Associated Bank v.

Court of Appeals

Facts:

- A complaint for violation of the Negotiable Instrument Law was filed against Associated Bank.
- Plaintiffs seek to recover P900,913.60 which said bank charged against their account by virtue of
the sixteen (16) checks drawn by them despite the apparent alterations therein with respect to
the name of the payee.
- Associated Bank replied that the subject checks appeared to have been regularly issued.
- With leave of court, Associated Bank filed a Third-Party Complaint against Philippine
Commercial International Bank, Far East Bank & Trust Company, Security Bank and Trust
Company and Citytrust Banking Corporation.
- Associated Bank stated that said entities are the collecting banks of the subject checks and
guaranteed the same, as provided for in Section 17, PCHC Clearing House Rules and Regulations.
- Among others, the third-party defendants (banks) claimed that the RTC has no jurisdiction
because the third-party plaintiff (Assoc. Bank) failed to resort to arbitration as provided for in
Section 36 of the Clearing House Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Clearing House
Corporation.
- The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint for lack of jurisdiction citing Section 36 of the
Clearing House Rules and Regulations of the PCHC. The Court of Appeals ruled the same.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the third-party complaint in question.

Held: No, the RTC has jurisdiction over the third-party complaint in question.

Under the rules and regulations of the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC), the mere act of
participation of the parties concerned in its operations in effect amounts to a manifestation of
agreement by the parties to abide by its rules and regulations. As a consequence of such participation, a
party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the courts over disputes and controversies which fall under the
PCHC Rules and Regulations without first going through the arbitration processes laid out by the body.

Since claims relating to the regularity of checks cleared by banking institutions are among those claims
which should first be submitted for resolution by the PCHC’s Arbitration Committee, petitioner
Associated Bank, having voluntarily bound itself to abide by such rules and regulations, is estopped from
seeking relief from the Regional Trial Court on the coattails of a private claim and in the guise of a third
party complaint without first having obtained a decision adverse to its claim from the said body.

It cannot bypass the arbitration process on the basis of its averment that its third party complaint is
inextricably linked to the original complaint in the Regional Trial Court.
 Capitol Medical Center, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Facts:

- Capitol Medical Center Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers (the Union for
brevity) demanded a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner
corporation.
- This was granted by the med-arbiter and then the Secretary of Labor and Employment, upon
appeal, despite opposition from the petitioner and the Capitol Medical Center Alliance of
Concerned Employees (another union).
- Petitioner was then directed to negotiate with the Union but the former instead questioned the
legitimacy of the latter.
- After reiteration of its plea to bargain and instead of filing a motion to execute the resolutions of
the Undersecretary, the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB.
- The Union subsequently submitted, to the NCMB, the minutes of their alleged strike vote and
staged a strike thereafter. The Secretary then assumed jurisdiction over the dispute by motion
of the Union and the same abated its strike in compliance thereof.
- Petitioner corporation filed a petition to declare the strike illegal with the NLRC. Petitioner
stated that no secret ballot was conducted by the Union for its strike vote prior to the strike in
question.
- The Labor Arbiter sided with the petitioner and declared the strike illegal because no voting has
taken place and no notice of the same was furnished to the NCMB at least twenty-four (24)
hours prior to the intended holding of the strike vote.
- NLRC reversed said decision and stated that a strike vote did occur and that the Union was not
mandated to notify the NCMB because the latter did not decide to supervise said vote. CA
affirmed.

Issue: Whether or not the strike in question is illegal.

Held: Yes, the strike in question is illegal.

XXXX

In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the regional branch of the Board and notice of
meetings referred to in the preceding paragraph at least twenty-four (24) hours before such meetings as
well as the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to
the cooling-off period provided in this Rule.

XXXX

Although the second paragraph of Section 10, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules of the NLRC is not
provided for in the Labor Code of the Philippines, nevertheless, the same was incorporated in the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code and has the force and effect of law.
In National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, the Court enumerated the notices required by Article 263 (now
278) of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules, which include the 24-hour prior notice to the
NCMB:

XXXX

4. Before a strike is actually commenced, a strike vote should be taken by secret balloting, with a 24-hour
prior notice to NCMB.

XXXX

The failure of a union to comply with the requirement of the giving of notice to the National Conciliation
and Mediation Board (NCMB) at least 24 hours prior to the holding of a strike vote meeting will render
the subsequent strike staged by the union illegal.

Furthermore, no labor union shall declare a strike unless supported by a majority vote of the members
of the union obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose—the requirement is
mandatory and the failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. In the present case,
the Union failed to prove that a strike vote did occur. Also, 17 of whom the Union claimed to have voted
executed affidavits holding otherwise.