TITLE DOCTRINE
UFE-DFA-KMU vs While the law makes it
NESTLE PHILS. an obligation for the
March 3, 2009 employer and the
employees to bargain
collectively with each
other, such compulsion
does not include the
commitment to
precipitately accept or
agree to the proposals
of the other. All it
contemplates is that
both parties should
approach the
negotiation with an
open mind and make
reasonable effort to
reach a common
ground of agreement.
UST Faculty Union vs It is not the duty or
UST obligation of respondents
GR. No. 180892 [employer] to inquire into
April 7, 2009 the validity of the election
of the Gamilla Group. Such
issue is properly an intra-
union controversy subject
to the jurisdiction of the
med-arbiter of the DOLE.
Respondents could not
have been expected to
stop dealing with the
Gamilla Group on the mere
accusation of the Mariño
Group that the former was
not validly elected into
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not Nestle NO.
committed unfair labor For a charge of unfair labor
practice when it practice to prosper, it must
consideres some be shown that Nestlé was
economic benefits as motivated by ill will, "bad
unilaterally granted and faith, or fraud, or was
therefore excluded oppressive to labor, in
from CBA negotiations. disclaiming unilateral
grants as proper subjects
in their collective
bargaining negotiations.
Herein, the union merely
bases its claim of refusal to
bargain on a letter written
by Nestlé where the latter
laid down its position that
"unilateral grants, one-time
company grants, company-
initiated policies and
programs, which include,
but are not limited to the
Retirement Plan, Incidental
Straight Duty Pay and
Calling Pay Premium, are
by their very nature not
proper subjects of CBA
negotiations and therefore
shall be excluded
therefrom." But as we
have stated in this
Court’s Decision, said
letter is not tantamount
to refusal to bargain.
Whether or not UST NO.
committed ULP in In the instant case, until
recognizing the Gamilla our Decision that the
Group instead of the Gamilla Group was not
Marino Group as the validly elected into office,
USTFU there was no reason to
believe that the members
of the Gamilla Group were
not the validly elected
officers and directors of
USTFU. To reiterate, the
Gamilla Group submitted a
Letter dated October 4,
1996 whereby it informed
Fr. Rolando De La Rosa
 office.
International School The basic test of an
Alliance of Educators vs asserted bargaining unit's
Quisumbing acceptability is whether or appropriate bargaining unit
GR. No. 128845 not it is fundamentally the
June 1, 2000 combination which will best
assure to all employees
the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights.
that its members were the
newly elected officers and
directors of USTFU.
More important though is
the fact that the records
are bereft of any evidence
to show that the Mariño
Group informed the UST of
their objections to the
election of the Gamilla
Group. In fact, there is
even no evidence to show
that the scheduled
elections on October 5,
1996 that was supposed to
be presided over by the
Mariño Group ever pushed
through. Instead, petitioner
filed a complaint with the
med-arbiter praying for the
nullification of the election
of the Gamilla Group.
Whether foreign-hires NO.
should be included in the The basic test of an
asserted bargaining unit's
acceptability is whether or
not it is fundamentally the
combination which will best
assure to all employees
the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights.
It does not appear that
foreign-hires have
indicated their intention
to be grouped together
with localhires for
purposes of collective
bargaining.
The collective bargaining
history in the School also
shows that these groups
were always treated
separately.
Although foreign-hires
perform similar functions
under the same working
conditions as the local
 hires, foreign-hires are
accorded certain benefits
not granted to local-hires.
These benefits, such as
housing, transportation,
shipping costs, taxes, and
home leave travel
allowance, are reasonably
related to their status as
foreign-hires, and justify
the exclusion of the former
from the latter.

To include foreign-hires
in a bargaining unit with
local-hires would not
assure either group the
exercise of their
respective collective
bargaining rights.
National Association of The basic test of an Whether the Certification NO.
Free Trade Unions asserted bargaining unit's Election was validly held. While the existence of a
(NAFTU) v. Mainit acceptability is whether or bargaining history is a
Lumber Development not it is fundamentally the factor that may be
Company Worker’s combination which will best reckoned with in
Union- United Lumber assure to all employees determining the
General Workers of the the exercise of their appropriate bargaining
Philippines collective bargaining rights. unit, the same is not
(MALDECOWU-ULGWP) Otherwise stated: the test decisive or conclusive.
G.R. No. 79526 of grouping is community Other factors must be
Dec. 21, 1990 or mutuality of interests. considered. The test of
grouping is community or
mutuality of interests. This
is so because "the basic
test of an asserted
bargaining unit's
acceptability is whether or
not it is fundamenally the
combination which will best
assure to all employees
the exercise of their
collective bargaining
rights."

Petitioner’s assertion that

there must be two
bargaining units for the
reason that the employer
MALDECO was composed
of two bargaining units, the
Sawmill Division in Butuan
 City and the Logging
Division, in Zapanta Valley,
Kitcharao, Agusan Norte,
about 80 kilometers distant
from each other and in
fact, had then two separate
CBA's, does not bind
considering that the
election showed different
results.

Significantly, out of two

hundred and one (201)
employees of MALDECO,
one hundred seventy five
(175) consented and
supported the petition for
certification election,
thereby confirming their
desire for one bargaining
representative.
SAMAHAN NG MGA The decision or award of Whether the CA erred in NO.
MANGGAGAWA SA the voluntary arbitrator or dismissing outright the The decision or award of
HYATT (SAMASAH- panel of arbitrators should petition for certiorari filed the voluntary arbitrator or
NUWHRAIN) vs HON. is appealable to the CA before it on the ground that panel of arbitrators should
VOLUNTARY under Rule 43 of the Rules the same is an improper is appealable to the CA, in
ARBITRATOR of Court. mode of appeal? line with the procedure
BUENAVENTURA C. outlined in Revised
MAGSALIN and HOTEL Administrative Circular No.
ENTERPRISES OF THE 1 -95 (now in Rule 43 of
PHILIPPINES, INC., et the 1997 Rules of Civil
al Procedure), just like those
GR No: 164939 of the quasi-judicial
June 6, 2011 agencies, boards and
commissions enumerated
therein, and consistent
with the original purpose to
provide a uniform
procedure for the appellate
review of adjudications of
all quasi-judicial entities.