4. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR vs.
Constitution and Labor Code would be rendered nugatory if their
SECRETARY OF LABOR (1998)
FACTS:
 A certification election was conducted among the rank-
and-file employees of the Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI).
 Petitioner NFL (National Federation of Labor) was chosen
as the bargaining agent of its rank-and-file employees
 Protests filed by the company and three other unions
against the results of the election on the ground that the
certification election was marred by massive fraud and
irregularities because number of employees were not able to
cast their votes because they were not properly notified of the
date
Labor Secretary: denied the petition to annul the election and
instead certified petitioner NFL as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of private
respondent HPI.
 However, on motion of HPI, the Secretary of Labor,
reversed his resolution. NFL’s MR was denied. Hence, this
petition
Issue: Whether the DOLE should not have given due course to
private respondent's petition for annulment of the results of the
certification election.
HELD:
The SC ruled in favor of the NFL. The workers in this case were
denied this opportunity. Not only were a substantial number of
them disfranchised, there were, in addition, allegations of fraud
and other irregularities which put in question the integrity of the
election. Workers wrote letters and made complaints protesting
the conduct of the election. The Report of Med-Arbiter Pura who
investigated these allegations found the allegations of fraud and
irregularities to be true.
The SC invalidated the certification election upon a showing of
disfranchisement, lack of secrecy in the voting and bribery. The
workers' right to self-organization as enshrined in both the
right to choose their collective bargaining representative were
denied. Indeed, the policy of the Labor Code favors the holding of
a certification election as the most conclusive way of choosing the
labor organization to represent workers in a collective bargaining
unit. In case of doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the
holding of a certification election.
5.
6.
SMC UNION vs. HON. CONFESOR (1996)
FACTS:
 Petitioner San Miguel Corporation Employees Union
entered into a CBA with private respondent San Miguel
Corporation (SMC)
 It provides that the agreement SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE
AND EFFECTIVE until 1992, and the terms of the agreement
shall be for 5 years. from 1989 to 1992.
 For purposes of business expansion, the SMC would
undergo with reconstructing, the magnolia and the Feeds and
livestock Division were spun-off and become two separate and
distinct corporation. But the CBA remain in forced and
effective.
 During the negotiation the petitioner union insisted that
the bargaining unit of SMC should still include the employees
of the spun-off corporations, which is the MAGNOLIA and SMFI
and that the renegotiation terms of the CBA shall be effective
ONLY for the remaining period of 2 years.
 On the other hand the SMC contended that the members
or employees WHO HAD MOVED TO MAGNOLIA AND SMFI,
SHALL AUTHOMATICALLY CEASED TO BE PART OF THE
BARGAINING UNIT at the SMC, and that the CBA shall be
effective for 3years in accordance with ART.253-A
 Unable to agree with these issues of bargaining unit and
duration of the CBA, petitioner union declared a deadlock and
 filed a notice of strike.
Held:
Spin-off of Magnolia and San Miguel Foods Companies from the
San Miguel Corporation as separate corporate entities.  Existing
CBA included all four divisions.  During the renewal or
renegotiation for two years on the economic provisions, spin-off
corporations were already in existence.  The Union insisted that
the employees of the spun-off corporations were still to be
considered as part of the appropriate bargaining unit.
Considering the spin-off, the companies would consequently have
their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of the nature of
work, wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment.  by favorably allowing them free access to a labor organization,
The interests of the employees in different companies would
perforce differ.  SMC is engaged in beer manufacturing; Magnolia
with manufacturing and processing of dairy products; SM Foods
with production of feeds and processing of chicken.  The nature of
the products and sales of business may require diff. Skills which
must necessarily be commensurated by different compensation
packages; different volumes of work and working conditions.  It
would then be best to have separate bargaining units for different
companies where the employees can bargain separately accdg. to
their needs and working conditions.
7.
8.
MERALCO vs. HON. QUISUMBING (1999) decision
FACTS:
A petition for certification election was filed by the labor
organization of staff and technical employees of MERALCO seeking
to represent regular employees of MERALCO. MERALCO contended
that those in the Patrol Division and Treasury Security Service
Section, since these employees are tasked with providing security
to the company, they are not eligible to join the rank and file
bargaining unit. The Med-Arbiter ruled that having been excluded
from the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement for rank and file
employees, these employees have the right to form a union of
their own, except those employees performing managerial
functions. The Secretary of Labor affirmed said order.
Issue: Whether security guards may join rank-and-file or
supervisors union
Held:
Under the old rules, security guards were barred from joining a
labor organization of the rank and file, under RA 6715, they may
now freely join a labor organization of the rank and file or that of
the supervisory union, depending on their rank. By
accommodating supervisory employees, the Secretary of Labor
must likewise apply the provisions of RA 6715 to security guards
whether rank and file or supervisory, in recognition of their
constitutional right to self-organization.
MERALCO vs. QUISUMBING, MEWA (1999)
FACTS:
 MEWA informed MERALCO of its intention to re-negotiate
the terms&conditions of their existing CBA
 MEWA submitted its proposal to MERALCO and the
collective bargaining negotiations proceeded. However, despite
the series of meetings between the negotiating panels of
MERALCO and MEWA, the parties failed to arrive at "terms and
conditions acceptable to both of them."
 As a result, MEWA filed a Notice of Strike, on the grounds
of bargaining deadlock and ULP
 Secretary of Labor: granted the economic as well as the
political demand of the MEWA, and ordered to grant the wage
increase and to incorporation into the CBA of all existing
employee benefits.
 MERALCO filed a MR alleging that the Secretary of Labor
did not properly appreciate the effect of the awarded wages
and benefits on MERALCO's financial viability.
 MEWA likewise filed a motion asking the Secretary of Labor
to reconsider its Order on the wage increase and other
benefits.

Issue: Whether the Secretary's actions have been reasonable in
light of the parties positions and the evidence they presented.
Held:
The Court ruled that a collective bargaining dispute such as this
one requires due consideration and proper balancing of the
interest of the parties to the dispute and those who might be
affected by the dispute.
As a rule, affordability and capacity to pay should be take into
account BUT cannot be the sole yardstick in determining the wage
award, especially in a PUBLIC UTILITY like MERALCO. In
considering a public utility, it must always take into account the
PUBLIC interest aspect. The MERALCO’s income and the amount of
money available for operating expenses including labor costs are
subject to state regulations. We must also keep in mind that high
operating costs will certainly and eventually be passed on the
consuming public.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. HON. SECRETARY
OF LABOR LEONARDO QUISUMBING and MERALCO
EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION
(MEWA), Respondents.
AUGUST 1, 2000
On February 22, 2000, this Court promulgated a Resolution with
the decretal portion ( pls read the previous decision):
Petitioner Manila Electric Company filed with this Court, on March
17, 2000, a "Motion for Partial Modification (Re: Resolution Dated
22 February 2000)" anchored on the following grounds:
I plenary and discretionary powers to determine the
With due respect, this Honorable Courts ruling on the
retroactivity issue: (a) fails to account for previous rulings of
the Court on the same issue; (b) fails to indicate the reasons
for reversing the original ruling in this case on the
retroactivity issue; and (c) is internally inconsistent.
II
With due respect, the Honorable Courts ruling on the
retroactivity issue does not take into account the huge cost
that this award imposes on petitioner, estimated at no less
than P800 Million.
Anent the second ground, petitioner alleges that the
retroactive application of the arbitral award will cost it no
less than P800 Million. Thus, petitioner prays that the two-
year term of the CBA be fixed from December 28, 1996 to
December 27, 1998. Petitioner also seeks this Courts
declaration that the award of P2,000.00 be paid to
petitioners rank-and-file employees during this two-year
period. In the alternative, petitioner prays that the award of
P2,000.00 be made to retroact to June 1, 1996 as the
effectivity date of the CBA.
Private respondent MEWA filed its Comment on May 19,
2000, contending that the Motion for Partial Modification
was unauthorized inasmuch as Mr. Manuel M. Lopez,
President of petitioner corporation, has categorically stated
in a memorandum to the rank-and-file employees that
management will comply with this Courts ruling and will not
file any motion for reconsideration; and that the assailed
Resolution should be modified to conform to the St.
Lukes ruling, to the effect that, in the absence of a specific
provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of the effectivity of
arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, he is deemed vested with
effectivity thereof.
ISSUE: WON the Honorable Court has erred in rendering the
previous Feb. 22, 2000 decision.
RULING:
NO but the court modified its decision.
Upon a reconsideration of the Decision, this Court issued
the assailed Resolution which ruled that where an arbitral
award granted beyond six months after the expiration of
the existing CBA, and there is no agreement between the
parties as to the date of effectivity thereof, the arbitral
award shall retroact to the first day after the six-month
period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA.
In the dispositive portion, however, the period to which the
award shall retroact was inadvertently stated as beginning
on December 1, 1995 up to November 30, 1997.
In resolving the motions for reconsideration in this case, this
Court took into account the fact that petitioner belongs to
an industry imbued with public interest. As such, this Court
can not ignore the enormous cost that petitioner will have
to bear as a consequence of the full retroaction of the
arbitral award to the date of expiry of the CBA, and the
inevitable effect that it would have on the national
economy. On the other hand, under the policy of social
justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the
interests of the working class on the humane justification
that those with less privilege in life should have more in
law.15 Balancing these two contrasting interests, this Court
turned to the dictates of fairness and equitable justice and
thus arrived at a formula that would address the concerns
of both sides. Hence, this Court held that the arbitral award
in this case be made to retroact to the first day after the six-
month period following the expiration of the last day of the
CBA, i.e., from June 1, 1996 to May 31, 1998.
This Court, therefore, maintains the foregoing rule in the
assailed Resolution pro hac vice. It must be clarified,
however, that consonant with this rule, the two-year
effectivity period must start from June 1, 1996 up to May
31, 1998, not December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997.
During the interregnum between the expiration of the
economic provisions of the CBA and the date of effectivity of
the arbitral award, it is understood that the hold-over
principle shall govern, viz:
"[I]t shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the
existing agreement during the 60-day freedom period and/or until a
new agreement is reached by the parties." Despite the lapse of the
formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as
continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly
executed.16
Finally, this Court finds that petitioners prayer, that the
award of Two Thousand Pesos shall be paid to rank-and-
file employees during the two-year period, is well-taken.
The award does not extend to supervisory employees of
petitioner.
WHEREFORE , the Motion for Partial Modification is
GRANTED. The Resolution of February 22, 2000 is
PARTIALLYMODIFIED as follows: (a) the arbitral award shall
retroact to the two-year period from June 1, 1996 to May
31, 1998; (b) the increased wage award of Two Thousand
Pesos (P2,000.00) shall be paid to the rank-and-file
employees during the said two-year period. This Resolution
is subject to the monetary advances granted by petitioner to
said employees during the pendency of this case, assuming
such advances had actually been distributed to them.