139.

MSMG-UWP vs. HON. RAMOS

G.R. No. 113907 February 28, 2000

Disaffiliations; Freedom of Association; A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or
declare its autonomy, and such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty; In the absence of specific
provisions in the federation’s constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a
local union, a local union may dissociate from its parent union.—–A local union has the right to
disaffiliate from its mother union or declare its autonomy. A local union, being a separate and voluntary
association, is free to serve the interests of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate or
declare its autonomy from the federation to which it belongs when circumstances warrant, in
accordance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association, x x x Thus, a local union which
has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime and such disaffiliation cannot
be considered disloyalty. In the absence of specific provisions in the federation’s constitution prohibiting
disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union.

FACTS:

At bar is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to annul the decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission in an unfair labor practice case instituted by a local union
against its employer company and the officers of its national federation.

The petitioner, Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc., (B) (MSMG),
hereinafter referred to as the "local union", is an affiliate of the private respondent, United Lumber and
General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP), referred to as the "federation". The collective bargaining
agreement between MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc. names the parties as follows:

Article II-Union Security

Section 1. Coverage andope. All employees who are covered by this Agreement and presently
members of the UNION shall remain members of the UNION for the duration of this Agreement as a
condition precedent to continued employment with the COMPANY.

Section 4. Dismissal. Any such employee mentioned in Section 2 hereof, who fails to maintain his
membership in the UNION for non-payment of UNION dues, for resignation and for violation of UNIONs
Constitution and By-Laws and any new employee as defined in Section 2 of this Article shall upon
written notice of such failure toin or to maintain membership in the UNION and upon written
recommendation to the COMPANY by the UNION, be dismissed from the employment by the
COMPANY; provided, however, that the UNION shall hold the COMPANY free and blameless from any
and all liabilities that may arise should the dismissed employee question, in any manner, his dismissal;
provided, further that the matter of the employees dismissal under this Article may be submitted as a
grievance under Article XIII and, provided, finally, that no such written recommendation shall be made
upon the COMPANY nor shall COMPANY be compelled to act upon any such recommendation within
the period of sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of this Agreement conformably to law."

Article IX

Section 4. Program Fund - The Company shall provide the amount of P10, 000.00 a month for a
continuing labor education program which shall be remitted to the Federation x x x

A local union election was held under the auspices of the ULGWP wherein the herein petitioner, Beda
Magdalena Villanueva, and the other union officers were proclaimed as winners. A Petition for
Impeachment was filed with the national federation ULGWP by the defeated candidates in the
aforementioned election. Upon investigation, no anomalies were found in the custody, handling and
disposition of the union funds. The 14 defeated candidates filed a Petition for Impeachment/Expulsion
of the local union officers with the DOLE NCR which was dismissed on the ground of failure to
substantiate allegations.

The local union later held a general membership meeting at the Caruncho Complex in Pasig. Several
union members failed to attend the meeting, prompting the Executive Board to create a committee
tasked to investigate the non-attendance of several union members. The local union wrote respondent
company a letter requesting it to deduct the union fines from the wages/salaries of those union
members who failed to attend the general membership meeting. The following day, respondent
company sent a reply to petitioner unions request in a letter, stating that it cannot deduct fines from the
employees salary without going against certain laws. The company suggested that the union refer the
matter to the proper government office for resolution in order to avoid placing the company in the middle
of the issue.
The imposition of P50.00 fine became the subject of bitter disagreement between the Federation and
the local union culminating in the latters declaration of general autonomy from the former through
Resolution No. 10 passed by the local executive board and ratified by the general membership on July
16, 1988.

In retaliation, the national federation asked respondent company to stop the remittance of the local
unions share in the education funds effective August 1988. This was objected to by the local union
which demanded that the education fund be remitted to it in full.

The company was thus constrained to file a Complaint for Interpleader with a Petition for Declaratory
Relief with the Med-Arbitration Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment. The decision
reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed portion is hereby modified to the extent that
the company should remit the amount of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) of the P10,000.00 monthly
labor education program fund to ULGWP and the other P5,000.00 to MSMG, both unions to use the
same for its intended purpose.

The Federation filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board to compel the
company to effect the immediate termination of the expelled union officers.

Later, a total of 78 union shop stewards were placed under preventive suspension by respondent
company. This prompted the union members to again stage a walk-out and resulted in the official
declaration of strike at around 3:30 in the afternoon of March 14, 1989. The strike was attended with
violence, force and intimidation on both sides resulting to physical injuries to several employees, both
striking and non-striking, and damage to company properties.

The employees who participated in the strike and allegedly figured in the violent incident were placed
under preventive suspension by respondent company. The company also sent return-to-work notices to
the home addresses of the striking employees thrice successively, on March 27, April 8 and April 31,
1989, respectively. However, respondent company admitted that only 261 employees were eventually
accepted back to work. Those who did not respond to the return-to-work notice were sent termination
notices.

The petitioners filed a verified complaint with the Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, DOLE,
Manila, charging private respondents of unfair labor practice which consists of union busting, illegal
dismissal, illegal suspension, interference in union activities, discrimination, threats, intimidation,
coercion, violence, and oppresion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union.

RULING:

YES. A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or declare its autonomy. A local
union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interests of all its members
including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare its autonomy from the federation to which it belongs when
circumstances warrant, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.

The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a mother union or a federation

"xxx is to increase by collective action the bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of
labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve their own and the common
interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and
free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which
brought it into existence."

Thus, a local union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime
and such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty. In the absence of specific provisions in the
federations constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a local union, a local
may dissociate with its parent union.
165. SAN MIGUEL FOODS INC vs. SAN MIGUEL CORP SUPERVISORS
G.R. No. 146206 August 1, 2011
Coverage
FACTS:
A certification election was conducted. On the date of the election, petitioner filed the Omnibus
Objections and Challenge to Voters, questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on
the grounds that some employees do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to
represent or that there is no existence of employer-employee relationship with petitioner.

Based on the results of the election, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order stating that since the Yes
vote received 97% of the valid votes cast, respondent is certified to be the exclusive bargaining
agent of the supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.

On appeal, the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary, in the Resolution, affirmed the Order of the
Med-Arbiter.
CA affirmed the Resolution of DOLE Undersecretary with modification stating that those holding
the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the
bargaining unit.
Hence, this petition by the San Miguel Foods
ISSUE:
Whether or not the employees belonging to the three different plants of San Miguel Corporation
Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having community or
mutuality of interests, constitute a single bargaining unit.
RULING:
Yes. In G.R. No. 110399, the Court explained that the employees of San Miguel Corporation
Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single
bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company, one-union policy. An appropriate
bargaining unit is 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.
191. SAN MIGUEL CORP vs. NLRC
G.R. No 108001 March 15, 1996
Unfair Labor Practices fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

FACTS:

Private respondents, employed by petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as mechanics, machinists,
and carpenters, were and still are, bona fide officers and members of private respondent Ilaw at Buklod
ng Manggagawa. They were served a Memorandum from petitioner Angel G. Roa, Vice-President and
Manager of SMC's Business Logistics Division (BLD), to the effect that they had to be separated from
the service for "redundancy or excess personnel." Respondent union, in behalf of private respondents,
opposed the intended dismissal and asked for a dialogue with management.

Accordingly, a series of dialogues were held between petitioners and private respondents. Even before
the conclusion of said dialogues, the aforesaid petitioner Angel Roa issued another Memorandum
informing private respondents that they would be dismissed from work effective immediately.

Thus, private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners for Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor
Practices, with a prayer for damages and attorney's fees, with the Arbitration Branch of respondent
National Labor Relations Commission. The complaint was assigned to Labor Arbiter Carpio for hearing
and proper disposition. SMC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that respondent Labor
Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, and that respondent Labor Arbiter
must defer consideration of the unfair labor practice complaint until after the parties have gone through
the grievance procedure provided for in the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Respondent Labor Arbiter denied this motion.

The petitioners appealed the denial to respondent Commission. Unimpressed by the grounds therefor,
respondent Commission dismissed the appeal. Petitioners promptly filed a Motion for Reconsideration
which, however, was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the LA can exercise jurisdiction over the illegal termination and ULP cases without
prior resort to grievance and arbitration provided for in the CBA.

RULING:
Yes. LA has jurisdiction. While Petitioners posit the basic principle that a collective bargaining
agreement is a contract between management and labor that must bind and be enforced in the first
instance as between the parties thereto. In this case, the CBA between the petitioners and
respondent union provides, under Section 1, Article V entitled ARBITRATION, that “wages, hours
of work, conditions of employment and/or employer-employee relations shall be settled by
arbitration.” Petitioners’ thesis is that the dispute as to the termination of the union members and
the unfair labor practice should first be settled by arbitration, and not directly by the labor arbiter,
following the above provision of the CBA, which ought to be treated as the law between the parties
thereto. The argument is unmeritorious. The law in point is Article 217 (a) of the Labor Code. It is
elementary that this law is deemed written into the CBA. In fact, the law speaks in plain and
unambiguous terms that termination disputes, together with unfair labor practices, are matters
falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
217. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v. ASSOC OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF
LETRAN
G.R. No. 141471 September 18, 2000
An employer’s utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is a clear violation of Article 250 of
the Labor Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining, and a company’s refusal to make
counter-proposal to the union’s proposed CBA is an indication of its bad faith.
FACTS:
During the renegotiation of the respondent unions Collective Bargaining Agreement with the
petitioner, Eleonor Ambas emerged as the newly elected President of the union. Ambas wanted to
continue the renegotiation of the CBA but petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA
was already prepared for signing by the parties. However, the union members rejected the said
CBA. Thereafter, petitioner accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the petitioner. This decision was reversed on appeal with the
NLRC.

The parties later agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and to start negotiation on new five-year
CBA. During the pendency of approval of proposals, Ambas was informed that her work schedule
was being changed. Ambas protested and requested management to submit the issue to a
grievance machinery under the old CBA.

After the petitioner’s inaction on the CBA, the union filed a notice to strike. After meeting with the
NCMB to discuss the ground rules for renegotiation, Ambas received a letter dismissing her for
alleged insubordination. The petitioner then ceased negotiations when it received news that
another labor organization had filed a petition for certification.

The union finally struck, but the Secretary of Labor and Employment ordered them to return to
work and for petitioner to accept them back. The Secretary of Labor and Employment later
rendered judgement that the petitioner had been guilty of unfair labor practice. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the findings of the former.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Colegio de San Juan de Letran is guilty of unfair labor practice.
RULING:
Yes. Petitioner’s utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a
timely reply to the proposals presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals were
submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any counter-proposals. This inaction on the
part of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13, 1996. Petitioner
could only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss
the matter as its excuse for failing to file its reply. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor
Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining, x x x As we have held in the case of Kiok
Loy vs. NLRC, the company’s refusal to make counter-proposal to the union’s proposed CBA is an
indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the
bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. In the
case at bar, petitioner’s actuation show a lack of sincere desire to negotiate rendering it guilty of
unfair labor practice.
243. RIVERA v. ESPIRITU
GR No. 135547 January 23, 2002
The right to free collective bargaining, after all, includes the right to suspend it.
FACTS:
PAL was suffering from a difficult financial situation in 1998. It was faced with bankruptcy and was
forced to adopt a rehabilitation plan and downsized its labor force by more than 1/3. PALEA (PAL
Employees Association) went on a four-day strike to protest retrenchment measures in July 1998.
PAL ceased operations on Sep 23, 1998.

PALEA board again wrote the President on Sep 28, 1998. Among others, it proposed the
suspension of the PAL-PALEA CBA for a period of ten years, subject to certain conditions. PALEA
members accepted such terms through a referendum on Oct 2, 1998. PAL resumed domestic
operations on Oct 7, 1998.

Seven officers and members of PALEA filed instant petition to annul the Sep 27, 1998 agreement
entered into between PAL and PALEA.
ISSUE:
Whether the suspension of the CBA putting in abeyance the limit on the representation period
violates the 5-year representation limit mandate.
RULING:
No. In the instant case, it was PALEA, as the exclusive bargaining agent of PAL’s ground
employees, that voluntarily entered into the CBA with PAL. It was also PALEA that voluntarily
opted for the 10-year suspension of the CBA. Either case was the union’s exercise of its right to
collective bargaining. The right to free collective bargaining, after all, includes the right to suspend
it.