal disabilities, and restores the
defendant to all his civil rights."
SC ruled in favor of respondent.
3. Pelobello vs Palatino

Palatino was the mayor elect of Torrijos, Marinduque. Pelobello filed a quo warranto proceeding alleging that Palatino
is no longer qualified to hold office because he was already convicted before and was even imprisoned. Because of
such conviction and imprisonment, Peleobello averred that Palatino is already barred from voting and being voted
upon. Palatino also invoked par (a), sec 94 of the Election Code which supports his contention.
ISSUE: Whether or not Palatino is eligible for public office.
HELD: Yes, Palatino was granted a conditional pardon by the then Gov-Gen but such pardon was converted into an
absolute pardon by President Quezon who succeeded the Gov-Gen. The pardon was already after Palatino’s election
but prior to him assuming office. The SC then held that since there is an absolute pardon, all the former disabilities
imposed and attached to the prior conviction had been removed and that Palatino is therefore eligible for the public
office in question.

4. Holy cross davao vs Joaquin

A collective bargaining agreement, effective from June 1, 1986 to May 31, 1989 was entered into between petitioner
Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. (hereafter Holy Cross), an educational institution, and the affiliate labor
organization representing its employees, respondent Holy Cross of Davao College Union-KAMAPI (hereafter
KAMAPI).
-Thereafter an election of officers was held, and at which Rodolfo Gallera won election as president. To the surprise
of many, and with resultant dissension among the membership, Gallera forthwith initiated discussions for the union’s
disaffiliation from the KAMAPI Federation.
-Holy Cross thereafter stopped deducting from the salaries and wages of its teachers and employees the
corresponding union dues and special assessments (payable by union members), and agency fees (payable by non-
members), in accordance with the check-off clause of the CBA, 4 prompting KAMAPI, on September 1, 1989, to
demand an explanation.
-In the meantime, there ensued between the two unions (KAMAPI vs. GALLERA GROUP) a full-blown action on the
basic issue of representation, which was to last for some two years. KAMAPI won.
-Several conciliation meetings were thereafter held between them, and when these failed to bring about any amicable
settlement, the parties agreed to submit the case to voluntary arbitration. On both issues, Voluntary Arbitrator
Jerome C. Joaquin found in favor of KAMAPI. Petition by Holy Cross with the SC, denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not an employer is liable to pay to the union of its employees, the amounts it failed to deduct from
their salaries — as union dues (with respect to union members) or agency fees (as regards those not union
members) — in accordance with the check-off provisions of the collective bargaining contract (CBA) which it claims to
have been automatically extended.

HELD: NO
A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer, on agreement with the union recognized as the proper
bargaining representative, or on prior authorization from its employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the
latter’s wages and remits them directly to the union.
-No provision of law makes the employer directly liable for the payment to the labor organization of union dues and
assessments that the former fails to deduct from its employees’ salaries and wages pursuant to a check-off
stipulation.
-The employer’s failure to make the requisite deductions may constitute a violation of a contractual commitment for
which it may incur liability for unfair labor practice. 23 But it does not by that omission, incur liability to the union for
the aggregate of dues or assessments uncollected from the union members, or agency fees for non-union
employees.- The principle of unjust enrichment necessarily precludes recovery of union dues — or agency fees —
from the employer, these being, to repeat, obligations pertaining to the individual worker in favor of the bargaining
union. Where the employer fails or refuses to implement a check-off agreement, logic and prudence dictate that the
union itself undertake the collection of union dues and assessments from its members (and agency fees from non-
union employees); this, of course, without prejudice to suing the employer for unfair labor practice.
PETITION GRANTED.
5. Gabriel vs Secretary
Petitioners compromise the Executive Board of Solidbank union, the collective bargaining agent for the Solidbank
Corporation. Private respondents are members of said union. The union’s EB decided to retain the services of their
counsel in connection with negotiations for a new CBA. A general membership meeting was called where majority of
union members approved a resolution confirming the decision to engage the services of the union’s counsel, Atty.
Lacsina. The resolution provided that 10% of the total economic benefits that may be secured be given to the counsel
at attorney’s fees. Also it contained an authorization for Solidbank Corporation to check-off said attorney’s fees the
first lump sum of payment of benefits under the new CBA. Private respondents issued a complaint for
illegal deduction.

ISSUE: W/N the union may check-off attorney’s fees.

HELD: No. Article 241 has 3 requisites for the validity of the special assessment for union’s incidental expenses,
attorney’s fees and representation expenses. They are:

1. authorization by a written resolution of majority of all the members at the general membership meeting called for
the purpose.

2. secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting

3. individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by theemployees concerned.

Such requirements were not complied with as there were no individual written check-off authorizations; thus, the
employer cannot legally deduct thus the assessment. The union should be made to shoulder the expenses incurred
for the services of a lawyers and accordingly, reimbursement should be charged to the union’s general fund
or account. No deduction can be made from the salaries of the concerned employees other than those mandated by
law.

6. Mariño vs Gamilla
7. standard chartered bank vs confessor
8. Lianas supermarket vs NLRC

LIANAs SUPERMARKET, as its name implies, is a departmentized self-service retail market selling foods,
convenience goods, and household merchandise with business outlets in Sucat, Paraaque, and Pasig City
-However in the course of their employment they were allegedly underpaid and required, among others, to work more
than eight (8) hours a day without overtime pay and deprived of legal holiday pay and monthly emergency allowance.
Starting late 1982 and early 1983 they aired their grievances to petitioner through Peter Sy, its General Manager, and
Rosa Sy, its Consultant, but were only scolded and threatened with outright dismissal.
-petitioner entered into a three-year contract with Warner Laputt, owner of BAVSPIA International Services, to supply
petitioner with laborers.
-Rosy Sy wanted respondents to quit to the union or else they would be suspended.
-espondent Union on behalf of its members filed a complaint against petitioner and/or Peter Sy, Rosa Sy, BAVSPIA
and Warner Laputt before the Labor Arbiter for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of overtime pay, monthly
emergency allowance, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay
-Petitioner contended that there was no unfair labor practice because there was no ongoing union activity before the
alleged illegal dismissals; but even if there were, the dismissals were not effected by petitioner as complainants were
not its employees but of BAVSPIA. If what were referred to as illegal dismissals were those of complainants who
resigned, there can be no unfair labor practice as their resignations were voluntary and their applications with
BAVSPIA were of their own volition
-On 30 June 1993 public respondent National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the ruling of the Labor
Arbiter.===== in favor of respondents
-according to petitioner, these cases do not fall under the term class suit as defined in Sec. 12, Rule 3, of the Rules of
Court because the parties are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the court. It is
further the position of petitioner that BAVSPIA is the true employer of the complainants and the resignations of certain
employees were voluntary. Petitioner still further argues that the compromise agreement duly signed by the officers of
the local chapter of respondent Union and filed while the case was still pending before the Labor Arbiter is binding on
all the complainants
-We disagree with petitioner. This is a representative suit as distinguished from class suit defined in Sec. 12, Rule 3,
of the Rules of Court –
-In the present case, there are multiple rights or causes of action pertaining separately to several, distinct employees
who are members of respondent Union. Therefore, the applicable rule is that provided in Sec. 3, Rule 3, of the Rules
of Court on representative parties
-SC- ruled in favor of respondents

9. San Miguel vs Laguesma

FACTS: Petitioner union filed before DOLE a Petition for Direct Certification or Certification Election among the
supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and
Otis.
Med-Arbiter Danilo L. Reynante issued an Order ordering the conduct of certification election among the
abovementioned employees of the different plants as one bargaining unit.
San Miguel Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal, pointing out, among others, the Med-
Arbiter’s error in grouping together all three (3) separate plants, into one bargaining unit, and in including supervisory
levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential in nature.
The public respondent, Undersecretary Laguesma, granted respondent company’s Appeal and ordered the remand
of the case to the Med-Arbiter of origin for determination of the true classification of each of the employees sought to
be included in the appropriate bargaining unit.
Upon petitioner-union’s motion, Undersecretary Laguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for and directed the
conduct of separate certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and
the exempt employees in each of the three plants at Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company are considered confidential
employees, hence ineligible from joining a union.
2. If they are not confidential employees, do the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single
bargaining unit.
RULING:
(1) On the first issue, this Court rules that said employees do not fall within the term “confidential employees” who
may be prohibited from joining a union.
They are not qualified to be classified as managerial employees who, under Article 245 of the Labor Code, are not
eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. In the very same provision, they are not allowed membership in
a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their
own.
Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate,
determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and
both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee — that is, the confidential relationship
must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities
relating to labor relations.
The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of
management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the ”confidential
employee rule.” The broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position involving a
potential conflict of interests. “Management should not be required to handle labor relations matters through
employees who are represented by the union with which the company is required to deal and who in the normal
performance of their duties may obtain advance information of the company’s position with regard to contract
negotiations, the disposition of grievances, or other labor relations matters.”
The Court held that “if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not
be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interest. The Union can also become company-
dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership.”
An important element of the “confidential employee rule” is the employee’s need to use labor relations information.
Thus, in determining the confidentiality of certain employees, a key question frequently considered is the employee’s
necessary access to confidential labor relations information.
(2) The fact that the three plants are located in three different places, namely, in Cabuyao, Laguna, in Otis,
Pandacan, Metro Manila, and in San Fernando, Pampanga is immaterial. Geographical location can be completely
disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed.
An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as “a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less
than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to
the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective
bargaining provisions of the law.”
A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours,
working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining

10. Tropical hut employees vs Tropical Hut food Market


FACTS:

1. On January 2, 1968, the rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated, organized a local
union called the Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU) and elected their officers, and adopted their constitution and
by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU).
2. On January 3, 1968, the NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation. Following such affiliation with
NATU, Registration Certificate No. 5544-IP was issued by the Department of Labor in the name of the Tropical Hut
Employees Union —NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was not registered with the
Department of Labor.
3. Collective Bargaining Agreement was concluded between the parties on April 1, 1968, the term of which
expired on March 31, 1971.

Sec. 1. The COMPANY recognizes the UNION as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent for all its
workers and employees in all matters concerning wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
Sec. 1 —. . . Employees who are already members of the UNION at the time of the signing of this Agreement or who
become so thereafter shall be required to maintain their membership therein as a conditionof continued employment.
xxx

Sec. 3—Any employee who is expelled from the UNION for joining another federation or forming another union, or
who fails or refuses to maintain his membership therein as required, . . . shall, upon written request of the UNION be
discharged by the COMPANY.

4. May 21, 1971, respondent company and THEU-NATU entered into a new Collective Bargaining Agreement
which ended on March 31, 1974. This new CBA incorporated the previous union-shop security clause and the
attached check off authorization form.
5. NATU received a letter dated December 15, 1973, jointly signed by the incumbent officers of the local union
informing the NATU that THEU was disaffiliating from the NATU federation.
6. Secretary of the THEU, Nemesio Barro, made an announcement in an open letter to the general
membership of the THEU, concerning the latter’s disaffiliation from the NATU and its affiliation with the Confederation
of General Workers (CGW). The letter was passed around among the members of the THEU-NATU, to which around
137 signatures appeared as having given their consent to and acknowledgment of the decision to disaffiliate the
THEU from the NATU.

7. The then so-called THEU-CGW held its annual election of officers, with Jose Encinas elected as President.
On January 3, 1974, Encinas, in his capacity as THEU-CGW President, informed the respondent company of the
result of the elections. On January 9, 1974, Pacifico Rosal, President of the Confederation of General Workers
(CGW), wrote a letter in behalf of complainant THEU-CGWto the respondent company demanding the remittance of
the union dues collected by the Tropical Hut Food Mart, Incorporated to the THEU-CGW, but this was refused by the
respondent company.
8. A request made by the NATU federation to the respondent company to dismiss him (Encinas) in view of his
violation of Section 3 of Article III of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
9. The respondent company applied for clearance with the Secretary of Labor to dismiss the other officers and
members of THEU-CGW. The company also suspended them effective that day.
10. NLRC Case No. LR-2521 was filed by THEU-CGW and individual complainants against private respondents
for unfair labor practices.

THEU-CGW asked the employees to affirm their membership. Some did not abidenso they were informed that they
will be dismissed under the CBA.

President/General Manager of respondent company, upon Dilag’s request, suspended twenty four (24) workers on
March 5, 1974, another thirty seven (37) on March 8, 1974 and two (2) more on March 11, 1974, pending approval by
the Secretary of Labor of the application for their dismissal.

Labor Arbiter, Arbitrator Daniel Lucas issued an orderdated March 21, 1974, holding that the issues raised by the
parties became moot and academic with the issuance of NLRC Order dated February 25, 1974 in NLRC Case No.
LR-2670, which directed the holding of a certification election among the rank and file workers of the respondent
company between the THEU-NATU and THE CGW.

He also ordered: a) the reinstatement of all complainants; b) for the respondent company to cease and desist from
committing further acts of dismissals without previous order from the NLRC and for the complainant Tropical Hut
Employees UNION-CGW to file representation cases on a case to case basis during the freedom period provided for
by the existing CBA between the parties.

NLRC reversed the decision. Secretary of Labor rendered a decision affirming the findings of the Commission.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they immediately elevated the case
to this Court without an appeal having been made to the Office of the President;

2) Whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation was valid; and

3) Whether or not the dismissal of petitioner employees resulting from their Unions’ disaffiliation for the mother
federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor practice on the part of respondent company and federation
RULING:

1) The remedy of appeal from the Secretary of Labor to the Office of the President is not a mandatory requirement
before resort to courts can be had, but an optional relief provided by law to parties seeking expeditious disposition of
their labor disputes. Failure to avail of such relief shall not in any way served as an impediment to judicial
intervention. And where the issue is lack of power or arbitrary or improvident exercise thereof, decisions of the
Secretary of Labor may be questioned in a certiorari proceeding without prior appeal to the President.

2) The local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its
members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.

All employees enjoy the right to self organization and to form and join labor organizations of their own
choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or
protection. This is a fundamental right of labor that derives its existence from the Constitution.

The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration with the
Department of Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU’s affiliate at the time of the registration. It
does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its own. Neither can it be interpreted to mean that it
cannot pursue its own interests independently of the federation.

A local union owes its creation and continued existence to the will of its members and not to the federation
to which it belongs. When the local union withdrew from the old federation to join a new federation, it was
merely exercising its primary right to labor organization for the effective enhancement and protection of
common interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation’s constitution preventing
disaffiliation of a local union a local may sever its relationship with its parent.
Nothing in the constitution and by laws of THEU NATU, prohibits the disaffiliation from NATU. Besides NATU
is not even recognized as a national federation.

3) When the THEU disaffiliated from its mother federation, the former did not lose its legal personality as the
bargaining union under the CBA. Moreover, the union security clause embodied in the agreements cannot be used to
justify thedismissals meted to petitioners since it is not applicable to the circumstances obtaining in this case.

The CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union for joining another federation or for
forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain membership therein. The case at bar does not involve the
withdrawal of merely some employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation. Clearly, since
there is no violation of the union security provision in theCBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate the
employment of petitioners.

11. Barbizon Philippines Inc, vs Nagkaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines

12. ICMC vs CAlleja


FACTS: ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in
Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the Holy See, as a non-profit agency
involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work.
-IRRI on the other hand was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock organization
designed to carry out the principal objective of conducting “basic research on the rice plant, on all phases of rice
production, management, distribution and utilization with a view to attaining nutritive and economic advantage or
benefit for the people of Asia and other major rice-growing areas through improvement in quality and quantity of rice.”
-The labor organizations in each of the above mentioned agencies filed a petition for certification election, which was
opposed by both, invoking diplomatic immunity.
ISSUE: Are the claim of immunity by the ICMC and the IRRI from the application of Philippine labor laws valid?
HELD: YES
There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of international immunities to international organizations.
These principles, contained in the ILO Memorandum are stated thus:
1) international institutions should have a status which protects them against control or interference by any one
government in the performance of functions for the effective discharge of which they are responsible to
democratically constituted international bodies in which all the nations concerned are represented;
2) no country should derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on common international funds;
and
3) the international organization should, as a collectivity of States members, be accorded the facilities for the conduct
of its official business customarily extended to each other by its individual member States.
The theory behind all three propositions is said to be essentially institutional in character. “It is not concerned with the
status, dignity or privileges of individuals, but with the elements of functional independence necessary to free
international institutions from national control and to enable them to discharge their responsibilities impartially on
behalf of all their members. The raison d’etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of
their functions by the agencies concerned.
**
ICMC’s and IRRI’s immunity from local jurisdiction by no means deprives labor of its basic rights, which are
guaranteed by our Constitution.
For, ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled. Section 31 of the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations provides that
“each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising
out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party.” Moreover,
pursuant to Article IV of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC the the Philippine Government, whenever
there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities
accorded. Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in case of dispute with management as, in fact,
there had been organized a forum for better management-employee relationship as evidenced by the formation of the
Council of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM) wherein “both management and employees were and still are
represented for purposes of maintaining mutual and beneficial cooperation between IRRI and its employees.”
NOTES:

The term “international organization” is generally used to describe an organization set up by agreement between two
or more states. Under contemporary international law, such organizations are endowed with some degree of
international legal personality such that they are capable of exercising specific rights, duties and powers. They are
organized mainly as a means for conducting general international business in which the member states have an
interest. The United Nations, for instance, is an international organization dedicated to the propagation of world
peace.
“Specialized agencies” are international organizations having functions in particular fields.

13. Cainta Catholic school vs Cainta Catholic School employees union.