LABOR RELATIONS – Atty.

Daniel Gutierez
Monday 4:30 – 7:30

PART ONE – INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS

LABOR RELATIONS POLICY FORUMLATION AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

1987 Constitution
Article II, Sec.2, 10. And 18
Article III, Sec. 8
The right of the people, including those employed In private and public sectors, to form
unions, associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law, shall not be abridged.
Article IX B, Sec. 2B
Article XII, Sec. 12
Article XIII, Sec. 3 and 14

Labor Code
Article 3
The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunitis
regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State
shall assure the rights of workers to self organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just
and humane conditions of work.

Article 218 Declaration of Policy

Article 290 Tripartism and Tripartite Conferences
 Association de Agricultores v Talisay – Silay Milling Co. (Feb 19, 1979)
Facts
- On June 22, 1952, Republic Act No. 809 was approved. Section 1 of the law provides that
o “Section 1. In the absence of written milling agreements between the majority of
planters and the millers of sugarcane in any milling district in the Philippines, the
unrefined sugar produced in that district from the mining by any sugar central of the
sugar-cane of any sugar-cane planter or plantation owner, as well as all by products
and derivatives thereof, shall be divided between them as follows:
o 60% for the planter, and 40% for the central in any milling district the maximum actual
production of which is not more than 400,000 piculs: Provided, That the provisions of
this section shall not apply to sugar centrals with an actual production of less than
150,000 piculs.
o 62 ½ per centum for the planter, and 37 1/2 per centum for the central in any milling
district the maximum actual production of which exceeds 400,000 piculs but does not
exceed 600,000 piculs;
o 65% for the planter, and 35% for the central in any milling district the maximum actual
production of which exceeds 600,000 piculs but does not exceed 900,000 piculs;
o 67 ½ per centum for the planter, and 32 ½ per centum for the central in any mining
district the maximum actual production of which exceeds 900,000 piculs but does not
exceed 1,200,000 piculs;
o 70% for the planter, and 30% for the central in any milling district the maximum actual
production of which exceeds 1 on 200,000 piculs.xxx”
- The Associacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay Inc. and six sugarcane planters
(PLANTERS) filed a petition to the Secretary of Labor, praying that the latter declare the
applicability of the RA No. 809 to the Talisay-Silay Milling District (CENTRAL) for every crop
year starting from 1952-1962.
- CENTRAL alleged that RA No. 809 was invalid and unconstitutional. Even if the same was
valid, the planters had written milling contracts with them at the time the said Act went into
effect, and the planters who entered into said contract did so voluntarily and those voluntary
contracts may not be altered or modified without infringing the constitutional guarantee on

1
 freedom of contracts and non-impairment clause of the Constitution. CENTRAL also alleged
that the law violates the equal protection clause since bigger milling districts should provide
bigger shares than smaller ones.
Issue
1) Whether or not R.A. No. 809 is constitutional.
2) Whether or not the Act violates the equal protection clause.
Ruling
1) YES. Republic Act No. 809 is a social justice and police power measure for the promotion of
labor conditions in sugar plantations, hence whatever rational degree of constraint it exerts on
freedom of contract and existing contractual obligations in constitutionally permissible. The
law was conceived and enacted as a social legislation designed primarily to ameliorate the
condition of the laborers in the sugar plantations, and the fact that at the same time the
planters would also be benefited by it does not detract from if it does not add to such basic
purpose of the Act. Further, the Act seeks to reduce the inequality in the benefits being
received by the Central and the laborers.
“When the welfare of the public is at stake, the state may, in the exercise of its police
power, enact legislation which may cause harm or injury to a certain class of the inhabitants
as long as it benefits the greater majority. The welfare of the people is the supreme law””
(decision of the Lower Court) It is beyond cavil that dealing as it did with the unfortunate plight
of the farm laborers crying for just and urgent amelioration and confronted with the usual
constitutional objections whenever contractual relations are sought to be regulated, Congress
ultimately availed of the state’s police power, in the face of which all arguments about
freedom of contract and impairment of contractual obligation is have generally been held not
to prevail.
It is not police power alone that sustains the validity of the statutory provision in dispute.
Having in view its primary objective to promote the interests of labor, it can never be possible
that the State would be bereft of constitutional authority to enact legislations of its kind. Thus,
Section 5 of Article II of the 1935 Constitution, under the aegis of which the law in question
was enacted, made it one of the declared principles to which the people committed
themselves that “the promotion of social justice to insure the well being and economic
security of all the people should be the concern of the State.” As long as capital in industry or
agriculture will not be fatally prejudiced to the extent of incurring losses as a result of its
enforcement, any legislation to improve labor conditions would be valid, provided the assailed
legislation is more or less demanded as a measure to improve the situation in which the
workers and laborers are actually found and in the case at bar, there is not even a pretension
that the finances of the centrals would be anywhere in the red as a result of the enforcement
of Republic Act 809.
2) NO. The act does not violate the equal protection clause. The standard used by the
legislature is the amount of production in each distract, naturally, the planters adhered to the
bigger centrals should be given bigger shares, considering that the more a central produces,
the bigger could be its margin of profit which can be correspondingly cut for the purpose of
enlarging the share of the planters. Understandably, the smaller centrals may not be able to
afford to have their shared reduced substantially which is evidently the reason why the law
has not been made applicable to centrals having a production of less than 150,000 piculs a
year. The Act does not discriminate against the workers in the centrals by not including them
among the components of labor in the apportionment of the fruits of their joint efforts with the
planters. The laborers in the central performs work the nature of which is entirely different
from that those working in the farms, thereby requiring the application to them of other laws
advantageous to labor, which upon the other hand, do not correspondingly favor plantation or
purely agricultural manpower. Laborers in the centrals are differently situated and are already
protected by other laws.

 PAL v PALEA (June 28, 1974)

Facts

2
 - Fidel Gotangco was an employee of the Philippine Air Lines (PAL). He was caught with a
piece of lead material at one of the gates PAL Airfield compound. Such material was
presented as an evidence together with a signed statement by him, taken at an investigation,
wherein he admitted his apprehension by a company security guard with a lead material he
intended to take home for his personal use. The employer, PAL, seeks to dismiss Gotangco.
The Court of Industrial Relations decided that Fidel Gotangco was guilty of breach of trust
and violation of the rules and regulations of his employer. But respondent sees authority to
dismiss him on the basis of such guilt. It is believed however, that in this particular case
dismissal is too severe a pentaly to impose on Fidel Gotangco for trying to slip out a lead
material belonging to respondent. Because (1) it is his first time to commit the charge in
question for the duration of his 17 years of service with respondent; (2) the cost of said
material in negligible; (3) respondent did not lose anything after all as the lead material was
retrieved in time; (4) the ignominy and mental torture undergone by Gotangco is practically
punishment in itself; and (5) he has been under preventive suspension to date. For which
reason, it would seem more equitable to retain than dismiss him.”
- Petitioner was ordered “to reinstate Fidel Gotangco immediately without backwages.”
Petitioner insists on the dismissal of Gotangco, hence this petition.
Issue
Whether or not the CIR erred in not dismissing Gotangco.
Ruling
- No. When respondent Court after a conscientious appraisal of the facts did reach a
conclusion that was far from arbitrary and was impressed with an element of generosity to
which the law should not be a stranger, there is no valid ground for us to hold otherwise.
There is in the Constitution the guarantee of security of tenure. Where it could be shown that
the result would neither be oppressive nor self-destructive to the employer it cannot be
asserted that an outright termination of employment is justified.
The reliance of the petitioner in the case of Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Zulueta is
misplaced. In the case, Justice Laurel, declared “The whole controversy is centered around
the right of the Court of Industrial Relations to order the readmission of a laborer who, it is
admitted, had been found derelict in the performance of his duties towards his employer. We
concede that the right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees, is subject
to regulation by the State basically in the exercise of its paramount police power.” In another
Manila Trading Company case, Manila Trading Supply Co. v. Philippine Labor Union, the
same Justice Laurel made clear that the earlier doctrine did not call for automatic application.
The futility of this appeal becomes even more apparent considering the express provision
in the Constitution, requiring the State to assure workers “security of tenure.” Where the
respondent Court of Industrial Relations, in the light of all the circumstances disclosed,
particularly that it was a first offense after 17 years of service, reached the conclusion, neither
arbitrary nor oppressive, that dismissal was too severe a penalty, this Court should not view
the matter differently.

 National Service Corp v NLRC (November 29, 1988)

Facts
- Eugenia C. Credo, respondent, was an employee of the National Service Corporation
(NASECO), a corporation which provides manpower services to the Philippine National Bank
(PNB) and its agencies. She was administratively charged by Sisinio S. Lloren, for not
complying instructions to correct/add remarks in the Statement of Billings Adjustment and for
showing resentment and disrespect after being called to explain. She was placed on “Forced
Leave” for 15 days. She filed a complaint in the Ministry of Labor and Employment against
NASECO claiming that her force leave status is without due process.
- NASECO’s Committee on Personnel Affairs deliberated and evaluated a number of past acts
of misconduct or infractions attributed to her and recommended Credo’s termination, with
forfeiture of benefits. She was made to explain her side in connection with the charges filed
but unable to do so and was handed a Notice of Termination. Credo filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, alleging absence of just or authorized cause for her dismissal and lack of
opportunity to be heard.

3
 - On May 9, 1984, the labor arbiter rendered a decision dismissing Credo's complaint, and
directing NASECO to pay Credo separation pay equivalent to one half month's pay for every
year of service.
- Both parties appealed to NLRC. ON November 28, 1984, NLRC rendered a decision directing
NASECO to reinstate Credo to her former position with six months’ back wages and without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges appertaining thereto and dismissed claim for her
attorney's fees, moral and exemplary damages. Both parties filed their respective motions for
reconsideration but denied.
Issue
1) Whether or not NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering Credo’s reinstatement
with backwages
2) Whether or not NLRC has jurisdiction to order Credo’s reinstatement.
Ruling
1) No. NASECO did not comply with the guidelines provided under the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Labor Code in the exercise of their power to dismiss employees for just
causes. It mandate that the employer furnish an employee sought to be dismissed 2 written
notices of dismissal before a termination of employment can be legally effected. These are
the notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his
dismissal is sought and the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s
decision to dismiss him.
Likewise, a reading of the guidelines in consonance with the express provisions of law on
protection to labor (which encompasses the right to security of tenure) and the broader
dictates of procedural due process necessarily mandate that notice of the employer’s
decision to dismiss an employee, with reasons therefor, can only be issued after the
employer has afforded the employee concerned ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself.
In the case at bar, NASECO did not comply with these guidelines in effecting Credo’s
dismissal. Although she was apprised and “given the chance to explain her side” of the
charges filed against her, this chance was given so perfunctorily, thus reading illusory
Credo’s right of security of tenure. That Credo was not given ample opportunity to be heard
and to defend herself is evident from the fact that the compliance with the injunction to
apprise her of the charges filed against her and to afford her a chance to prepare for her
defense was dispensed in only a day. Under Section 5, it provides that the worker may
answer the allegations stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a reasonable
period from receipt of such notice. The employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to
be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires.
The fact also that the Notice of Termination of Credo’s employment was dated November
24, 1983 and made effective December 1, 1983 shows that NASECO was already bent on
terminating her services when she was informed on December 1, 1983 of the charges against
her, and that any hearing which NASECO thought of affording her after November 24, 1983
would merely be pro forma or an exercise of futility.
2) Yes. The reliance of the petitioner to the ruling in National Housing Corporation vs. Juco
where this Court held that “There should no longer be any question at this time that
employees of government-owned or controlled corporations are governed by the civil service
law and civil service rifled and regulations” is misplaced.
The said ruling should not be given retroactive effect, that is, to cases that arose before its
promulgation on January 17, 1985. Prior to the ruling in National Housing Corporation vs.
Juco, this Court had recognized the applicability of the Labor Code to, and the authority of the
NLRC to exercise jurisdiction over, disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in
government owned or controlled corporations, among them, the National Service Corporation
(NASECO).
The 1987 Constitution starkly varies from the 1973 Constitution, upon which National
Housing Corporation vs. Juco is based. Under the 1973 Constitution, it was provided that,
“The civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the
Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation. . . .” On the other
hand, the 1987 Constitution provides that, “The civil service embraces all branches,

4
 subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with original charter.”
The civil service does not include GOCC which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCC
under the general corporation law hence, the NASECO is under the jurisdiction of the NLRC.

 PLDT v NLRC (Aug 23, 1988)

Facts
- Marilyn Abucay, a traffic operator of the PLDT, was accused by two complainants of having
demanded and received from them the total amount of P3,800.00 in consideration of her
promise to facilitate approval of their applications for telephone installation. Investigated and
heard, she was found guilty as charged and accordingly separated from the service. She
went to the Ministry of Labor and Employment claiming she had been illegally removed. After
consideration of the evidence and arguments of the parties, the company was sustained and
the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Both the petitioner and the private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations
Board, which upheld the said decision in toto and dismissed the appeals. The private
respondent took no further action, thereby impliedly accepting the validity of her dismissal.
The petitioner, however, is now before us to question the affirmance of the above- quoted
award as having been made with grave abuse of discretion.
- The position of the petitioner is simply stated: It is conceded that an employee illegally
dismissed is entitled to reinstatement and backwages as required by the labor laws.
However, an employee dismissed for cause is entitled to neither reinstatement nor
backwages and is not allowed any relief at all because his dismissal is in accordance with
law. In the case of the private respondent, she has been awarded financial assistance
equivalent to ten months pay corresponding to her 10 year service in the company despite
her removal for cause. She is, therefore, in effect rewarded rather than punished for her
dishonesty, and without any legal authorization or justification. The award is made on the
ground of equity and compassion, which cannot be a substitute for law. Moreover, such
award puts a premium on dishonesty and encourages instead of deterring corruption.
- For its part, the public respondent claims that the employee is sufficiently punished with her
dismissal. The grant of financial assistance is not intended as a reward for her offense but
merely to help her for the loss of her employment after working faithfully with the company for
ten years. In support of this position, the Solicitor General cites the cases of Firestone Tire
and Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Lariosa and Soco v. Mercantile Corporation of
Davao, where the employees were dismissed for cause but were nevertheless allowed
separation pay on grounds of social and compassionate justice.
Issue
Whether or not the award of Separation pay is proper.
Ruling
- NO. Separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances
where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those
reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example,
habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations
with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee
separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of
social justice.
A contrary rule would, as the petitioner correctly argues, have the effect, of rewarding
rather than punishing the erring employee for his offense. And we do not agree that the
punishment is his dismissal only and that the separation pay has nothing to do with the wrong
he has committed. Of course it has. Indeed, if the employee who steals from the company is
granted separation pay even as he is validly dismissed, it is not unlikely that he will commit a
similar offense in his next employment because he thinks he can expect a like leniency if he
is again found out. This kind of misplaced compassion is not going to do labor in general any
good as it will encourage the infiltration of its ranks by those who do not deserve the
protection and concern of the Constitution.

5
 The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it
is committed by the underprivileged. At best it may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not
condone the offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but
only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. Social justice cannot
be permitted to be refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an impediment to the
punishment of the guilty. Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are
clean and their motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor. This great
policy of our Constitution is not meant for the protection of those who have proved they are
not worthy of it, like the workers who have tainted the cause of labor with the blemishes of
their own character.
Applying the above considerations, we hold that the grant of separation pay in the case at
bar is unjustified. The private respondent has been dismissed for dishonesty, as found by the
labor arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC and as she herself has impliedly admitted. The fact
that she has worked with the PLDT for more than a decade, if it is to be considered at all,
should be taken against her as it reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty that she should have
strengthened instead of betraying during all of her 10 years of service with the company. If
regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of dismissal, it will actually become a
prize for disloyalty, perverting the meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of
labor to cleanse its ranks of all undesirables.

A. Statutory Source and Interpretation

 BF Goodrich Confidential and Salaried employees Union v Goodrich, Phils Inc (Feb 28,
1973)
o This is not to say that management is to be precluded from filing an unfair labor
practice case. It is merely to stress that such a suit should not be allowed to lend
itself as a means, whether intended or not, to prevent a truly free expression of the
will of the labor group as to the organization that will represent it.
o It is not only the loss of time involved, in itself not likely to enhance the prospect of
respondent-unions, but also the fear endangered in the mind of an ordinary employee
that management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of its
undeniable power against those of its employees dissatisfied with things as they are.
There is no valid reason then for the postponement sought.
o The question of whether or not a certification election shall be held “may well be left
to the sound discretion of Industrial Relations,…”
 Caltex Filipino Manager and Supervisors Association v Court of Industrial Relations
o In addition, from the voluminous evidence presented by the Association, it is clear
that the strike of the Association was declared not just for the purpose of gaining
recognition as concluded by respondent court, but also for bargaining in bad faith on
the part of the Company and by reason of unfair labor practices committed by its
officials. But even if the strike were really declared for the purpose of recognition, the
concerted activities of the officers and members of the Association in this regard
cannot be said to be unlawful nor the purpose thereof be regarded as trivial.
Significantly, in the voluntary return-to-work agreement entered into between the
Company and the Association, thereby ending the strike, the Company agreed to
recognize for membership in the Association the position titles mentioned in Annex
"B" of said agreement.3 This goes to show that striking for recognition is productive
of good result in so far as a union is concerned.
o Besides, one of the important rights recognized by the Magna Carta of Labor is the
right to self-organization and we do not hesitate to say that is the cornerstone of this
monumental piece of labor legislation. Indeed, because of occasional delays incident
to a certification proceeding usually attributable to dilatory tactics employed by the
employer, to a certain extent a union may be justified in resorting to a strike.

B. Definitions (LC Art 219 abd BVR1S1)

1. Employer and Employee

6
 Art 219 e,f
Employer – any person acting in the interest of an employer, direcly or indirectly. The
term shall not include any labor, organization or any of its officers or agents except when
actinf as emplyer.
Employee – any person in the employ of an employer. The term shall not be limited to
the employees of a particular employer, unless the Code explicitly so states. It shall
inlcude any individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection to a labor
dispute or because of any unfaur labor practice if he has not obtained any other
substantially equivalent and regular employment.
 Feati University v Bautista
Facts
- The President of the respondent Feati University Faculty Club-PAFLU wrote
a letter to President of petitioner Feati University, informing her of the
organization of the Faculty Club into a registered labor union. The Faculty
Club filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor alleging as reason
therefor the refusal of the University to bargain collectively.
- On that very same day, however, the University, thru counsel filed a motion
to dismiss the case upon the ground that the CIR has no jurisdiction over the
case, because (1) the Industrial Peace Act is not applicable to the University,
it being an educational institution, nor to the members of the Faculty Club,
they being independent contractors; and (2) the presidential certification is
violative of Section 10 of the Industrial Peace Act, as the University is not an
industrial establishment and there was no .industrial dispute which could be
certified to the CIR.
Issue
Ruling
- An employer is one who employs the services of others; one for whom
employees work and who pays their wages or salaries. An employer includes
any person acting in the interest of an employer directly or indirectly. A
university that engaged the services of professors, provided them work and
paid them compensation or salary for their services is an employer even if it
considers itself a mere "lessee" of the services of said professors.
- Section 2(c) of the Industrial Peace Act does not state that the employers
included in the definition of the term "employer" are only and exclusively
"industrial establishments". On the contrary, the term embraces all employers
except those specifically excluded therein.
- An employee is one who is engaged in the service of another; who performs
services for another; who works for salary or wages.
- Same.—Professors and instructors, who are under contract to teach
particular courses and are paid for their services, are employees under the
Industrial Peace Act. Teachers are employees.

2. Labor organization – legitimate labor organization

Art 219 g,h
Labor organization – any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in
part for the purpose of collective bargaining or dealing with employers concerning terms
and conditions of employment.
Legitimate labor organization - any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE,
and includes any branch or local thereof.

 Airline Pilots Association et al v CIR

Facts
- the Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines, represented by Ben Hur
Gomez who claimed to be its President, filed a petition with the Court of
Industrial Relations praying for certification as the sole and exclusive
collective bargaining representative of “all the pilots now under employment

7
 by the Philippine Air Lines, Inc. and are on active flight and/or operational
assignments.” The petition which was docketed in the sala of Judge Joaquin
M. Salvador as Case 2939-MC was opposed in the name of the same
association by Felix C. Gaston (who also claimed to be its President) on the
ground that the industrial court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of
the petition. The Judge granted the petition.
Issue
Who is the president of
Ruling
- The term “labor organization” as defined by RA 875 is not limited to the
employees of a particular employer.—This Court cannot likewise subscribe to
the restrictive interpretation made by the court below of the term “labor
organization,” which Section 2(e) of R.A. 875 defines as “any union or
association of employees which exists, in whole or in part, for the purpose of
collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and
conditions of employment.” The absence of the condition which the court
below would attach to the statutory concept of a labor organization, as being
limited to the employees of a particular employer, is quite evident from the
law. The emphasis of the Industrial Peace Act is clearly on the purposes for
which a union or association of employees is established rather than that
membership therein should be limited only to the employees of a particular
employer. Trite to say, under Section 2(h) of R.A. 875 “representative” is
defined as including “a legitimate labor organization or any officer or agent of
such organization, whether or not employed by the employer or employee
whom he represents.” It cannot be overemphasized likewise that a labor
dispute can exists “regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employer and employee.”
- There is, furthermore, nothing in the constitution and bylaws of ALPAP which
indubitably restricts membership therein to PAL pilots alone.1 Although
according to ALPAP.

 Lopez Sugar Corporation v Sec of Labor

Facts
- On 26 July 1989, private respondent National Congress of Unions in the
Sugar Industry of the Philippines-TUCP (“NACUSIP-TUCP”) filed with the
Department of Labor and Employment (“DOLE”), a petition for direct
certification or for certification election to determine the sole and exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the supervisory employees of herein
petitioner, Lopez Sugar Corporation (“LSC”), at its sugar central in Fabrica,
Sagay, Negros Occidental.
- In its petition, NACUSIP-TUCP averred that it was a legitimate national labor
organization; that LSC was employing 55 supervisory employees, the
majority of whom were members of the union; that no other labor
organization was claiming membership over the supervisory employees; that
there was no existing collective bargaining agree ment covering said
employees; and that there was no legal impediment either to a direct
certification of NACUSIP-TUCP or to the holding of a certification election.
Issue
WON NACUSIP-TUCP was a legitimate labor organization.
Ruling
- NO. The legitimate status of NACUSIP-TUCP might be conceded; being
merely, however, an agent for the local organization (the NACUSIP-
TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), the federation’s bona
fide status alone would not suffice. The local chapter, as its principal,
should also be a legitimate labor organization in good standing.

8
 - In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentary
requirements are found in Rule II, Section 3(e), Book V of the Implementing
Rules, which we again quote as follows:
“ ‘(c) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall
have and maintain a constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books
of accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting
of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be
observed.’
- Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter
does not become a legitimate labor organization. The only document extant
on record to establish the legitimacy of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar
Central Supervisory Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else. The
instant petition, at least for now, must thus be GRANTED.
*Federation – group of legitimate labor unions in a private establisment
organized for collective baragining or for dealing with employers concerning
terms and conditions of employment for their member unions or for participating
in the formulation of of social and employment policies, standards and programs,
registered with the Bureau.

3. Labor dispute
Art 219 L
Labor dispute – Any controvery or matter concerning terms and conditions of
employment or the association or representaton of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless
whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.

 San Miguel Corporation Employees Union v Bersamira (JUNE 13, 1990)

Facts
- Union alleged that this group of employees, while appearing contractual
workers, have been continuously working for SMC for 6 mos – 15 yrs. And
that they are performing work or activity necessary or desirable in the usual
business of trade of SMC
- No favorable response from SMC, and thus the Union filed a notice of strike.
2 notices of strike were consolidated and conciliation conferences were held
to settle the dispute.
- SMC filed a complaint before the Court to prohibit the Union from
representing the employees of Lipercon and D’Rite. The court responded
that the absence of EER negates the existence of labor dispute. Thus the
Court has jurisdiction; the prohibition was granted
Issue
WON the case relates to a labor dispute.
Ruling
- Labor dispute exists when the controversy concerns the terms and
conditions of employment.—While it is SanMig’s submission that no
employer-employee relationship exists between itself, on the one hand, and
the contractual workers of Lipercon and D’Rite on the other, a labor dispute
can nevertheless exist “regardless of whether the disputants stand in
the proximate relationship of employer and employee” (Article 212 [1]
Labor Code, supra) provided the controversy concerns, among others,
the terms and conditions of employment or a “change” or
“arrangement” thereof). Put differently, and as defined by law, the
existence of a labor dispute is not negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and
defendants do not stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.
- Thus Labor Arbiter have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case, including the unfair labor practice in the case at the bar.

9
  Gold City Integrated Port Service Inc v NLRC
Facts
- Petitioner (inport) employees conducted mass action to express their
th
grievance regarding wages, 13 month pay, and hazard pay. A strike was
conducted my MLU. Such strike paralyzed the operations at the said port.
Inport filed a complait before the LA for illegal strike with prayer for a
restraining order, which the NLRC issued.
- Majority of the strikers returned to work (claiming that they did not voluntary
joined the strike), leaving herein private respondents who continued to
protest.
Issue
Ruling
- A strike is defined as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute; What a labor
dispute includes.—A strike, considered as the most effective weapon of
labor, is defined as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action
of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute
includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of
employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of
employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employers and employees.
- But strike must conform with the requisites: Must have notice and cooling off
period = illegal strike

Test for determining Labor Dispute

 RCPI v Philippine Communications Electronics and Electricity Workers
Federation
Facts
- Respondent PCEE-EWF presented to the petitioner set of proposals to be
embodied in a CBA. RCPI responded in negative, reasoning that there was
already an existing labor contract.
- BLR acted as conciliator – unsuccessful. Then and there, a strike was
declared by the union. CIR took over as there was an element of an unfair
labor practice.
- Sec of Labor sent a communication to the CIR endorsing the labor dispute
under Section 16(c) of the Minimum Wage Law.
- A motion filed by respondent labor Union seeking an order of reinstatement
pending the resolution if the case on merits. Granted by CIR.
- Return to work order not complied with. Writ of Execution was issued by CIR
requiring the reinstatement of the strikers without loss of seniority.
- Various legal moves were further resorted to by petitioner with the result of
further delaying the implementation of return to work order.
- RCPI Contended that Sec of Labor and CIR cannot enforce return to work
order pending the final outcome of a case. That there must be some kind of
invocation of Presidential Degree like the P.D 21.
Issue
WON there is an existing labor dispute.
Ruling
- Yes. The dispute arises from the employer, although the disputants need not
be proximately employee or employer of the other. The subject matter must
be a dispute that concernts the terms or conditions...

10
 C. Labor relations
1. Dipsute Settlement Methodology
Art 218 a
It is the policy of the State to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective
bagraining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation,
as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes.

2. Collective Bargaining
 Kiok Loy v NLRC
Facts
- In a certification election, KILUSAN, a legitimate late labor federation, won
and was subsequently certified in a resolution by the BLR as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Sweden Ice
Cream Plant (Company).
- Thereafter, the Union furnished  the Company with copies of its proposed
CBA. At the same time, it requested the Company for its counter proposals.
The request were ignored and remained unacted upon by the Company.
- Left with no other alternative in its attempt to bring the Company to the
bargaining table, the Union filed a “Notice of Strike”, with the BLR on ground
of unresolved economic issues in collective bargaining.
- The NLRC rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:WHEREFORE, the respondent [company] is hereby declared guilty of
unjustified refusal to bargain, in violation of Section (g) Article 248 (now
Article 249), of P.D. 442, as amended.
Issue
WON the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
- No. Collective bargaining, is one of the democratic frameworks under the
New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between labor and
management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial
peace. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the Union and is
characterized as a legal obligation. So much so that Article 249, par. (g) of
the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to
refuse “to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith
for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages,
hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment
including proposals for adjusting any grievance or question arising under
such an agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement,
if requested by either party.

3. Trade Unionism
Art 218 b,c
To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the
promotion of social justice and development

Art 219 g Definitions

Labor organization – any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part
for the purpose of collective bargaining or dealing with emlpoyers concerning terms and
conditions of employement.

4. Worker Enlightenment
Art 218 d
To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligation as union
members and as employees.

Art 250 p Rights and Conditions of Membership in a Labor Organization

11
 It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officer to inform its members on the
provisions of its constitution and by-laws, collective bargaining agreement, the prevailing
labor relations system and all their rights and obligations under existing labor laws.
For this purpose, registered labor organizations may assess reasonable dues to finance
labor relations seminars and other labor education activities.
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a ground for
cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers from office, whichever is appropriate.
At least thirty percent (30%) of the members of a union or any member or members specially
concerned may report such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to hear
and decide any reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty.
Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above rights and conditions of
membership shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

Art 292 a
All unions are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees, union dues, assessments
and fines and other contributions for labor education and research, mutual death and
hospitalization benefits, welfare fund, strike fund and credit and cooperative undertakings.

Bvrxxs1-3
Sec 1. Labor Education of Workers and Employees.
The Department shall develop, promote and implement appropriate labor education and
research programs on the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers. It shall be
the deuty of every legitimate labor organization to implement a labor education program
for its member on their rights and obligations as unionist and as employees.

Sec 2 Mandatory Conduct of Seminars

Subject to the provisions of Article 247, it shall be mandatory for every legitimate labor
organization to conduct seminars and similar activities on existing labor laws, collective
agreements, company rules and regulations and other relevant matters. The union
seminars and similar activities may be conducted indeendently of or in cooperation with
the Department and other labor education institutions.

Sec 3. Special Fund for Labor Education and Research

Every legitimate labor organization shall, for the above purpose, maintain a special
fund for labor education and research. Exisiting strike funds may, in whole or in part,
be transformed into labor education and research funds. The labor organization may also
preiodically assess and collect reasonable amounts from its members for such funds.

 Davao Integrated Port v Olvida (June 29, 1992)

Facts
- The controversy centers on the interpretation of two provisions of the five-
year Collective Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner, Davao
Integrated Port and Stevedoring Services Corporation ,and the respondent,
Association of Trade Unions (the Union, for short).
"1. ARTICLE VIII — SICK, VACATION AND EMERGENCY LEAVES. Section
4 — Emergency Leaves. The Company agrees to grant a maximum of six (6)
days Emergency Leave with pay per calendar year to all regular field
workers, covered by this agreement who have rendered at least six months
of service (including overtime) per calendar year, are members of the
Regular Labor Pool, upon prior approval by the company. Said Emergency
Leave is not cumulative (sic) nor commutable."
ARTICLE XVII — S P E CIA L P R O VIS IO N S . Section 4 — Union
Education and Training Fund. The Company agrees to contribute twelve
thousand (P12,000.00) pesos per year to the union Education and Training
Fund."

12
 - Controversy arose when petitioner insisted that the above provision are to be
interpreted differently. After due hearing, respondent Arbitrator rendered a
decision on May 19, 1990, upholding the union's interpretations of Article VIII,
Section 4 and Article XVII, Section 4, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
- In this petition for certiorari, petitioner assails the respondent Arbitrator's
construction of Section 4, Article VII (on emergency leave) and Section 4,
Article XVII (on the Union Education and Training Fund) of the CBA.
Issue

WON the arbitrator committed a grave abuse of discretion by ruling that the
respondent company should contribute to the Union Education and Training
Fund.
Ruling
- No. The Arbitrator did not abuse his discretion in ruling that the respondent
company should comply with its obligation to contribute to the Union
Education and Training Fund the amount of Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00)
pesos per year by paying said amount to the Union at the beginning of each
and every year, or contributing P1,000.00 at the end of each and every
month during the lifetime of the CBA, at the option of the company. As
correctly observed by the Arbitrator, the employer's demand for the
submission of a seminar program "is foreign to the language of the
contract" with the union.

 Victoria v Inciong (Jan 26, 1988)

Facts
- Petitioner Saturno Victoria was employed by private respondent Far East
Broadcasting Company, Incorporated as a radio transmitter operator. He
and his co-workers organized the Far East Broadcasting Company
Employees Association.
- After registering their association with the then Department of Labor, they
demanded recognition of said association by the company but the latter
refused on the ground that being a non-profit, non-stock, noncommercial
and religious corporation, it is not covered by Republic Act 875, otherwise
known as the Industrial Peace Act, the labor law enforced at that time.
- The Director of Labor Relations advised the union members that the
company could not be forced to recognize them or to bargain collectively with
them because it is a non-profit, non-commercial and religious organization.
- The union members declared a strike and picketed the company's
premises for the purpose of seeking recognition of the labor union.
- The strike staged by herein complainant and the other strikers was
declared illegal. Based on said Decision, respondent dismissed
complainant from his employment. Hence, complainant led the instant
complaint for illegal dismissal.
Issue
WON a clearance from the Sec of Labor is necessary before the petitioner could
be dismissed.
Ruling
- Yes. Technically speaking, no clearance was obtained by private
respondent from the then Secretary of Labor, the last step towards full
compliance with the requirements of law on the matter of dismissal of
employees. However, the rationale behind the clearance requirement
was fully met.
- The Secretary of Labor was apprised of private respondent's intention
to terminate the services of petitioner. This in effect is an application
for clearance to dismiss petitioner from employment. The affirmance of
the restrictive condition in the dispositive portion of the labor arbiter's

13
 decision in NLRC Case Nos. 0021 and 0285 by the Secretary of Labor and
the Office of the President of the Philippines, signifies a grant of authority to
dismiss petitioner in case the strike is declared illegal by the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan. Consequently, and as correctly stated by the Solicitor
General, private respondent acted in good faith when it terminated the
employment of petitioner upon a declaration of illegality of the strike by the
Court of First Instance.
- The substantive law on the matter enforced during the time of petitioner's
dismissal was Article 267 [b] of the Labor Code [in conjunction with the rules
and regulations implementing said substantive law.] Article 267 reads: "No
employer that has no collective bargaining agreement may shut down his
establishment or dismiss or terminate the service of regular employees with
at least one [1] year of service except managerial employees as defined in
this book without previous written clearance from the Secretary of Labor."

5. Machinery Dispute Settlement

Art 218 e
State policy to provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement if
labor or industrial disputes.

6. Industrial Peace
Art 218 f
To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace;

Art 288 a – i Study of Labor Management Relatiions

The Secretary of Labor shall have the power and it shall be his duty to inquire into:
a) the existing relations between employers and employees in the Philippines;
b) the growth of associations of employees and the effect of such
associations upon employer-employee relations;
c) the extent and results of the methods of collective bargaining in the
determination of terms and conditions of employment;
d) the methods which have been tried by employers and associations of
employees for maintaining mutually satisfactory relations;
e) desirable industrial practices which have been developed through collective
bargaining and other voluntary arrangements;
f) the possible ways of increasing the usefulness and efficiency of collective
bargaining for settling differences;
g) the possibilities for the adoption of practical and effective methods of
labor management cooperation;
h) any other aspects of employer-employee relations concerning the
promotion of harmony and understanding between the parties; and
i) the relevance of labor laws and labor relations to national development.
The Secretary of Labor shall also inquire into the causes of industrial unrest
and take all the necessary steps within his power as may be prescribed by law
to alleviate the same, and shall from time to time recommend the enactment of
such remedial legislation as in his judgment may be desirable for the maintenance
and promotion of industrial peace.

7. Worker Participation in Decision – Making

Art 218 g
To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes
affecting their rights, duties and welfare.

Art 291 g Miscellaneous Provisions

14
 The Ministry shall help promote and gradually develop, with the agreement of labor
organizations and employers, labor-management cooperation programs at appropriate
levels of the enterprise based on shared responsibility and mutual respect in order
to ensure industrial peace and improvement in productivity, working conditions
and the quality of working life.

8. Wage Fixing
Art 218 b
To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy
and the promotion of social justice and development;

Art 278 g Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts

When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a
strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of
Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it
or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the
intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or
certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or
certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to
work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the
assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as
well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right
of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and similar
medical institutions shall, to every extent possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts,
not only by labor and management but government as well, be exhausted to
substantially minimize, if not prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health,
through the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by
management to lockout. In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation
of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking
union or locking-out employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce
of medical and other health personnel, whose movement and services shall be
unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate
protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially emergency cases, for
the duration of the strike or lockout. In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor
and Employment may immediately assume, within twenty four (24) hours from
knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or
certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, the
contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or
injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the
Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of
employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages
and other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both of them.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not be
precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable
to the national interest, and from intervening at any time and assuming
jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same.
*Strike means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a
result of an industrial or labor dispute.
*
*Lockout refers to the temporary refusal to furnish work as a result of a labor or industrial
dispute.

15
 9. Labor Injunction
Art 266 Injunction Prohibited
No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or
growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as
otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code.

Art 225 e Powers of the Commission

To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all
prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in
any labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such
party: Provided, That no temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving
or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued except
after hearing the testimony of witnesses, with opportunity for cross-examination, in
support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in
opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact by the Commission, to
the effect:
1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be
committed unless restrained, or have been committed and will be
continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining
order shall be issued on account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful
act, except against the person or persons, association or organization
making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or
actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof;
2) That substantial and irrreparable injury to complainants property will follow
3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be
inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted
upon defendants by the granting of relief;
4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and
5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant´s
property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice
thereof has been served, in such manner as the Commission shall
direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, and also
to the Chief Executive and other public officials of the province or
city within which the unlawful acts have been threatened or
committed, charged with the duty to protect complainants property:
Provided however, That if a complainant shall also allege that,
unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice,
a substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will be
unavoidable, such a temporary restraining order may be issued upon
testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the
Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after
notice. Such a temporary restraining order shall be effective for
no longer than twenty (20) days and shall become void at the
expiration of said twenty (20) days. No such temporary restraining
order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on condition
that complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate
security in an amount to be fixed by the Commission sufficient to
recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense or damage
caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or
injunction, including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable
attorney´s fee, and expense of defense against the order or against
the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding
and subsequently denied by the Commission.

16
 The undertaking herein mentioned shall be understood to
constitute an agreement entered into by the complainant and the
surety upon which an order may be rendered in the same suit or
proceeding against said complainant and surety, upon a hearing to
assess damages, of which hearing, complainant and surety shall
have reasonable notice, the said complainant and surety submitting
themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose.
But nothing herein contained shall deprive any party having a claim
or cause of action under or upon such undertaking from electing to
pursue his ordinary remedy by suit at law or in equity: Provided,
further, That the reception of evidence for the application of a writ
of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of its
Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such places as
he may determine to be accessible to the parties and their
witnesses and shall submit thereafter his recommendation to the
Commission.

Art 281 Requirement for Arrest and Detention

Except on grounds of national security and public peace or in case of commission of a
crime, no union members or union organizers may be arrested or detained for union
activities without previous consultations with the Secretary of Labor.

Rationale for Policy on Injunction

 Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v CIR
Facts
- An appeal by the Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors’ Association from
the resolution enbanc of the Court of Industrial Relations affirming the
decision of Associate Judge Emiliano G. Tabigne, on the ground that the
Industrial Court in a representation case cannot take decide of the issue of
illegality of a strike and proceed to declare the loss of the employee status
ofemployees since it is to be processed as an unfair labor practice case.
- Caltex refused to recognize the petitioners as the official bargaining agency
for managers and supervisors in the company.
- The Union filed notice to strike for reasons of refusal to bargain and act on
demands by the respondent; respondent’s resort to union-busting tactics in
order to discourage the activities of the Union including discrimination and
intimidation of the Union’s members.
- The Judge handling the hearing of the certification proceedings advised the
employees not to go on strike; and on the basis of the strike notice filed, the
Union struck after the efforts exerted to settle differences failed.
- Because of this, the respondent filed an urgent petition to declare the said
strike as illegal; that the officers and members of Union who have instigated,
declared, encouraged and/or participated in the illegal strike be held and
punished for contempt and be declared to have lost their employee status;
that a temporary injunction be issued to restrain the Union and its
members from doing acts that would disrupt the respondent’s
activities. Trial court denied Union´s motion to dismiss.
Held
- The respondent sought injunctive relief under Section 9(d) of RA 875 (Magna
Charta of Labor) AN ACT TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to
issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing
out of a labor dispute, as herein defined except after hearing the testimony of

17
 witnesses in open court (with opportunity for cross-examination) in support of
the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in opposition
thereto,
- While no injunction may issued against any strike except when a labor
dispute arises in an industry indispensable to the national interest and
such dispute is certified by the President of the Philippines to the Court
of Industrial Relations in compliance with Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 875;
the respondent has sought injunctive relief under Sec. 9(d) of Republic Act
No.875, respondent court had jurisdiction over the Company's "Urgent
Petition" .

10. Tripartism
Art 290 a, b Tripartism, Tripartite Conferences, and Tripartite Industrial Peace Councils.
a) Tripartism in labor relations is hereby declared a State policy. Towards this
end, workers and employers shall, as far as practicable, be represented in
decision and policy-making bodies of the government.
b) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives
may from time to time call a national, regional, or industrial tripartite
conference of representatives of government, workers and employers, and
other interest groups as the case may be, for the consideration and adoption
of voluntary codes of principles designed to promote industrial peace based on
social justice or to align labor movement relations with established priorities in
economic and social development. In calling such conference, the Secretary of
Labor and Employment may consult with accredited representatives of workers
and employers.

PART TWO – RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION

A. Basis of Right
1. Constitution
Article III, Sec. 8, 1987
Article XIII, Sec. 3, 1987
Article III, Sec. 6, 1935
Article IV, Sec. 7, 1973

2. Statutory
Art 253 Coverage and Employee´s Right to Self – Organization
All persons employed in commerical, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious,
charitable, medical or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have
the right to self organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers,
self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor
organizations for their mutual aid and benefit.

Art 254 Right of Employees in Public Service

Employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall have
the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other
employees in civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary
to law.

Art 255 Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor organization; Right of
Supervisory Employees
Managerial employees are not eligible to joinn, assist or form any labor organization.
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective

18
 bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate
collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and
file union and supervisors´union operating within the same establishment may join the same
federation or national union.

Republic Act No. 10911 – Anti Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 2016

 Vasaar Industries Employees Union v Estrella (august 23, 1978)

Facts
Issue
Whether or not an application for registration should be denied just because
there is already a registered collective bargaining agent in the company.
Ruling
- Employees right to form unions to protect their interests statutorily and
constitutionally recognized.
- Right of employees to join any labor organization protected by Constitution;
Certification election, its function.
- Once the fact of disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, as in this
case, a certification election is the most expeditious way of determining
which labor organization is to be the exclusive bargaining representative.
- Registration; A labor union is entitled to registration when it complies
with all registration requirements; Ministerial duty of the Bureau of
Labor Relations to register labor unions.

 Singer Sewing Machine Company v Drilon (january 24, 1991)

Facts
- On February 15, 1989, the respondent union filed a petition for direct
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of the
Singer Sewing Machine Company.
- The Company opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the union
members are actually not employees but are independent contractors as
evidenced by the collection agency agreement which they signed.
Issue
W/N petitioners are entitled to right of self-organization
Ruling
- The following elements are generally considered in the determination of
employer-employee relationship: (1) selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the
power to control the employee’s conduct(means and method)..
- if the union members are not employees, no right to organize for
purposes of bargaining, nor to be certified as such bargaining agent
can ever be recognized.
- Independent Contractors; Employer-employee relationship does not exist
between petitioner-company and its collecting agents considering that
petitioner-company exercises control only with respect to the result or
amount of collection and not with respect to the means and method of
collection.
- The Court finds that since private respondents are not employees of
the Company, they are not entitled to the constitutional right to join or
form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining.

 Metrolab Industries v Confessor (February 28, 1996)

Facts
Issue
- Whether or not public respondent Labor Secretary committed grave abuse of
discretion and exceeded her jurisdiction in declaring the subject layoffs

19
 instituted by Metrolab illegal on grounds that these unilateral actions
aggravated the conflict between Metrolab and the Union who were, then,
locked in a stalemate in CBA negotiations.
- Whether or not the Public Respondent Secretary of DOLE gravely
abused her discretion in including executive secretaries as part of the
bargaining unit of the rank and file employees
Ruling
- Prohibition to join labor organization extends to confidential employees
or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required
to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees.—
Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and
assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has
extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by
reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act
in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise
privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.
- legal secretaries are neither managers nor supervisors. Their work is
basically routinary and clerical. However, they should be differentiated from
rank-and-file employees because they are tasked with, among others, the
typing of legal documents, memoranda and correspondence, the keeping of
records and files, the giving of and receiving notices, and such other duties
as required by the legal personnel of the corporation. Legal secretaries
therefore fall under the category of confidential employees.

B. Extent and Scope of Right

Art 257 Non Abridgement of Right to Self – Organization
It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly
interefere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self – organization. Such
right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purposes of collective
baragining through representatives of their own choosing and to enagage in lawful concerted
activites for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the provisions of
Article 264 of this Code.

Art 264 Duty to Bargain Collectiveñy When There Exists a CBA

When there is a CBA, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither
party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party
can serve written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least 60 days prior to its
expiration date. It 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 period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.

 Reyes v Trajano (June 2, 1992)

o The right to self-organization includes the right not to form or join a union.
The right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or
resign from a labor organization.
o INK employees have the right to participate in a certification election and vote for
"No Union."
o the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to
all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are members
of a labor organization or not

 General Rubber and Footwear Corporation v BLR (Oct 29, 1987)

o Members who are not managerial employees but considered rank-and-file
employees have every right to self-organization or be heard through a duly
certified collective bargaining union.

20
 o These members of private respondent union are therefore not prohibited from
forming their own collective bargaining unit since it has not been shown by
petitioner that “the responsibilities (of these monthly-paid-employees) inherently
require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment as supervisors” or
that “they possess the power and authority to lay down or exercise management
policies.” Similarly, We held in the same case that “Members of supervisory
unions who do not fall within the definition of managerial employees shall
become eligible to join or assist the rank-and-file labor organization, and if
none exists, to form or assist in the forming of such rank-and-file
organizations.’’´´
o Where private respondents-employees were not privy to the agreement
between petitioner and the previous bargaining representatives as to their
exclusion from the bargaining union of the rank-and-file or from forming
their own union, they can never bind subsequent federations and union.
- To avoid confusion and fulfill the policy of the Labor Code and to be
consistent with the ruling in the Bulletin case, the monthly-paid rank-and-file
employees should be allowed to join the union of daily paid rank-and-file
employees or to form their own rank-and-file union.—However, to prevent
any difficulty and to avoid confusion to all concerned.

 Knitjoy v Calleja (Sep 23, 1992)

o One company-one union policy; Exceptions.—The present Article 245 of the
Labor Code expressly allows supervisory employees who are not performing
managerial functions to join, assist or form their separate union but bars them
from membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees. This
provision obviously allows more than one union in a company.
o The one company-one union policy must yield to the right of the employees
to form unions or associations for purposes not contrary to law, to self-
organization and to enter into collective bargaining negotiations, among
others, which the Constitution guarantees.

 Katipunan ng mga Manggagawa sa Daungan v Ferrer Calleja (Sep 5, 1997)

o Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code, prohibits not the registration of a new union but the holding of a
certification election “within one year from the date of issuance of a final
certification election result.” Clearly, private respondent’s registration is not
covered by the prohibition. In any event, the union registration was effected in
September 1990, a month before the secretary of labor issued his decision on
the result of the certification election on October 31, 1990. Hence, there was yet
no certified bargaining agent when the private respondent was registered as a
union.
o Moreover, the issue of which union truly represents the working force
should be raised during the certification election, not during the
registration period. Indeed, a certification election provides the most effective
and expeditious mode to determine the real representatives of the working force
in the appropriate bargaining unit. It may be well to add that Section 5, Rule II,
Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, enumerates the
grounds for the denial of registration to local unions, and the existence of
another union is not one of these grounds.

 Pan – American World Airways Inc v Pan- American Employees Association (April 29,
1969)
o Right to form unions; Freedom would be nugatory if employees cannot
choose their own officials.—The greater offense is to the labor movement
itself, more specif ically to the right of self-organization. There is both a

21
 constitutional and statutory recognition that laborers have the right to form unions
to take care of their interests vis-a-vis their employers. Their freedom to form
organizations would be rendered nugatory if they could not choose their own
leaders to speak on their behalf and to bargain for them.

 Union of Supervisors (RB NATU) v Secretary of Labor (Nov 12, 1981)

Facts
Issue
Ruling
o Although there is no denying the fact that the complainant Norberto Luna has
served the respondent Republic Bank for 22 year, the fact that he served
"without any showing of any irregularity in the performance of his duties"
does not prove that he has the trust and confidence of the Republic
Planters Bank which are requisites for the position of a manager. And lack
of irregularities in the service does not necessarily prove superior competence,
efficiency and integrity.
o

C. Workers With the Right to Self – Organization

1. All Employees
Art 253
 Alliance of Nationalist et al v Samahan ng mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa
Manila Bay Spinning Mills at JP Coats (SAMANA BAY) (July 5, 1996)
o 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.— This is a fundamental right of labor and derives its
existence from the Constitution. In interpreting the protection to labor and
social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws, rules or
regulations, we have always adopted the liberal approach which favors the
exercise of labor rights.
o Non-compliance with the procedure on disaffiliation, being premised on
purely technical grounds cannot rise above the fundamental right of
self-organization. Generally, a labor union may disaffiliate from the
mother union to form a local or independent union only during the 60-
day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA.
However, even before the onset of the freedom period, disaffiliation
may be carried out when there is a shift of allegiance on the part of the
majority of the members of the union.
o A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to
secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer
and their employee-members. A local union does not owe its existence to
the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct
voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. The
mere act of affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality,
neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of
the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency where the former
acts in representation of the latter.
o By SAMANA BAY’s disaffiliation from ANGLO, the vinculum that previously
bound the two entities was completely severed. ANGLO was divested of any
and all power to act in representation of SAMANA BAY. Thus, any act
performed by ANGLO affecting the interests and affairs of SAMANA BAY,
including the ouster of herein individual private respondents, is rendered
without force and effect.

 Bautista v Inciong (March 16, 1988)

22
 o A labor union can be considered an employer of persons who work for
it.—There is nothing in the records which support the Deputy Minister's
conclusion that the petitioner is not an employee of respondent ALU. The
mere fact that the respondent is a labor union does not mean that it
cannot be considered an employer of the persons who work for it. Much
less should it be exempted from the very labor laws which it espouses as a
labor organization.
o Petitioner as an employee of respondent labor union in case at bar,
proven.—In the case at bar. the Regional Director correctly found that the
petitioner was an employee of the respondent union as reflected in the
latter's individual payroll sheets and shown by the petitioner's membership
with the Social Security System (SSS) and the respondent union's share of
remittances in the petitioner's favor. Even more significant, is the respondent
union's act of filing a clearance application with the MOL to terminate the
petitioner's services. Bautista was selected and hired by the Union. He was
paid wages by the Union, ALU had the power to dismiss him as indeed it
dismissed him. And definitely, the Union tightly controlled the work of
Bautista as one of its organizers. There is absolutely no factual or legal basis
for Deputy Minister Inciong's decision.

 Kapatiran Sa Meat and Canning Division v Calleja (June 20, 1988)

o The right of members of the Iglesia ni Kristo sect not to join a labor
union for being contrary to their religious beliefs does not bar the
members of that sect from forming their own union. the “recognition of
the tenets of the sect x x x should not infringe on the basic right of self-
organization granted by the constitution to workers, regardless of
religious affiliation.”
o The fact that the incumbent labor union (TUPAS) was able to negotiate a
new CBA with the employer (ROBINA) does not foreclose the right of the
rival union NEW ULO to challenge TUPAS’ claim to majority status, by filinf a
timely petition for certification election. Certification election is the best forum
in ascertaining the majority status of the contending unions wherein the
workers themselves can freely choose their bargaining representative thru
secret ballot.

2. Employees of Non – Profit Organizations

 FEU – Dr.NRMF Inc v Trajano (July 31, 1987)
o Under Article 244, rank and file employees of non-profit medical
institutions are permitted to form, organize or join labor unions of their
choice for purposes of collective bargaining. Since private respondent
had complied with the requisites provided by law for calling a certification
election, it was incumbent upon respondent Director to conduct such
certification election to ascertain the bargaining representative of petitioner's
employees.

 Kapatiran Sa Meat and Canning Division v Calleja (June 20, 1988)

3. Employees of Government Corporations

Art 254
Employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall have
the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other
employees in civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary
to law.

4. Supervisors

23
 Art 255

Art 219 m
Managerial employee is one vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign
or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the
employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is
not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgement. All
employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file
employees for purposes of this book.

Test to Determine Supervisory Status

 Filoil Refinery Corporation v Filoil Supervisory and Confidential Employees
Association (Aug 18, 1972)
o Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act explicitly provides that “employees”—
and this term includes supervisors—“shall have the right to self-organization,
and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of collective bargaining...” and that “individuals employed as
supervisors... may form separate organizations of their own.”
o Where confidential employees are few in number.—Since the confidential
employees are very few in number and are by practice and tradition
identified with the supervisors in their role as representatives of
management vis-a-vis the rank and file employees, such identity of
interest should allow their inclusion in the bargaining unit of
supervisors-managers for purposes of collective bargaining in turn as
employees in relation to the company as their employer. This will fulfill
the law’s objective of insuring to them the full benefit of their right to
self-organization and to collective bargaining, which could hardly be
accomplished if the respondent association’s membership were to be broken
up into five separate ineffective tiny units as urged by the company.

 Toyota Motors Philippines Coporation v Toyota Motors Philippines Coporation Labor

Union (Feb 19, 1987)
o In Belyca Corporation v. Ferrer Calleja,[18] we defined the bargaining unit as
"the legal collectivity for collective bargaining purposes whose members have
substantially mutual bargaining interests in terms and conditions of
employment as will assure to all employees their collective bargaining rights."
This in mind, the Labor Code has made it a clear statutory policy to prevent
supervisory employees from joining labor organizations consisting of rank-
and-file employees as the concerns which involve members of either group
are normally disparate and contradictory.
o a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory
employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or
purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. It follows that it does not
possess the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right
to file a petition for certificatio election for the purpose of collective
barganining.
o Union members occupying Level 5 positions are unquestionably
supervisory employees. Supervisory employees, as defined above, are
those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend
managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely
routinary or clerical in nature but require the use of independent
judgment.
o The use of independent judgment in making the decision to hire, fire or
transfer in the identification of manpower requirements would be

24
 greatly impaired if the employee's loyalties are torn between the
interests of the union and the interests of management.

 Dunlop Slazenger Inc v Secretary of Labor (Dec 11, 1998)

o The test of supervisory status is whether an employee possesses
authority to act in the interest of his employer, which authority should
not be merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgment.
o Corrollarily, what determines the nature of employment is not the
employee’s title, but his job description.
o 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.
o An organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election; A
union has no legal right to file a petition for certification election to represent
a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for so long as it counts rank-and-
file employees among its members.

 Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp v Torrs (March 17, 1994)

o We are with petitioner that being a supervisory union, respondent PMPI
cannot represent the professional/technical and confidential employees of
petitioner whose positions we find to be more of the rank and file than
supervisory.
o Quite obviously, these professional/technical employees cannot effectively
recommend managerial actions with the use of independent judgment
because they are under the supervision of superintendents and supervisors.
Because it is unrefuted that these professional/technical employees are
performing non-supervisory functions, hence considered admitted, they
should be classified, at least for purposes of this case, as rank and file
employees. Consequently, these professional/technical employees cannot be
allowed to join a union composed of supervisors.
o he professional/technical employees of petitioner therefore may join
the existing rank and file union, or form a union separate and distinct
from the existing union organized by the rank and file employees of the
same company.

 Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Triumph v Calleja (Jan 17, 1990)

o Test of supervisory or managerial status depends on whether a person
possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer and whether such
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgment.
o Thus, where such recommendatory powers as in the case at bar, are
subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department heads
and other higher executives of the company, the same, although
present, are not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment
as required by law.
o The fact that their work designations are either managers or
supervisors is of no moment considering that it is the nature of their
functions and not the said nomenclatures or titles of their jobs which
determines their statuses.
o Court impelled to disallow the holding of a certification election among
the workers sought to be represented by the respondent union for want
of any proof that the right of said workers to self-organization is being

25
 suppressed. A careful examination of the records of this case reveals no
evidence that rules out the commonality of interests among the rank-and-file
members of the petitioner and the herein declared rank-and-file employees
who are members of the respondent union. Instead of forming another
bargaining unit, the law requires them to be members of the existing
one.

 Paper Industries Corp v Laguesma (April 12, 2000)

o A thorough dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory
employees and section heads indisputably show that they are not actually
managerial but only supervisory employees since they do not lay down
company policies. PICOP's contention that the subject section heads and
unit managers exercise the authority to hire and fire is ambiguous and
quite misleading for the reason that any authority they exercise is not
supreme but merely advisory in character.
5. Aliens
Art 284 Prohibition Against Aliens; Exceptions
All aliens, natural or juridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibited
from engaging directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union acitivities without
prejudice to normal contacts between Philippine labor unions and recongized international
labor centers: Provided however,that aliens working in the country with valid permits
issued by the DOLE, may exercise the right to self organization and join or assist labor
organizations of their own choising for purposes of collective barganing: Provided further
that said aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to
Filipino workers.

6. Security Guards Organic to Establishment

 United Pepsi Cola Supervisors Union v Laguesma (March 25, 1998)
o A distinction exists between top and middle managers and first-level
managers/supervisors; Whether they belong to the first or the second
category managers, vis-a-vis employers, are likewise employee.
o In Pepsi v Laguesma,." Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers,
Middle Managers and First Line Managers. Top and Middle Managers have
the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational
policies while the task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such
policies are carried out by the rank-and- file employees of an organization.
Under this distinction, "managerial employees" therefore fall in two (2)
categories, namely, the "managers" per se composed of Top and Middle
Managers, and the "supervisors" composed of First-Line Managers.] Thus,
the mere fact that an employee is designated manager" does not ipso facto
make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job
description of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the
nature of employment.
o Court finds that only those employees occupying the position of route
manager and accounting manager are managerial employees. The rest,
i.e., quality control manager yard/transport manager and warehouse
operations manager are supervisory employees.
o Managerial employees may form associations or organizations so long as
they are not labor organizations.—Notably, however, Article 245 does not
absolutely disqualify managerial employees from exercising their right of
association. What it prohibits is merely the right to join labor organizations.
Managerial employees may form associations or organizations so long as
they are not labor organizations. The freedom of association guaranteed
under the Constitution remains and has not been totally abrogated by Article
245.

26
 D. Workers With No Right of Self – Organization
1. Managerial and Confidential Employees
Art 255
Art 82
Managerial employees consists of those whose primar duty consists of management of the
establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and to
other officers or members of the managerial staff.

 Southern Philippine Federation of Labor v Calleja (April 19, 1989)

Facts
o It is maintained by the petitioner that under the Labor Code, managerial
employees are excluded from forming or joining a collective bargaining unit.
and underthe collective bargaining agreement executed between Apex and
respondent union, among those who are excluded from the bargaining unit
are: a) managerial employees; b) those performing supervisory functions;
and c) those holding confidential positions as determined by the company.
o Therefore, the employees holding the positions of Supervisors II and III and
those in the confidential payrolls should be excluded from joining the
bargaining unit and from voting in the certification election.
Issue:
WON whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
allowing the 197 employees to vote in the certification election when, as alleged by
the petitioner, they are disqualified by express provision of law or under the existing
collective bargaining agreement.
Ruling:
o Although we have upheld the validity of the CBA as the law among the
parties, its provisions cannot override what expressly provided by law
that only managerial employees are ineligible to join, assist or for any
labor organization. (See Art. 247, Labor Code).
o Therefore, regardless of the challenged employees' designations, whether
they are employed as Supervisors or in the confidential payrolls, if the nature
of their job does not fall under the definition of "managerial" as defined in the
Labor Code, they are eligible to be members of the bargaining unit and to
vote in the certification election. Their right to self-organization must be
upheld in the absence of an express provision of law to the contrary. It
cannot be curtailed by a collective bargaining agreement.
o "A managerial employee is defined as one 'who is vested with powers
or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions.

 Golden Farms Inc v Calleja (July 19, 1989)

Facts
Issue
May supervisors, cashiers, foremen and employees holding confidential or
managerial fucntions compel management to enter into a collecive bargaining
agreement with them.
Ruling
o Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor
organization.
o Company foremen, while in the performance of superviosry functions,
they may be the extensioin or alter ego of the management. Advserly,
the foremen by their actuation, may influence the workers under their
supervision to engage in slown down commerical activties or similar activities

27
 detrimental to the policy, interest or business objectives of the company or
corporation, hence they also cannot join.

 Pier Arrastre et al v Roldan-Confessor (Feb 13, 1995)

o Foremen fall squarely under the category of supervisory employees,
and cannot be part of rank and file unions.—Foremen are chief and often
especially-trained workmen who work with and commonly are in charge
of a group of employees in an industrial plant or in construction work.
They are the persons designated by the employer-management to
direct the work of employees, and to superintend and oversee them.
They are representatives of the employer-management with authority over
particular groups of workers, processes, operations, or sections of a plant or
an entire organization. In the modern industrial plant, they are at once a link
in the chain of command and the bridge between management and labor. In
the performance of their work, foremen definitely use their independent
judgment and are empowered to make recommendations for
managerial action with respect to those employees under their control.
o Legal secretaries fall under the category of confidential employees.—
Upon the other hand, legal secretaries are neither managers nor supervisors.
Their work is basically routinary and clerical. However, they should be
differentiated from rank-and-file employees because they are tasked
with, among others, the typing of legal documents, memoranda and
correspondence, the keeping of records and files, the giving of and
receiving notices, and such other duties as required by the legal
personnel of the corporation.
o Timekeeper and assistant timekeeper cannot be excluded from the
bargaining unit.—it is clear from petitioner's own pleadings that they
are neither managerial nor supervisory employees. They are merely
tasked to report those who commit infractions against company rules and
regulations. This reportorial function is routinary and clerical.

 San Miguel Corporation Supervisors v Laguesma (Aug 15, 1997)

Facts
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
o 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.
o There is no question that the said employees, supervisors and the exempt
employees, are not vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall,
discharge or dismiss employees. They are, therefore, not qualified to be
classified as managerial employees who iss employees. They are, therefore,
not qualified to be classified as managerial employees who, under Article
245[4] of the Labor Code, are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor
organization.
o 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

28
 cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a
confidential employee.
o Confidential employees, by the very nature of their functions, assist
and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential
matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of
labor relations. Therefore, the rationale behind the ineligibility of
managerial employees to form, assist or join a labor union was held
equally applicable to them.
o Access to information which is regarded by the employer to be
confidential from the business standpoint, such as financial
information or technical trade secrets, will not render an employee a
confidential employee.
o If access to confidential labor relations information is to be a factor in
the determination of an employees confidential status, such
information must relate to the employers labor relations policies.

 United Pepsi Cola Supervisors Union v Laguesma (March 25, 1998)

o Route managers wiled auhtority over their subordinates, and are managerial
employees. They cannot be classfied as supervisory employees because
their work goes beyond the simple direction or supervision of operating
employees to accomplish objectives set by those above them. They are not
mere functionaires with simple oversight functions but business
admnistrators in their own right.
o If managerial employees would belong to a Union, the union would not be
assured of their loyalty to it in view of conflict of interests. The Union can also
become company’dominated with the presence of managerial employees in
Union membership.

 Pepsi Cola v Secretary of Labor (Aug 10, 1999)

Facts
Issue
WON a supervisor´s union can affiliate with the same federation of which two
rank and file unions are likewise members, without violating article 245 of the
LC?
WON confidential employees may join rank and file Ees union.
Ruling
o The prohibition against a supervisors’ union joining a local union of rank and
file is replete with jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the limitation
is not confined to a case of supervisors’ wanting to join a rank-and-file
union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors’ local union applying
for membership in a national federation the members of which include
local unions of rank and file employees. The intent of the law is clear
especially where, as in this case at bar, the supervisors will be co-
mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their
own bargaining unit.
o While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out managerial employee as
ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of
necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified.

2. Workers/Members of Cooperatives
 Coop. Rural Bank of Davao v Ferrer – Calleja (Sep 26, 1988)
Facts
Issue
WON employees are disqualified from forming labor unions.
Ruling

29
 o Members of cooperatives are disqualified from forming labor
organizations.
o Under sec 2 of PD No. 175, a cooperative is defined to mean organizations
composed primarily of small producers and of consumers who
voluntarily join together to form business enterprises which they
themselves own, control and patronize,
o An EE of such cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof
cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner
cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners.
o HOWEVER, in so far as it involves cooperatives with EEs WHO ARE
NOT MEMBERS OR CO OWNERS THEREOF, such Ees are entitled to
exercise the rights of all workers to organization, collective barganing,
negotiations and others as are enshrined in the Consitution and
existing laws of the country,

 CENECO v DOLE (Sep 13, 1991)

Facts
o Petitioner CENECO argues that respondent Secretary committed a grave
abuse of discretion in not applying to the present case the doctrine
enunciated in the BATANGAS case that employees of an electric cooperative
who at the same time are members of the electric cooperative are prohibited
from forming or joining labor unions for purposes of a collective bargaining
agreement.
o While CENECO recognizes the employees' right to self-organization, it avers
that this is not absolute. Thus, it opines that employees of an electric
cooperative who at the same time are members thereof are not allowed to
form or join labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining.
Issue
WON the employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership from the
cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes of the negotiations
for a collective barganing agreement proposed by the latter,
Ruling
o However, nowhere in said case is it stated that member-employees are
prohibited from withdrawing their membership in the cooperative in order to
join a labor union.
o The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling reason
why their withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed. As pointed
out by CURE, the resignation of the member-employees is an
expression of their preference for union membership over that of
membership in the cooperative. The avowed policy of the State to
afford full protection to labor and to promote the primacy of free
collective bargaining mandates that the employees' right to form and
join unions for purposes of collective bargaining be accorded the
highest consideration.

3. Non-Employees
Art 253
 Singer Sewing Machine Company v Drilon (Jan 24, 1991)
Facts
Issue
Ruling

4. Fiduciary Employees
 Metrolab Industries v Confessor (Feb 28, 1996)

30
 o Fiduciary EE is an EE who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust
with the ER. Those who by reason of their positions or nature of their
works are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial
EEs.

E. Party Protected by Right

 Mactan Workers Union v Aboitiz (June 30, 1972)
o It is a well settled rules that the benefits of a CBA extend to all laborers
and EEs in a collective bargaining unit, including those who do not
belong to the chosen bargaining organization.
o A CBA is meant to allow labor to secure better terms and employment
conditions. Exlcusing non members of the exclusive representative
organization would frustrate this objective. The labor union that gets
the majority vote as the exclsuive barganing representative, does not
act for its members alone. IT REPRESENTS ALL THE EMPLOYEES
(INCLUDING NON MEMBERS( in such a bargaining unit.
o ALU had no busIness disregarding the rights of the members of MWU, as
regards their share in the profit sharing bonus. As the exclusive
representative organization, they represented all EEs in entering into the
CBA with the company. The benefits secured by the CBA apply to all those in
the barganing unit, including members of the MWU.

F. Sanctions for Violations of Right

Art 257 Non Abridgement of Right to Self – Organization
It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly
interefere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self – organization. Such
right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purposes of collective
baragining through representatives of their own choosing and to enagage in lawful concerted
activites for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the provisions of
Article 264 of this Code.

Art 259 Unfair Labor Practices of Employers (9)

It shall be unlawful for the employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:
a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization
b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or employee shall not join a
labor organization or shall withdraw form one to which he belongs
c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when
such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization
d) To initiate, domniate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization, including the giving of finanical or other support to it or its
organizers or supporters
e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours or work or other terms and conditions of
employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.
Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership
in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those
employees who are already members of another union at the time of signing of the CBA.
Employees of an appropriate CBU who are not members of the recognized collective
bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other
fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union
members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided, that
the individual authorizatio required under Article 242, paragraph O of this Code shall not
apply to the non members of the recognized collective baragain agent

31
 f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice pr discriminate against an employee for
having given or being about to give a testimony under this Code
g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code
h) To pay negotiation or attorney´s fees to to the union or its officers or agents as part of
the settlement of any issue in collective bagraining or any other dispute or
i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement,
Only the officers and agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who have
actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor prctices shall be held criminally
liable.

Art 260 Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations (6)

It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, or agents or representatives:
a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self organization.
However a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect
to the acquisition or retention of membership
b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including
discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in an organization
has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms
and conditions under which memebrship or continuation of memebrship is made
available to other members
c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided that it is
the representative of the employees
d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any
money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not
performed or not to be performed, inclduing the demand for a fee for union negotiations
e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney´s fees from employers as part of the
settelement of any issye in colelctive bargaining or any other dispute or
f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement,
Only the officers, members of the governing boards, representatives or agents or members
of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified
unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.

Art 303 Penalties

Art 304 Who are liable when committed by other than natural persons

PART THREE – LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

A. Policy
Art 218 b,c

B. Labor Organizations – Unions

Art 218 g
1. General definition
 Airline Pilots Association of the Phil v CIR (April 15, 1977)
o A labor organization” as defined by RA 875 is not limited to the
employees of a particular employer.
o Any union or association of employees which exists, in whole or in
part, for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with
employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.

2. Labor Union
BVR i

3. National Union/Federation
BVR kk

32
 4. Legitimate Labor Organization
Art 219 h
Legitimate labor organization means any labor organization duly registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment, and which includes any branch or local thereof.

DOLE Registration as Basis

 Cebu Seamen´s Assn Inc v Ferrer-Calleja (Aug 4, 1992)
Issue
WON CSAI is a legitimate labor organization, and therefore entitled to the
custody of the union dues
Ruling
o CSAI is not a legitimate labor organization because it is only registered with
SEC. It is the registration of the organization with the Bureau of Labor
Relations and not with the SEC which made it a legitimate labor
organization with rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.
o On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, SAPI, the legitimate
labor union, registered with its office, is not the same association as CSAI,
the corporation, insofar as their rights under the Labor Code are concerned.
Hence, SAPI and not the CSAI is entitled to the release and custody of union
fees with Aboitiz Shipping and other shipping companies with whom it had an
existing CBA.
o The election of the so-called set of officers headed by Manuel Gabayoyo was
conducted under the supervision of the SEC. That being the case, the
aforementioned set of officers is of the CSAI and not of SAPI. It follows,
then, that any proceedings, and actions taken by said set of officers
cannot, in any manner, affect the union and its members.

 Progressive Development Corp v Sec of DOLE (Feb 4, 1992)

Facts
o KILUSAN filed a peition with the DOLE a peition for certification election
among the rank and file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a
legitimate labor federation and that its local chapter Progressive Devt was
issued charter.
Issue
Whether or not a local union need to be a Legitimate Labor Union on despite its
issuance of charter certificate.
Ruling
o Yes. But while Article 257 directs the automatic conduct of a
certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires
that the petition for certification election must be filed by a legitimate
labor organization. Article 242 enumerates the exclusive rights of a
legitimate labor organization among which is the right to be certified as
the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
o Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor organization as “any labor
organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch or
local thereto.
o In this case, the petition for certification election was filed by the
federation which is merely an agent. The chapter cannot rely on the
legitimate status of the mother union.

5. Mixed Membership
 Toyota Motor Phils Corp v Toyota Motor phils Corp Labor Union (Feb 19, 1997)

33
 o This in mind, the Labor Code has made it a clear statutory policy to prevent
supervisory employees from joining labor organizations consisting of rank-
and-file employees as the concerns which involve members of either group
are normally disparate and contradictory. a labor organization composed of
both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all.
It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not
being one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and
supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election for
the purpose of collective bargaining.

6. Company Union
Art 219 i
Company union means any labor organization whose formation, function or administration
has been assisted by any act defined as unfair labor practice by this Code.

C. Union Rationale
 Mactan Workers Union v Aboitiz (June 30, 1972)
Facts
Issue
Ruling

 Guijarno v CIR (Aug 27, 1973)

Ruling
o A closed-shop provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not to
be given a retroactive effect so as to preclude its being applied to
employees already in the service.
o To further increase the effectiveness of labor organizations, a closed-shop
has been allowed. It could happen, though, that such a stipulation which
assures further weight to a labor union at the bargaining table could be
utilized against minority groups or individual members thereof.

 Heirs of Cruz v CIR (Dec 27, 1969)

o Duty of court to protect laborers from unjust exploitation by oppressive
employers and union leaders.
o The union may be considered but the agent of its members for the
purpose of securing for them fair and just wages and good working
conditions and is subject to the obligation of giving the members as its
principals all information relevant to union and labor matters entrusted
to it.

 United Seamen´s Union of the Phil v Davao Shipowners Assn (Aug 31, 1967)
o USUP was aware of the existence of a valid collective bargaining agreement
between the Shipowners and the Association which would operate as a legal
bar for the Shipowners to entertain USUP's demands. Knowing as it did that
its demands could not be entertained by the Shipowners, USUP at that early
stage could not have had any legitimate excuse for seeking recognition as
the sole collective bargaining agent of the employees.
o A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of
promoting the interests of labor without unnecessary labor disputes. That is
why it is given personality and recognition in concluding collective bargaining
agreements. But if it is made use of as a subterfuge, or as a means to
subvert valid commitments, it defeats its own purpose, for it tends to
undermine the harmonious relations between management and labor. The
situation does not deserve any approving sanction from the Court.

34
 D. Labor Union and Government Regulation
1. Union Registration and Procedure
a. Requirements
Art 240 Requirements of Registration
A federaton, national union or industry trade union center or an independent union shall
acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law
to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on
the ff requirements: (5)
a) 50 pesos registration fee
b) The names of its officers, their adresseses, the principal address of the labor
organization, the minutes of the organizational meetinfs and the list of
workers who participate in such meetings;
c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members
comprising at least 20 percent of all the employees in the bargaining unit
where it seeks to operate
d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of
its annual financial reports and
e) Four copies of the constitution and by laws ot the applicant union, minutes
of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in
it.

Art 242 Action and Application

The Bureau shall act on all applications for registration within 30 days from filing.
All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secetary or the
treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and attested to by its president.

Art 244 Additional Requirements for Federations

If the applicant for registration is a federation or a national union, it shall, in addition to the
requirements submit the ff:
a) Proof of the affiliation of at least 10 locals or chapters, each of which must be a
duly recognized bargaining agent in the establishment or industry in which it
operates, supporting the registration of such applicant
b) The names and addresses of the companies where the locals or chapters
operate and the list of all the members in each company involved.

BVRIIIS2 p 307 codal

b. Registration Proceeding
BVRISI (qq)
Registration refers to the process of determining whether the application for registration
of a union or workers association and collective bargaining agreement complies with the
documentary requirement for registration prescribed by the rules.

c. Requirements and Rationale

 Progressive Development Corp. V Sec. Of Labor (Feb 4, 1992)
o When does a branch, local or affiliate of a federation become a
legitimate labor organization?
o Ordinarily, a labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon
registration with the BLR. Under Article 234 (Requirements of
Registration) and under Article 235 (Action on Application). The Rules
require that the application should be signed by at least twenty
percent (20%) of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
and be accompanied by a sworn statement of the applicant union
that there is no certified bargaining agent or, where there is an
existing collective bargaining agreement duly submitted to the

35
 DOLE, that the application is filed during the last sixty (60) days of
the agreement.
o But when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter
of a federation, some of the aforementioned requirements for
registration are no longer required. Absent compliance with these
mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not become a
legitimate labor organization.
a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue
a charter certificate indicating the creation or establishment
of a local or chapter, copy of which shall be submitted to the
Bureau of Labor Relations within thirty (30) days from issuance
of such charter certificate.
b) An independently registered union shall be considered an
affiliate of a labor federation or national union after
submission to the Bureau of the contract or agreement of
affiliation within thirty (30) days after its execution.
c) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union
shall have and maintain a constitution and by-laws, set of
officers and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the
procedure governing the reporting of independently registered
unions, federations or national unions shall be observed."
o In the case at bar, the constitution and by-laws and list of officers
submitted to the BLR, while attested to by the chapter's president,
were not certified under oath by the secretary. Does such defect
warrant the withholding of the status of legitimacy to the local or
chapter? YES. The submission of the required documents becomes
the Bureau's basis for approval of the application for registration.
The employer naturally needs assurance that the union it is dealing
with is a bona-fide organization, one which has not submitted false
statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau. The certification
and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the
commission of fraud. They likewise afford a measure of protection to
unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or
fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or to use
the union for dubious ends.
o In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify
the required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a
legitimate status. We are not saying that the scheme used by the
respondents is per se illegal for precisely, the law allows such strategy.
Our only recourse is, as earlier discussed, to exact strict compliance with
what the law provides as requisites for local or chapter formation.
o Thus, where as in this case the petition for certification election was filed
by the federation which is merely an agent, the petition is deemed to be
filed by the chapter, the principal, which must be a legitimate labor
organization. The chapter cannot merely rely on the legitimate status of
the mother union.
o The Court's conclusion should not be misconstrued as impairing the local
union's right to be certified as the employees' bargaining agent in the
petitioner's establishment. We are merely saying that the local union
must first comply with the statutory requirements in order to exercise this
right.

 Phoenix Iron and Steel Corp v Sec. Of Labor (May 16, 1995)
o Compared with what happened in the Progressive case, this situation
before us now is even worse. There are no books of account filed before

36
 the BLR, the constitution, by-laws and the list of members who
supposedly ratified the same were not attested to by the union president,
and the constitution and by-laws were not verified under oath.
o Since the `procedure governing the reporting of independently
registered unions' refers to the certification and attestation
requirements contained in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that
the constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts
submitted by the local and chapter must likewise comply with these
requirements.
o The same rationale for requiring the submission of duly subscribed
documents upon union registration exists in the case of union
affiliation.

 Protection Technology Inc. V Sec of Labor (March 1, 1995)

o Books of account, consisting of ledgers, journals and other
accounting books, form part of the mandatory documentation
requirements for registration of a newly organized union affiliated
with a federation.
o Non-submission of such books of account is a ground to oppose a
petition for certification election.
o Books of accounts containing a record of individual transactions
wherein monies are received and disbursed by an establishment or
entity, netries are made on a day to day bsis. Statement of accounts or
financial records merely summarize each indiviual transactions as have
been set out in the books of account and are merely prepared at the end
of the accouting period, much less informative sources of cash flow.)
o It is immaterial that the Union, having been organized for less than a year
before its application for registration with the BLR, would have had no
real opportunity to levy and collect dues and fees from its members
which need to be recorded in the books of account. Such accounting
books can and must be submitted to the BLR, even if they contain
no detailed or extensive entries as yet. The point to be stressed is
that the applicant local or chapter must demonstrate to the BLR that
it is entitled to registered status because it has in place a system
for accounting for members’ contributions to its fund even before it
actually receives dues or fees from its members.
o The controlling intention is to minimize the risk of fraud and
diversion in the course of the subsequent formation and growth of
the Union fund.

 San Miguel Foods Inc v Laguesma ( Oct 10, 1996)

o Legitimate labor organization as “any labor organization duly
registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and
includes any branch or local thereof.” It is important to determine
whether or not a particular labor organization is legitimate since
legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law which
cannot be exercised by non-legitimate unions.
o Ordinarily, a labor organization attains the status of legitimacy only
upon the issuance in its name of a Certificate of Registration by the
Bureau of Labor Relations.
o When an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of
a federation, some of the requirements for registration mentioned in
Arts. 234 and 235 of the Labor Code are no longer required.
o The choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of
the employees; An employer that involves itself in a certification

37
 election lends suspicion to the fact that it wants to create a
company union.
o While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of petitions for
certification election, they should not, however, be considered parties
thereto with the concomitant right to oppose it.
o What is required to be certified under oath by the secretary or
treasurer and attested to by the local’s president are the
“constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and
the books of accounts” of the organization — the charter certificate
issued by the mother union need not be certified under oath.

d. Action or Denial of Application and Remedy

Art 243 Denial of Registration; Appeal
The decision of the Labor Relations Division in the regional office denying registration
may be appealed by the applicant union to the bureau within 10 days from the receipt of
notice thereof.

BRVIV5 5and5
Sec 5 Denial of Application or Return of Notive
Where the documents supporting the application for registration or notice of change
of name, affiliation, merger and consolidation are incomplete or do not contain the
required certification and attestation, the Regional Office or the bureau shall, within
1 day from receipt of the application or notice, notify the applicant or labor
organization ocncerned in writing of the necessary requirements and to complete
the same within 30 days from receipt of notice. Where the applicant or labor organization
concerned fails to complete the requirements within the time prescribed, the
application for registration shall be denied, or the notice of the change of name,
affiliation, merger or consolidation returned, without prejudice to filing a new
application or notice.

Sec 6 Form of Denial of Application or Return of Notice; Appeal

The notice of the Regional Office of the Bureau denying the application for registration or
returning the notice of change of name, affiliation, merger or consolidation shall be in
wiritng stating in clear terms the reasons for denial or return. The denial may be
appealed to the Bureau if denial is made by the Regional Office or to the Secretary if
denial is made by the Bureau, within 10 days from receipt of such notice, on the ground
of grave abuse of discretion of these Rules.

 Vassar Industries Employees Unioin v Estrella (Aug 23, 1978)

o A labor union is entitled to registration when it complies with all
registration requirements; Ministerial duty of the Bureau of Labor
Relations to register labor unions

e. Effect of Freedom of Association

 Villar v Inciong (April 20, 1983)
o A close-shop agreement is a valid form of union security.
o The mother union has the right to investigate members of a local
union affiliated to it under the mother union’s by-laws and
procedures, and if found guilty to expel such members.
o Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code,
in case of intra-union disputes, redress must first be sought within
the organization itself in accordance with its constitution and by-laws.
However, it has been held that this requirement is not absolute but
yields to exception under varying circumstances.

38
 o The local union’s by-laws shall not apply in the investigation of
charges against its members filed by its officers, who, under said
by-laws will also act as judges. In such a case, the mother union’s by-
laws shall apply.
o A mere minority of a local union’s membership cannot disaffiliate
their union from its mother union.

f. Rights of Legitimate Labor Organization

Art 251 Rights of Legitimate Labor Organizations
A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: (6)
a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective
bargaining
b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining
c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annual
audited financial statements, including the balance sheet and the profit and
loss statement, within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the request,
after the union has been duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole
and exclusive bargaining unit, or within 60 calendar days before the expiration of
the collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining
negotiation
d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor
organization and its members
e) To sue and be sued in its registered name and
f) To undertake al activities designed to benefit the organization and its
members, including cooperative, housing, welfare and other projects not contrary
to law.
Nothwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the contrary, the
income and grants, endowmenets, gifts, donations and contributions they may
receive from fraternal and similar ogranzations, local or foreign, which are actually,
directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from taxes,
duties and other assessments. The exemptions provided herein may be withdrawn
only by a special law expressly repealing this provision.

g. Effect of Registration
 Pambansang Kapatiran et al v Sec of Labor (Feb 1, 1996)
o Certification Election; Petition for certification election or a motion for
intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiry date of such agreement.—Art. 253-A of the Labor Code provides
that “(n)o petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall
be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of
the sixty (60)-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such
five-year term of the collective bargaining agreement.”
o A local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a
larger national federation.

 Furusawa Rubber Phil v Sec of Labor (Dec 10, 1997)

o We agree with respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment that
FEU-IND is a legitimate labor organization. As such, it enjoys all the
rights and privileges recognized by law. The fact that FEU-IND has been
issued Certificate of Registration by Regional Office No. 14 of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) is sufficient proof of its
legitimacy. The presentation of the xerox copy of the certificate of
registration to support its claim of being a duly registered labor

39
 organization instead of the submission of the original certificate is
not a fatal defect and does not in any way affect its legitimate status
as a labor organization conferred by its registration with DOLE. The
issuance of the certificate of registration evidently shows that FEU-IND
has complied with the requirements of Art. 234 of the Labor Code. The
requirements for registration being mandatory, they are complied
with before any labor organization, association or group of unions
or workers acquires legal personality and be entitled to the rights
and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations.
o The submission of a xerox copy of the union’s certificate of
registration to prove its legitimacy is sufficient, hence, the Med-
Arbiter correctly granted the petition for certification election.

h. Effect of Non – Registration

 Villar v Inciong (April 20, 1983)
Facts
- Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, a duly registered
labor organization which, was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in
private respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. (Company).
- The Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a CBA governing their
labor relations, which agreement was then about to expire on February 28, 1977.
Within the last 60 days of the CBA, upon written authority of at least 30% of the
employees in the company, including the petitioners, the Federation of Unions of
Rizal (FUR) filed a petition for certification election with MOLE. The petition was
opposed by the PAFLU with whom the Amigo Employees Union was at that time
affiliated. The same employees who had signed the petition filed by FUR signed a
joint resolution disaffiliating from PAFLU.
- Dolores Villar, representing herself to be the authorized representative of the Amigo
Employees Union, filed a petition for certification election in the Company. The Amigo
Employees Union-PAFLU intervened and moved for the dismissal of the petition for
certification election filed by Villar, on the ground, among others that Villar had no
legal personality to sign the petition since she was not an officer of the union nor is
there factual or legal basis for her claim that she was the authorized representative of
the local union.
- Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition filed by Villar, which dismissal is still pending
appeal before BLR. Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU called a special meeting of its
general membership. A Resolution was thereby unanimously approved which called
for the investigation by the PAFLU national president, of all of the petitioners and one
Felipe Manlapao, for continuously maligning the union spreading false propaganda
that the union officers were merely appointees of the management; and for causing
divisiveness in the union. PAFLU formed a Trial Committee to investigate the local
union's charges against the petitioners for acts of disloyalty. PAFLU and the
Company concluded a new CBA which also reincorporated the same provisions of
the existing CBA, including the union security clause. PAFLU President rendered a
decision finding the petitioners guilty of the charges. PAFLU demanded the Company
to terminate the employment of the petitioners pursuant to the security clause of the
CBA. Acting on PAFLU's demand, the Company informed PAFLU that it will first
secure the necessary clearances to terminate petitioners.
- PAFLU requested the Company to put petitioners under preventive suspension
pending the application for said clearances to terminate the petitioners. The
Company filed the request for clearance to terminate the petitioners before DOLE
which was granted. DOLE Secretary Inciong denied the appeal, hence, this petition
for review.
Issue
Whether or not Amigo Employees Union is a registered labor organisation.
Ruling

40
 - NO.There is no record in the Bureau of Labor Relations that the Amigo Employees
Union (Independent Union) is registered, and this is not disputed by petitioners. As
such unregistered union, it acquires no legal personality and is not entitled to the
rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organisations upon issuance
of the certificate of registration.
- Article 234 of the New Labor Code provides:
Requirements of Registration - Any applicant labor organisation, association, or
group of union or workers shall incquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the
rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organisations upon issuance
of the certificate of registration.

 Tropical Hut Employee Union v Tropical Hut Food Market Inc. (Jan 20, 1990)
Facts
- The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated organized a
local union called the Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU), elected their officers,
adopted their constitution and by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the
National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). NATU accepted the THEU application
for affiliation. A Registration Certificate was issued by DOLE in the name of the
Tropical Hut Employees Union — NATU. It appears, however, that NATU itself as
a labor federation, was not registered.
- A CBA was concluded between the parties which contained these clear and
unequivocal terms:
 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.
 Union Membership and Union Check-off
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 condition of continued
employment.
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.
- NATU received a letter that THEU was disaffiliating from the NATU federation and its
affiliation with the Confederation of General Workers (CGW). The general
membership of the so-called THEU-CGW held its annual election of officers, with
Jose Encinas elected as President. Encinas, in his capacity as THEU-CGW
- President, informed the respondent company of the result of the elections. Pacifico
Rosal, President of the CGW, wrote a letter in behalf of complainant THEU-CGW to
the respondent company demanding the remittance of the union dues collected by
the Tropical Hut to the THEU-CGW, but this was refused by the respondent
company.
- NATU VP Lontok, Jr., informed Encinas in a letter, concerning the request made by
the NATU federation to the respondent company to dismiss Encinas in view of his
violation of Section 3 of Article III of the CBA. Encinas was also advised in the letter
that NATU was returning the letter of disaffiliation. In view of NATU's request, the
respondent company suspended Encinas pending the application for clearance with
the DOLE to dismiss him. Members of the THEU-CGW passed a resolution
protesting the suspension of Encinas and reiterated their ratification and approval of
their union's disaffiliation from NATU and their affiliation with the CGW.
- Upon the request of NATU, 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. Petitioner THEU-CGW wrote a
letter to Juan Ponce Enrile, Secretary of National Defense, complaining of the unfair

41
 labor practices committed by respondent company against its members and
requesting assistance on the matter. The aforementioned letter contained the
signatures of one hundred forty-three (143) members.
- Secretary of THEU-NATU, notified the entire rank and file employees of the company
that they will be given forty-eight (48) hours upon receipt of the notice within which to
answer and affirm their membership with THEUNATU.
- When the petitioner employees failed to reply, Arturo Dilag advised them thru letters
that the THEUNATU shall enforce the union security clause set forth in the CBA, and
that he had requested respondent company to dismiss them.
- Respondent company, thereafter, wrote the petitioner employees demanding the
latter's comment on Dilag's charges before action was taken thereon. However, no
comment or reply was received from petitioners. In view of this, Estelita Que,
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. As a consequence thereof,
petitioners filed a case of ULP against Tropical Hut Food Market, Incorporated,
Estelita Que, Hernando Sarmiento and Arturo Dilag.
- LA DECISION: LA issued an order holding that the issues raised by the parties
became moot and academic with the issuance of NLRC Order dated February 25,
1974, which directed the holding of a certification election among the rank and file
workers of the respondent company between the THEU-NATU and THEU-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 THEU-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 DECISION: Ordered respondent company under pain of being cited for
contempt for failure to do so, to give the individual complainants a second chance by
reemploying them upon their voluntary reaffirmation of membership and loyalty to the
THEU-NATU and the National Association of Trade Union in the event it hires
additional personnel.
Issue
1) Whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union from the nation federation valid?
2) Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioner employees resulting from their union’s
disaffiliation from the mother union illegal and constituted unfair labor practice?
Ruling
- YES. The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-settled.
A 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
(Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, No. L-45824, June 19, 1985,
137 SCRA 42).
- 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. In interpreting the
protection to labor and social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws
or rules or regulations, We have always adopted the liberal approach which favors
the exercise of labor rights.
- There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the constitution of the THEU-
NATU that the THEU was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation (pp.
62, 281, Rollo), The alleged non-compliance of the local union with the provision in
the NATU Constitution requiring the service of three months notice of intention to
withdraw did not produce the effect of nullifying the disaffiliation for the following
grounds: firstly, NATU was not even a legitimate labor organization, it appearing that

42
 it was not registered at that time with the Department of Labor, and therefore did not
possess and acquire, in the first place, the legal personality to enforce its constitution
and laws, much less the right and privilege under the Labor Code to organize and
affiliate chapters or locals within its group, and secondly, the act of non-compliance
with the procedure on withdrawal is premised on purely technical grounds which
cannot rise above the fundamental right of self-organization.

 Progressive Development Corp v Sec of DOLE (Feb 4, 1992)

Facts
- Respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa (KILUSAN) -TUCP filed with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a petition for certification election
among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate
labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive Development Employees Union,
was issued charter certificate No. 90-6-1-153.Respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng
Paggawa (KILUSAN) -TUCP claimed that there was no existing collective bargaining
agreement and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining
unit.
- Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss contending that the local union failed to
comply with Rule II Section 3, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as
amended, which requires the submission of: (a) the constitution and by-laws; (b)
names, addresses and list of officers and/or members; and (c) books of accounts.
- Respondent KILUSAN-TUCP submitted a rejoinder to PDC's motion to dismiss
claiming that it had submitted the necessary documentary requirements for
registration, such as the constitution and by-laws of the local union, and the list of
officers/members with their addresses. Kilusan further averred that no books of
accounts could be submitted as the local union was only recently organized.
Petitioner PDC insisted that upon verification with the Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR), it found that the alleged minutes of the organizational meeting was
unauthenticated, the list of members did not bear the corresponding signatures of the
purported members, and the constitution and by-laws did not bear the signature of
the members and was not duly subscribed. It argued that the private respondent
KILUSAN-TUCP therefore failed to substantially comply with the registration
requirements provided by the rules.
- MED-ARBITER Dela Cruz: held that there was substantial compliance with the
requirements for the formation of the chapter. He further stated that mere issuance of
the charter certificate by the federation was sufficient compliance with the rules.
Considering that the establishment was unorganized, he maintained that a
certification election should be conducted to resolve the question of representation.
Petitioner filed an MR to the Office of the Secretary.
- SECRETARY Laguesma: denied the MR. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issue
Whether or not KILUSAN-TUCP is a legitimate labor organisation.
Ruling
- NO. The failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the required documents
under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status.
- In the case of union registration, the rationale for requiring that the submitted
documents and papers be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the
case may be, and attested to by president is apparent. The submission of the
required documents (and payment of P50.00 registration fee) becomes the Bureau's
basis for approval of the application for registration. Upon approval, the labor union
acquires legal personality and is entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by law
to a legitimate labor organization. The employer naturally needs assurance that the
union it is dealing with is a bona fide organization, one which has not submitted false
statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau.

 Lakas ng Manggagawa v Marcelo Enterprises (Nov 19, 1982)

43
 - Management’s suggestion that union file necessary complaint in court in view of fact
that there are several unions claiming to represent employees does not constitute
failure or refusal to bargain in good faith to said union’s demands.—Contrary to the
pretensions of complainant LAKAS, the respondent Marcelo Companies did not
ignore the demand for collective bargaining contained in its letter of June 20, 1967.
Neither did the companies refuse to bargain at all. What it did was to apprise LAKAS
of the existing conflicting demands for recognition as the bargaining representative in
the appropriate units involved, and suggested the settlement of the issue by means
of the filing of a petition for certification election before the Court of Industrial
Relations. This was not only the legally approved procedure but was dictated by the
fact that there was indeed a legitimate representation issue. PSSLU, with whom the
existing CB As were entered into, was demanding of respondent companies to
collectively bargain with it; so was Paulino Lazaro of MUEWA, J.C. Espinas &
Associates for MACATIFU and the MFWU, and the complainant LAKAS for MULU
which we understand is the aggrupation of MACATIFU, MFWU and UNWU.
- Where there exists a legitimate issue as to which of several unions is the legitimate
representative of employees, it is ULP for one of the unions to stage a strike and
demand that employer sit down with it for collective bargaining.—The clear facts of
the case as hereinbefore restated indisputably show that a legitimate representation
issue confronted the respondent Marcelo Companies. In the face of these facts and
in conformity with the existing jurisprudence, We hold that there existed no duty to
bargain collectively with the complainant LAKAS on the part of said companies. And
proceeding from this basis, it follows that all acts instigated by complainant LAKAS
such as the filing of the Notice of Strike on June 13, 1967 and the two strikes of
September 4, 1967 and November 7, 1967 were calculated, designed and intended
to compel the respondent Marcelo Companies to recognize or bargain with it
notwithstanding that it was an uncertified union, or in the case of respondent Marcelo
Tire and Rubber Corporation, to bargain with it despite the fact that the MUEWA of
Paulino Lazaro was already certified as the sole bargaining agent in said respondent
company. These concerted activities executed and carried into effect at the
instigation and motivation of LAKAS are all illegal and violative of the employer’s
basic right to bargain collectively only with the representative supported by the
majority of its employees in each of the bargaining units.
- A labor union cannot bring an action on behalf of employees who are members of
another union even if said employees signed the complaint.—Firstly, LAKAS cannot
bring any action for and in behalf of the employees who were members of MUEWA
because, as intimated earlier in this Decision, the said local union was never an
affiliate of LAKAS. What appears clearly from the records is that it was Augusto
Carreon and his followers who joined LAKAS, but then Augusto Carreon was not the
recognized president of MUEWA and neither he nor his followers can claim any
legitimate representation of MUEWA. Apparently, it is this split faction of MUEWA,
headed by Augusto Carreon, who is being sought to be represented by LAKAS.
However, it cannot do so because the members constituting this split faction of
MUEWA were still members of MUEWA which was on its own right a duly registered
labor union. Hence, any suit to be brought for and in behalf of them can be made only
by MUEWA, and not LAKAS. It appearing then that Augusto Carreon and his cohorts
did not disaffiliate from MUEWA nor signed any individual affiliation with LAKAS,
LAKAS bears no legal interest in representing MUEWA or any of its members.

i. Cancellation of Union Certificate Registration

Art 245 Cancellation of Registration; Appeal
The certificate of registratio of any legitimate labor organization, whether national or local,
may be cancelled by the Bureau, after due hearing, only on the grounds specified in
Article 247 hereof.

Art 247 Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration

44
 The following may consititute grounds for cancellation of union registration: (3)
a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption
or ratification of the constitution, by laws or amendments thereto, the
minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification
b) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of the officers and the list of voters
c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.

Art 250 (j) Rights and Conditions of Membership in a Labor Organization

Every income or revenue of the organization shall be evidenced by a record
showing its source, and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a
receipt from the person to whom the payment is made, which shall state the date, place
and purpose of such payment. Such record or receipt shall form part of the finanical
records of the organization.
Any action involving the funds of the organization shall prescribe after 3 years
from the date of submission of the annual finanical report to the DOLE or from the
date the same should have been submitted as required by law, whichever comes earlier:
Provided that his provision shall appply only to a legitmiate labor organization which has
submitted the financil report requirements under this Code: Provided further that failure
of any labor organization to comply with the periodic finanical reports required by
law and such rules and regulations promulgated thereunder 6 months after the
effectivity of this Act shall automatically result in the cancellation of union
registration of such labor organization.,

BVRISI (g)
Cancellation proceedings refer to the legal process leading to the revocation of of the
legitimate status of a union or worker´s association.

BVRXIVS1-3
Sec 1. Cancellation or Registration; Where to File
Subject to the requirements of notice and due process, the registration of any legitimate
independent labor union, local/chapter and worker´s association may be cancelled by
the Regional Director upon the filing of a petition for cancellation of union
registration, or application by the organization itself for voluntary dissolution.
The petition for cancellation or application for voluntary dissolution shall
be filed in the regional office which issued its certificate of registration or creation.
In the case of federations, national or industry unions and trade union centers,
the Bureau Director may cancel the registration upon the filinf of a petition for cancellation
or application for voluntary dissolution in the Bureau of Labor Relations.
*Regional Officer refers to the office of the DOLE at the administrative regional level.

Sec 2. Who May File

Any party in interest may commence a petition for cancellation of registration,
except in actions involving violations of Article 24, which may only be commenced by
members of the labor organization concerned.

Sec 3 Grounds for Cancellation (same as above)

BVRXVS 1and5

 Alliance of Labor Organizationi v Laguesma (March 11, 1996)

Facts
 The Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization (ADFLO) filed an
application for registration as a national federation alleging, among others
that it has twelve (12) affiliates. After proper evaluation of its application, it
was issued a Certificate of Registration to the federation.The Confederation

45
 of Labor and Allied Social Services (CLASS) filed a petition for the
cancellation of the Registration Certificate issued to ADFLO.
 The first hearing conducted by the BLR after the case was remanded to it for
further proceedings. However, since CLASS was not yet ready with its
evidence, the hearing was postponed. CLASS then filed its Formal Offer of
Evidence. ADFLO filed an Objection to Admission of Exhibits based on the
grounds that the exhibits were not marked nor identified by any witness
during the hearing of the case where ADFLO had been properly notified. In
the meantime, at the hearing of the case, CLASS failed to appear and only
ADFLO’s President Antonio Cedilla appeared. Unaware that an objection had
already been filed by ADFLO’s counsel, Cedilla manifested that ADFLO will
file its answer to CLASS’ offer of evidence within thirty (30) days. BLR
Director without first ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits of CLASS and
without any further hearing then cancelled the registration of ADFLO.
Issue
Whether or not a certificate of registration can be cancelled without hearing.
Ruling
 No. The petitioner´s right to due process was violated in this case.Subject to
the requirements of notice and due process, the registration of any legitimate
labor union, chartered local and worker’s association may be cancelled by
the Regional Director, or in the case of federations, national or industry
unions and trade union centers, by the Bureau Director, by filing of an
independent complaint or petition for cancellation. The cancellation of a
certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor
organization. For without such registration, it loses — as a rule — its rights
under the Labor Code. Under the circumstances, petitioner was indisputably
entitled to be heard before a judgment could be rendered cancelling its
certificate of registration. In David vs. Aguilizan it was held that a decision
rendered without any hearing is null and void.
 Under Article 283 of the LC, the certificate of registration of any legitimate
labor organization, whether national or local, shall be cancelled by the
Bureau if it has reason to believe, after due hearing, that the said labor
organization no longer meets one or more of the requirments herein
prescribed,

 NUBE v Minister of Labor Organization (Dec 14, 1981)

 A certification election may be ordered despite pendency of a petition to
cancel the union’s registration certificate.—The Court rules in the affirmative.
The pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of
herein petitioner union is not a bar to the holding of a certification election.
The pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of
petitioner union founded on the alleged illegal strikes staged by the leaders
and members of the intervenor union and petitioner union should not
suspend the holding of a certification election, because there is no order
directing such cancellation (cf. Dairy Queen Products Company of the
Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., No. L-35009, Aug.
31, 1977). In said Dairy Queen case, one of the issues raised was whether
the lower court erred and concomitantly committed grave abuse of discretion
in disregarding the fact that therein respondent union’s permit and license
have been cancelled by the then Department of Labor and therefore could
not be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the
rank and file employees of therein petitioner company.
 Petition to cancel union registration evidently intended to delay holding of a
certification election.—It may be worthy to note also that the petition for
cancellation of petitioner union’s registration certificate based on the alleged

46
 illegal strikes staged on October 12, 1979 and later November 5–7, 1979
was evidently intended to delay the early disposition of the case for
certification election considering that the same was apparently filed only after
the October 18, 1979 Order of Med-Arbiter Plagata which directed the
holding of a certification election.

 Tablante v Noriel (Aug 23, 19778)

Facts
 A petition for certiorari against Hon. Penaflor, Noriel, and Association of
Democratic Labor Organization was filed by a Tablante-Tungkol enterprises
for Cancelation of the Collective Bargaining agreement trice but was
dismissed due to lack of merit. The root of the petition stems from an illegal
strike where the private respondent labor organization participated in, and
their petition for registration and permit to strike must be cancelled. Teblente-
Tungkol insisted that the private labor union’s registration must be cancelled
as stated in P.D. no. 823 but it did not contain such provision. Also, they, the
petitioners, stated that in the labor code, a ground for cancellation is any
activity that is prohibited by law.
Issue
Whether or not the subject matter of cancelation of the registration is valid.
Ruling
 No, the subject matter is moot and academic. The argument is false and
misleading according to the Comment of the Solicitor-General. It is a fact that
[Association of Democratic Labor Organization] is not a labor contractor or is
it engaged in the 'cabo' system or is it otherwise engaged in any activity of
such nature which is prohibited by law. The above-quoted article should not
be interpreted or construed to include an illegal strike engaged into by any
union. This is so because the phrase 'or otherwise engaging in any activity
prohibited by law' should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by
a union that partakes of the nature of a labor contractor or 'cabo' system.

D. International Activities of Union – Prohibition and Regulation

Art 284 Prohibition Against Aliens; Exceptions
All aliens, natural or juridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibited from
engaging directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union acitivities without prejudice to
normal contacts between Philippine labor unions and recongized international labor centers:
Provided however,that aliens working in the country with valid permits issued by the DOLE,
may exercise the right to self organization and join or assist labor organizations of their own
choising for purposes of collective barganing: Provided further that said aliens are nationals
of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers.

Art 285 Regulation of Foreign Assistance

a) No foreign individual, organization or entity may give nay donations, grants or
other forms of assistance, in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly to any labor
organization, group of workers or any auxiliary thereorf, such as cooperatives, credit
unions and institutions engaged in research, education or communication, in relation to
trade union actitivites, without prior permission of the Secretary of Labor.
P 171 and 172 for trade union activities.
b) This prohibition shall apply equally to foreign donations, grants or other forms of
assistance, in cash or in kind, given directly or indirectly to any employer or
employer´s organization to support any activity or activities affetcing trade unions.
c) The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and
control the giving and receiving of such grants, donations and other forms of
assistance, including the mandatory reporting of the amounts of the donations or

47
 grants, the specific receipts thereof, the projects or activitites proposed to be
supported, and their duration.

Art 286 Applicability to Farm Tenants and Rural Workers

The Secretary of Agrarian Reform shall exercise the powers and responsibilities vested by this
Title in the Secretary of Labor.

E. Union – Member Relations

Art 250 Rights and Conditioins of Membership in a Labor Organization
a) No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required or members of a legitimate
labor orhganization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fine and forfeiture be
imposed
b) The members shall be entitled to full and detailed report from their officers and
representatives of all financial transactions as provided for in the constitution and by
laws of the organization
c) The members shall directly elecct their officers, including those of the national
union or federation, to which they or their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at
intervals of every 5 years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any position
shall be imposed other than membership in good standing in subject labor orhanization.
The secretary of any other responsible union officer shall furnish the Sceretary of
Labor and Employment with a list of the new elected officers, together with the
appointive officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of funds, withint 30 days
after the election of officers or from the occurrence of any change in the lost of officers of
the labor organization.
d) The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due deliberation, any question of
major policy affecting the entire membership of the organization, unless the nature of
the organization or force majeure renders such secret ballot impractical, in which
case, the board of directors of the organization may make the decision in behalf of
the general membership.
e) No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or continue in
membership any individual who belongs in a subversive organization or who is
engaged directly r indirectly in any subb¡versive activity
f) No person who has been convicted or a crime involving moral turpitude shall be
eligible for election as a union officer or for apoinment to any position in the unioin
g) No union officer, agent or member of a labor orgnization shall collect any fees,
dues or other contributions on its behalf or make any disbursements of its money or
funds UNLESS he is duly authorized by it constitution or by laws.
h) Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions shall be evidenced by a receipt
signed by the officer or agent making the collection and entered into the record of the
organization to be kept and maintained for the purpose
i) The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or object other
than those expressly provided by its constitution or by laws or those expressly
authorized by written resolution adopted by majority of the members at a general
meeting duly called for the purpose
j) Every income or revenue of the organization shall be evidenced by a record showing
its source, and every expenditure shall be evidenced by a receipt from the person to
whom the payment is made, which shall state the date, place and purpose of such
payment, such record or receipt shal form part of the financial records of the
organization.
k) The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid compensation other than
the salaries and expenses due to their positions as specifically provided for in its
constitution and by laws, or in written resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the
members at a general memership meetin duly called for the purpose.
l) The treasurer of any labor organization and every officer thereof who is
responsible for the account

48
 Art 260 (a) Unfair Labor practices of Labor organization
To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self organization. However,
a labor organization shall have the right ti prescribe its own rules with respect to th acquistiion or
retention of membership.

1. Union Constitution
 UST Faculty Union v Bitonoio (Nov 6, 1999)
Facts
 Marino, et. al. are duly elected officers of the UST Faculty Union (USTFU).
The union has a subsisting five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement with its
employer, the University of Santo Tomas (UST).
 Collantes, in her capacity as Secretary General of USTFU, posted a notice
addressed to all USTFU members announcing a general assembly to elect
USTFUs next set of officers. Through the notice, the members were also
informed of the constitution of a Committee on Elections (COMELEC) to
oversee the elections. USTFU filed a separate petition with the Med-Arbiter,
directed against UST and the members of the COMELEC.
 The petition alleged that the COMELEC was not constituted in accordance
with USTFUs constitution and by-laws (CBL) and that no rules had been
issued to govern the conduct.
 The secretary general of UST, upon the request of the various UST faculty
club presidents issued notices allowing all faculty members to hold a
convocation. Denominated as a general faculty assembly, the convocation
was supposed to discuss the state of the unratified UST-USTFU CBA and
status and election of USTFU officers.
 The med-arbiter issued a temporary restraining order against herein
appellees enjoining them from conducting the election but as announced, the
general faculty assembly was held as scheduled. New officers are elected.
 The election of the appellants came about upon a motion of one Atty. Lopez,
admittedly not a member of USTFU, that the USTFU CBL and 'the rules of
the election be suspended and that the election be held that day. Former
USTFU officers filed the instant petition seeking injunctive reliefs and the
nullification of the results of the election. They alleged that the holding of the
same violated the temporary restraining order and accusing them of
Usurpation of power.
Issue
1) Whether or Not the Collective Bargaining Unit of all the faculty members in that
General Faculty Assembly had the right in that General Faculty Assembly to
suspend the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws of the USTFU regarding
the elections of officers of the union.
2) Whether or not the suspension of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws
of the USTFU in that General Faculty Assembly is valid pursuant to the
constitutional right of the Collective Bargaining Unit to engage in peaceful
concerted activities for the purpose of ousting the corrupt regime of the private
respondents.
3) Whether or not the overwhelming ratification of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement executed by the petitioners in behalf of the USTFU with the University
of Santo Tomas has rendered moot and academic the issue as to the validity of
the suspension of the Constitution and By-Laws and the elections of October 4,
1996 in the General Faculty Assembly.
Ruling
1) 1. No, Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a
labor union. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and
the concomitant obligations that go with this new status and becomes bound by
the unions rules and regulations. When a man joins a labor union, necessarily a

49
 portion of his individual freedom is surrendered for the benefit of all members. He
accepts the will of the majority of the members in order that he may derive the
advantages to be gained from the concerted action of all. Just as the enactments
of the legislature bind all of us, to the constitution and by-laws of the union, which
are duly enacted through democratic processes, bind all of the members. If a
member of a union dislikes the provisions of the by-laws, he may seek to have
them amended or may withdraw from the union; otherwise, he must abide by
them. It is not the function of courts to decide the wisdom or propriety of
legitimate by-laws of a trade union.
2) 2. No for the following reasons. First, the October 4, 1996 assembly was not
called by the USTFU. It was merely a convocation of faculty clubs, as indicated in
the memorandum sent to all faculty members by Fr. Rodel Aligan, OP,. Second,
there was no commission on elections to oversee the election. Lastly the
purported election was not done by secret balloting.
3) 3. No, it should be decided upon by union members.

2. Nature of Relationship
 Heirs of Teodore Cruz v CIR (Dec 27, 1969)
Facts
 The Santiago Labor Union, composed of workers of the Santiago Rice Mill, a
business enterprise engaged in the buying and milling of palay at Santiago,
Isabela, and owned operated by King Hong Co., filed before the CIR a
petition for overtime pay, premium pay for night, Sunday and holiday work,
and for reinstatement of workers illegally laid off. As of then, the total sum
claimed by the workers.
 The CIR ruled in favor of the workers but the worker's decade of travail was
not yet to be at an end, however, despite this Court's affirmance of the
judgment for the workers. The workers claimed that the computation was
lacking. The Workers claimed more assets from the Rice Mill but before the
Chief Examiner’s report was submitted, the Union pressed for the execution
of final judgement and upon filing a mandamus.
 The Rice Mill’s motion for review was dismissed for lack of merit. The
Government took direct action in settlement of the case but the Union still
filed urgent motions for claims. The court rejected the appeal and the union
still rejected the quit claim offer by the Mill. One of the union directors
together with 49 of its members questioned the amicable settlement that took
place.
 They claim that the Board of Directors did not have any express authority of
the members of the Santiago Labor Union to enter into any compromise and
that it was tainted by apparent bad faith on the part of the President of the
Union.
Issue
Whether or not the Amicable Settlement is Valid despite protests from the 49
members.
Ruling
 No, for the Union was denied of formal conference in order to decide from
within. They were not afforded Due process of the law for the proposed
settlement was never held. The Rushed approval had dire consequences to
the union members. There was a failure in the administration of due process
for the rushed imposition of the ruling. There was the lack of authority of the
president to act on behalf of the union. That there was further considerations
that were forgotten such as reinstatement of personnel illegally dismissed.

3. Issues on Admission and Discipline

a. Admission

50
  Salunga v CIR (Sep 27, 1967)
Facts
 In 1959, SMB entered in a CBA with National Brewery and Allied Industries
Labor Union-PAFLU, which was to take effect for 3 years. Said CBA
contained a closed-shop agreement. Salonga was a member of the union
since 1953. In August 1961, he tendered his resignation from the Union,
which accepted it 8 days after and transmitted the same to the Company on
August 29, 1961, with a request for the immediate implementation of said
agreement.
 After being informed by SMB of the implementation of the agreement,
Salunga wrote to the Union to revoke his resignation and for him to continue
being deducted of his monthly union dues. He furnished the Company a copy
of the same. SMB, in turn, notified the Union of its receipt and said that it
shall not take any action on the case and shall consider Salunga still a union
member. The Union told SMB that his membership could not be reinstated
and it insisted on his separation from the service, to which the Company
replied that it is not insisting on his readmission and that following his perusal
of the CBA, Salunga decided on withdrawing his resignation without any
pressure or bad faith.
 SMB eventually said that if the Union still considers him as having actually
resigned from the organization, and if it insists that he be dismissed him from
the service in accordance with the closed-shop agreement, it will have no
alternative but to do so. Upon reiteration by the Union of its request for
implementation of the agreement, SMB notified Salunga of his termination.
After seeking intervention from PAFLU, his dismissal was deferred but albeit
his request that SMB maintain the status quo as his appeal was pending, he
was still discharged from his employment.
 Soon after, a proceeding for ULP commenced against herein respondents
and in due course, decision was rendered declaring the respondents guilty,
and have ordered for them to cease and desist from further committing such
acts complained of, with affirmative reliefs: readmission and continuation of
petitioner without prejudice to his rights as a member of the union, his
reinstatement to his former position with SMB, and for the decision to be
posted, with a copy of the certificate of compliance to be furnished to the
court after a month. On MR of the respondents, the decision was reversed by
the CIR, which dismissed the case.
Issue
1) WON the CIR erred in reversing the decision of the lower court declaring the
respondents guilty of ULP in effecting the closed-shop agreement provided in the
CBA.
2) WON SMB is guilty of ULP.
Ruling
1) YES. The Court upheld the decision of the lower court and ruled that the Union
acted arbitrarily in not allowing Salunga to continue his membership and it did so
without any just cause therefor. It also held that CIR did not reverse these
findings of fact or even question the accuracy thereof.
2) NO, the Court did not find SMB guilty of unfair labor practice. It did not merely
show a commendable understanding of and sympathy for Salunga’s plight and
even tried to help him, although to such extent only as was consistent with its
obligation to refrain from interfering in purely internal affairs of the Union.
If the resolution appealed from was affirmed, it will nullify the right of
union members to give their views on "all transactions made by the Union;" which
is part and parcel of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution - a
condition sine qua non to the sound growth and development of labor
organizations and democratic institutions.

51
 The decision of the lower court was affirmed, and the appealed
resolution of the CIR en banc was reversed, with costs against respondents,
except the Company.
RATIO:
Unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for
membership, and a closed-shop provision would not justify the employer in
discharging, or a union in insisting upon the discharge of, an employee whom the
union thus refuses to admit to membership, without any reasonable ground
therefor. If they may be compelled to admit new members, who have the
requisite qualifications, with more reason may the law and the courts exercise the
coercive power when the employee involved is a long standing union member,
who, owing to provocations of union officers, was impelled to tender his
resignation, which he forthwith withdrew or revoked.

In this case, the Union, by not presenting evidence to overcome the

testimonies of Salunga on what caused him to submit his resignation have, in
effect, confirmed the fact that its refusal to allow the withdrawal of his resignation
had been due to his aforementioned criticisms which did not only assail the
Union, but the acts of its officers, and, indirectly, the officers themselves. Indeed,
the officers tried to justify themselves by characterizing said criticisms as acts of
disloyalty to the Union

b. Right to Discipline
 Villar v Inciong (April 20, 1983)
Facts
 AEU under FUR attempted to have a certification election but due to the
opposition of AEU-PAFLU, the petition was denied by the Med-Arbiter.
 AEU-PAFLU then called a special meeting among members and it was there
decided that an investigation of certain people would be held pursuant to the
constitution and by-laws of the Federation, of all of the petitioners and one
Felipe Manlapao, for "continuously maligning, libelling and slandering not
only the incumbent officers but even the union itself and the federation;"
spreading 'false propaganda' that the union officers were 'merely appointees
of the management', and for causing divisiveness in the union.
 A Trial Committee was then formed to investigate the local union's charges
against the petitioners for acts of disloyalty. AEU-PAFLU and the Company
concluded a new CBA which, besides granting additional benefits to the
workers, also reincorporated the same provisions of the existing CBA,
including the union security clause reading, to wit:
o All members of the UNION as of the signing of this Agreement shall
remain members thereof in good standing. Therefore, any members
who shall resign, be expelled, or shall in any manner cease to be a
member of the UNION, shall be dismissed from his employment
upon written request of the UNION to the Company.
 The petitioners were summoned to appear before the PAFLU Trial
Committee for the aforestated investigation of the charges filed against them
but they did not attend and instead requested for a "Bill of Particulars" of the
charges which had been formalized by the AEU-PAFLU officers; they
contend that their actions were merely exercise of the right to freedom of
association.
 Not recognizing PAFLU's jurisdiction over their case, petitioners again
refused to participate in the investigation rescheduled and conducted.
Instead, they merely appeared to file their Answer to the charges and moved
for a dismissal.

52
  Based on the findings and recommendations of the PAFLU trial committee,
the PAFLU President found the petitioners guilty of the charges against them
and it was requested that they be terminated in conformity with the security
clause in the CBA. Meanwhile, they were placed under preventive
suspension and denied access to the workplace.
Issue
Whether or not the Minister acted with grave abuse of discretion when he affirmed
the decision of the RO4-Officer-in-Charge allowing the preventive suspension and
subsequent dismissal of petitioners by reason of the exercise of their right to freedom
of association.
Ruling
 It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It
is implicit in the freedom of association ordained by the Constitution.
However, a closed shop is a valid form of union security, and such provision
in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed
by the Constitution.
 Here, the Company and the AEU-PAFLU entered into a CBA with a union
security clause and the stipulation for closed-shop is clear and unequivocal
and it leaves no room for doubt that the employer is bound, under the
collective bargaining agreement, to dismiss the employees, herein
petitioners, for non-union membership.
 Petitioners became non-union members upon their expulsion from the
general membership of the AEU-PAFLU pursuant to the Decision of the
PAFLU national president. PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners
on the charges filed by their co-employees in the local union and after finding
them guilty as charged, to expel them from the roll of membership under the
constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated.
 According to the OIC: dtripped of non-essentials, the basic and fundamental
issue in this case tapers down to the determination of WHETHER OR NOT
PAFLU HAD THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE OPPOSITORS AND,
THEREAFTER, EXPEL THEM FROM THE ROLL OF MEMBERSHIP OF
THE AMIGOEMPLOYEES UNION-PAFLU.
 Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a labor union affiliates
with a mother union, it becomes bound by the laws and regulations of the
parent organization.
 When a labor union affiliates with a parent organization or mother union, or
accepts a charter from a superior body, it becomes subject to the laws of the
superior body under whose authority the local union functions. The
constitution, by-laws and rules of the parent body, together with the charter it
issues pursuant thereto to the subordinate union, constitute an enforceable
contract between the parent body and the subordinate union, and between
the members of the subordinate union inter se.
 'Due process' simply means that the parties were given the opportunity to be
heard. In the instant case, ample and unmistakable evidence exists to show
that the oppositors were afforded the opportunity to present their evidence,
but they themselves disdained or spurned the said opportunity given to them.
 Inherent in every labor union, or any organization, is the right of self-
preservation. When members of a labor union, therefore, sow the seeds of
dissension and strife within the union; when they seek the disintegration and
destruction of the very union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit their
rights to remain as members of the union which they seek to destroy.
 We, therefore, hold and rule that petitioners, although entitled to disaffiliate
from their union and form a new organization of their own, must, however,
suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security
clause of the CBA.

53
 c. Due Process Rule
 Kapisanan ng Mga Manggagawa sa MRR v Bugay (fEB 28, 1962)
Facts
 Appellant Paulino Bugay was formerly an auditor of the defendant union. He
was at the same time payroll clerk of the Manila Railroad Company.
 Sometime in March, 1953, he was requested by the secretary-treasurer of
the company to deliver certain documents which were in his possession
belonging to the union and in compliance therewith he delivered them without
consulting the officers of the union.
 Making use of these documents, the management of the company filed with
the City Fiscal of Manila against Vicente K. Olazo, president of the union, a
charge for falsification of commercial document.
 The City fiscal, after proper investigation, dismissed the charge.
 Subsequently, charges for disloyalty and conduct unbecoming a union
member were preferred against appellant Bugay, and later the corresponding
investigation, appellant was expelled from the union. As a result, appellant
filed a charge for unfair labor practice against the union before the Court of
Industrial Relations
 After due hearing, rendered decision holding that appellant's expulsion was
illegal it appearing that the same has not been approved by the majority of
the chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws. Hence,
the court ordered the reinstatement of appellant as union member and the
restoration to him of all his rights and privileges.
 This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. It is to be noted that both
in the investigation held by the investigation committee of the Kapisanan and
in the board meeting of June 14, 1953, where the committee's report
recommending expulsion was approved, Bugay was not present. As has
been pointed out earlier, the reason for Bugay's failure to attend the
investigation does not appear of record. On the other hand, during the board
meeting, the committee of three board members assigned to summon Bugay
failed to serve notice upon him because he was then in Lucena, Quezon.
Why all these proceedings were continued by the respondents inspite of
Bugay's absence remains unexplained in the record. But one thing is certain,
whatever might be the merits of the charge filed by respondent Olazo against
him, Bugay did not have sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Such
proceedings, being violative of the elementary rule of justice and fair play,
can not give validity to any act done pursuant thereto.
 Besides, the contention that majority of the chapters voted in favor of Bugay's
expulsion is not borne by the evidence. An examination of the chapters to the
Kapisanan board of directors (Exhs. 7 to 28) shows that all of the votes,
except those of the Hondagua Chapters and Engineering Manila Yard
Chapter (Exhs. 14 and 17) were not validly cast.
 (CFI-no sufficient cause of action, CIR-union is guilty, SC-affirmed CIR)
Issue
WON Bugay’s expulsion was illegal
Ruling
 YES, there is unfair labor practice because expulsion was illegal. It was
found that not only has he not been given an opportunity to defend himself
but his expulsion was not submitted to the different chapters of the union as
required by its constitution and by-laws. The result was that because of his
expulsion he was subjected to humiliation and mental anguish with the
consequent loss of his good name and reputation. This is especially so
considering that the members of the union from which he was expelled
amounted to around 20,000 more or less. It is, therefore, an error for the

54
 lower court to hold that the complaint does not state sufficient cause of action
for the relief claimed by appellant.
 DOCTRINE: Expulsion of a member is illegal if he is not given due process it
appearing that the same has not been approved by the majority of the
chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws. Hence, the
court CAN ORDER the reinstatement of appellant as union member and the
restoration to him of all his rights and privileges.

4. Issues on Election of Officers – Qualification, Manner of Election, Tenure and Compensation

Art 250 c,f,k
BVRXIIS1-5
a. Voter´s List
 Tancinco v Calleja (Jan 20, 1988)
Facts
 Private Respondents are the prime organizers of ITM-MEA.
 While said respondents were preparing to file a petition for direct certification
of the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of ITM’s bargaining
unit, the union’s Vice-President, Carlo Dalmacio was promoted to the
position of Department Head, thereby disqualifying him for union
membership.
 Such, led to a strike spearheaded by Lancanilao group, respondent herein.
Another group however, led by herein petitioners staged a strike inside the
company premises.
 After 4 days the strike was settled, then an agreement was entered into by
the representative of the management, Lancanilao group and the Tancinco
group the relevant terms.
 A pre-election conference was held, but the parties failed to agree on the list
of voters. 2 days after, a pre-election conference attended by MOLE officers,
ANGLO through its National Secretary, a certain Mr. Cornerlio A. Sy made a
unilateral ruling excluding some 56 employees consisting of the Manila office
employees, members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card employees, drivers of
Mrs. Salazar and the cooperatives employees of Mrs. Salazar.
 Prior to the holding of the election of union officers’ petitioners, through a
letter addressed to the Election Supervisor, MOLE San Fernando
Pampanga, protested said ruling but no action was taken.
 The election of officers was conducted under the supervision of MOLE
wherein the 56 employees in question participated but whose votes were
segregated without being counted.
 Lancilao’s group won. Lancilao garnered 119 votes with a margin of 3 votes
over Tancinco prompting petitioners to make a protest.
 Thereafter, petitioners filed a formal protest with the Ministry of Labor
Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, claiming that the determination
of the qualification of the 56 votes is beyond the competence of ANGLO.
 Private respondents maintain the contrary on the premise that definition of
union’s membership is solely within their jurisdiction. They categorized the
challenged voters into four groups namely, the Manila Employees, that they
are personal employees of Mr. Lee; the Iglesia ni Kristo, that allowing them to
vote will be anomalous since it is their policy not to participate in any form of
union activities; the non-time card employees, that they are managerial
employees; and the employees of the cooperative as non-ITM employees.
 BLR rendered a decision holding the exclusion of the 56 employees as
arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal basis but et aside the challenge
order on the ground that 51 of 56 challenged voters were not yet union
members at the time of the election per list submitted before the Bureau.The
decision directed among others the proclamation of Lacanilao's group as the

55
 duly elected ocers and for ITM-MEA to absorb in the bargaining unit the
challenged voters unless proven to be managerial
Issue
Whether or not the 56 segregated votes for shall be included in the determination of
the results of the election of officer on the ground that their names do not appear in
the records of the Union submitted to the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau
of Labor.
Ruling
 Yes. Submission of the employee’s names with the BLR as qualified
members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said
members to vote in the election of union’s officers. It finds no support in fact
and in law. Per public respondent’s findings, the list consists of 158 union
members only, wherein 51 of the 56 challenged voters’ names do not
appear.
 Adopting however a rough estimate of a total number of union members who
cast their votes of some 333 and excluding therefrom the 56 challenged
votes, if the list is to be the basis as to who the union members are then
public respondent should have also disqualified some 175 of the 333 voters.
 It is true that under Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, only
members of the union can participate in the election of union officers.
 The question however of eligibility to vote may be determined through the
use of the applicable payroll period and employee's status during the
applicable payroll period. The payroll of the month next preceding the labor
dispute in case of regular employees and the payroll period at or near the
peak of operations in case of employees in seasonal industries. Considering
that none of the parties insisted on the use of the payroll period-list as voting
list and considering further that the 51 remaining employees were correctly
ruled to be qualified for membership, their act of joining the election by
casting their votes after the agreement is a clear manifestation of their
intention to join the union.
 They must therefore be considered IPSO FACTO members thereof said
employees having exercised their right to unionism by joining ITM-MEA their
decision is paramount. Their names could not have been included in the list
of employees submitted on to the Bureau of Labor for the agreement to join
the union was entered into only on May 10, 1986. Indeed, the election was
supervised by the Department of Labor where said 56 members were
allowed to vote.

b. Disqualification of Candidate
 Manalad v Trajano (June 28, 1989)
Facts
 The parties herein are employees of United Dockhandlers, Inc. They are
members of rival groups in the Associated Port Checkers and workers’ union
(APCWU) in said company, the petitioners’ faction being led by petitioner
Ricardo Manalad, with respondent Pablo Babula heading the group of private
respondents.
 From their submissions, it appears that someties in 1982, the petitioners
were disqualified from running as candidates in the election of APWCU
officers by the Med-Arbiter.
 However, on appeal, said order was set aside by the Director of Bureau of
Labor Relation on October 31, 1984.
 The candidates of the petitioners, that is, Manalad, Leano, and Puerto won
over those of the private respondents, who were Babula, Mijares and
Navarro, for the positions of president treasurer and auditor, respectively.

56
  As a consequence, the latter group file a petition for review with the court
assailing the aforesaid order of October 31, 1984 of the Bureau of Labor
Relations which had declared the aforesaid petitioners eligible to run for said
union offices.
 The SC in a previous case, however declared vacant all positions and
ordered the winners of the elections to stop acting as officers, and to turn-
over all union funds.
 Pursuant thereto, the director of the Bureau of Labor Relations issued an
order on July 10, 1985 to the effect that he was taking over the management
of the affairs of said union, ordering private respondents Babula and all other
persons to cease acting as officers of the union, and requiring them to turn
over the union funds to said director.
 Subsequently, the Court’s aforesaid resolution of July 3, 1985 was modified
on July 17, 1985 by providing thath the special election shecduled on July
20, 1985 shall be held under the personal supervision of respondent Director
Trajano.
 Private Respondents still won the elections, despite atemtps from petitioners
to have them disqualified for their alleged refusal to comply with the
resolution of the SC.
 Director Trajano issued a resolution proclaiming private respondents as the
winners on the special election and duly elected officers of the APCWU, with
the following observation: “The submission that Mr. Babula failed to
completely turn over management of the union to the undersigned is within
the competence and authority of the Supreme Court to pass upon
considering that the mandate for such a turn-over came from the Court.
 Meanwhile, the three-year term of the private respondents under the
disputed July 20, 1985 election expired on July, 1988.
Issue
Whether or Not the election of officers should be annulle
Ruling
 It is pointless and unrealistic to insist on annulling an election of officers whose
terms had already expired. The SC would have thereby a judgement on a matter
which cannot have any practical legal effect upon a controversy, even if existing
and which, in the nature of things cannot be enforced.
 Where the people have elected a man to oce, it must be assumed that they did
this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave
his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any.
 The court agree with the petitioners that disobedience to a resolution of the Court
should not be left unpunished.
 However, before the alleged disobedient party may be cited for contempt, the
allegations against him should be clearly established. The contentions of
petitioners, even disregarding some evidential deficiencies, do not adequately
establish the basis for contempt.
 On the Contrary, respondents have satisfactorily answered the averments
thereon.
 At this juncture, it would further be appropriate to remind petitioners that even if
the disqualification of private respondents could be justified, the candidates of
petitioners certainly cannot be declared as the winners on the disputed election.
The mere fact that they obtained the second highest number of voted does not
mean that they will thereby be considered as the elected officers if the true
winners are disqualified.

c. Expulsion Remedy
 Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap ( KMP) v Trajano (Jan 21, 1985)
Facts

57
 — On June 30, 1981 a written request for request for accounts examination of the
financial status of the KMP Labor Union, the existing labor union at Franklin
Baker Company in San Pablo City, was filed by private respondent Catalino
Silvestre and 13 other employees, who are also members of the said Union.
Acting on said request, Union Account Examiner Florencio Vicedo of the Ministry
of Labor and Employment conducted the necessary investigation and submitted
a report.
— The report shows that there was a total amount of P1,278.00 of disallowed
expenditures. It also showed that the Union officers failed to keep, maintain and
submit for verification the records of union accounts for the years 1977, 78 and
79, or purposely suppressed the same. Third, it was also found out that
respondent union officers failed to maintain segregated disbursement receipts in
accordance with the 5 segregated union funds which are general fund,
educational funds, mutual aid fund, burial assistance fund and union building
fund, for which they maintained a distinct and separate bank accounts for each.
Lastly, the report showed that the constitution and by-laws of the Union is not
ratified by general membership hence, illegal.
— Private respondent filed for the expulsion of the union officers on the ground that
they committed gross violation of the Labor Code, specifically paragraphs (a),
(b), (g), (h), (j) and (k) of Article 242; and, the constitution and by-laws of the
Union.
— The union officers denied the imputation. They argued that the disallowed
expenditures were made in good faith and it was conduced to the benefit of the
members and they are willing to reimburse the same from their own personal
funds. As to the non-production of accounts, they argue that they were not the
officers since they were only elected in 1980 and not one of the former officers of
the union had turned over to them the records in question. Further, they averred
that the non-ratification of the constitution and by-laws of the union and the non-
segregation of the union funds occurred before they become officers and that
they have already been correcting the same.
— On April 28, 1982, Med-Arbiter Cabibihin ordered the holding of a referendum to
decide on the issue whether to expel or suspend the union officers from their
respective positions. Petitioners appealed the order to Director Trajano of the
Bureau of Labor Relations.
— Private respondents claimed that the appropriate action should be the expulsion
of the union officers and not a referendum.
Issue
Whether or not the union officers should be expelled.
Ruling
— If the union officers were guilty of the alleged acts imputed against them, said
public respondent pursuant to Article 242 of the New Labor Code and in the light
of Our ruling in Duyag v. Incoing, should have meted out the appropriate penalty
on them, i.e., to expel them from the Union and not call for a referendum to
decide the issue. Second, the alleged falsification and misrepresentation of the
disallowed expenditures were not supported by substantial evidence. The
expenditures appeared to have been made in good faith.
— The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present
term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to
elect their officers. When people have elected a man to office, it must be
assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they
disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is
not for the court, by reason of such faults of misconduct to practically overrule the
will of the people.

d. Invalid Election
 Rodriguez v DIR, BLR (Aug 31, 1985)

58
 Facts
— The 2 cases were consolidated because they involve disputes among employees
of the Philippine Long Distance Company, who are members of the same union,
the Free Telephone Workers Union (FTWU). The disputes concern the validity of
the general elections for union officers in 1986, and the increase of union dues
adopted and put into effect by the incumbent officers subsequent to said
elections.
— The union’s by-laws provide for the election of officers every 3 years, in month of
July. Pursuant thereto, the union’s Legislative Council set the provincial elections
for its officers on July 14 to 18, 1986, and those for Metro Manila on July 25,
1986. The same Council also quite drastically raised the fees for the filing of
certificates of candidates.
— On July 8, 1986, acting on the complaints, the Med-Arbiter issued a restraining
order against the enforcement of the new rates of fees.
— Notwithstanding the cases questioning the candidates’ fees, the elections for the
provinces of Visayas and Mindanao and certain areas of Luzon were
nevertheless held on July 21 and 22, 1986, which are dates different from those
specified by the Legislative Council (July 14 to 18, 1986). The validity of elections
was challenged on the ground of lack of (1) due notice and (2) adequate ground
rules.
— A temporary restraining order was issued on July 23, 1986 acting on petitions
filed seeking to restrain the holding of the elections scheduled on July 25, 1986 in
Metro Manila. Despite the restraining order, the Union COMELEC proceeded
with the general elections in all the PLDT branches in Metro Manila on July 25,
1986. It then reported that as of July 15, 1986 the number of qualified voters was
9,429 of which 6,903 actually voted, the percentage of turn-out being 73%
— Marquez and Galvadores, and their respective groups, filed separate motions
praying that COMELEC be declared guilty of contempt for defying the TRO, and
for the nullification not only of the Metro Manila elections of July 25, 1986 but
also the provincial elections of July 21 and 22, 1986. On August 28, 1986, Med-
Arbiter Abdullah denied the petitions to nullify the elections. The judgment took
account of the fact that the turn-out of voters was 73%, much higher than the
previous voter turn-out of prior elections. In Med-Arbiter’s view was a clear
manifestation of the union members’ desire to go ahead with the elections and
express their will therein.
— The judgment was overturned by the Officer-in-Charge of Labor Relations on
appeal. The OIC’s decision, dated October 10, 1986 nullified the general
elections in the provinces and Metro Manila on the ground of (1) lack of notice to
the candidates and voters, (2) failure to disseminate the election rules to all
parties concerned, and (3) disregard of the temporary restraining order of the
Med-Arbiter.
Issue
Whether or not the general elections of 1986 was valid.
Ruling
— No. The dates for provincial elections were set for July 14 to 18, 1986. But they
were in fact held on July 21 to 22, 1986, without prior notice to all voting
members, and without ground rules duly prescribed therefor.
— The elections in Metro Manila were conducted under no better circumstances. It
was held on July 25, 1986 in disregard and in defiance of the temporary
restraining order properly issued by the Med-Arbiter on July 23, 1986, notice of
which restraining order had been regularly served on the same date, and the
proofs adequately show. As in the case of the provincial elections, there were no
ground rules or guidelines set for the Metro Manila elections.
— Undue haste, lack of adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting, and
absence of notice of the dates of balloting, thus attended the elections in
provinces and in Metro Manila. They cannot but render the proceedings void.

59
 The claim that there had been a record-breaking voter turn-out of 73%, even if
true, cannot purge the elections of their grave infirmities.
— Free and honest elections are indispensable to the enjoyment by employees and
workers of their constitutionally protected right to self-organization. That right
“would be diluted if in the choice of the officials to govern . . . (union) affairs, the
election is not fairly and honestly conducted,” and the labor officers and
concerned and the courts have the duty “to see to it that no abuse is committed
by any official of a labor organization in the conduct of its affairs.”

5. Major Policy Matters

Art 250 c
a. Legal Counsel
 Halili v CIR (April 30, 1985)
Facts
— This case involves a dispute between the Halili Transit and Halili Bus and Conductors
Union (PTGWO) regarding claims for overtime of more than 897 bus drivers and
conductors of Halili Transit. The parties reached an Agreement, whereby the title to a
parcel of land in Caloocan City was transferred to Union, as well as an additional amount
of P25,000, in full satisfaction of all the claims against the estate of Halili.
— It was Atty Espinas who was the original counsel who established this award of 897
worker´s claim.
— When Atty. Penda joined the Espinas firm he did not disclose that he had entered into a
retainer´s contract with the Union. This was which was executed only between him and
the officers of the Union chosen by about 125 members only.
— Manila Memorial Park Cemetery Inc. offered to buy the subject parcel of land.
— Without notice to the other lawyers he, commenced filed a motion before the NLRC
wherein he asked for authority to sell the property, without notice to the other
lawyers and parties which was granted. Again without notice, he asked for authority to
distribute the proceeds of the sale.
— Of the proceeds of the sale, 35% representing attorney´s fees equivalent to P712,000 was
set aside by Atty Pineda for himself. This was in excess of the 20% contingent fee to be
awarded to the Espinas law firm as authorized by the general memebership of the Union.
The increased fee was approved by the Union board in good faith because Atty Pineda
made them believe that he would be the one to pay the fees of Atty Espinas and Lopez.
— He also allocated part of the proceeds for broker´s fees and expenses for transfer of title
without the Union´s consent.
Issue
WON the retainer´s contract between him and the Union was valid.
RULING:
— No. It was not a contract with the general membership because only 14% of the
total membership of 897 was represented. This is in violation of Article (242 d) 250 d
of the Labor Code which provides:
o The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due deliberation, any
question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the
organization, unless the nature of the organization or force majeure renders
such secret ballot impractical, in which case the board of directors of the
organization may make the decision in behalf of the general membership.
— The contingent fee of 30% for those who were still working with Halili Transit and the 45%
fee for those who were no longer working with the business. When Atty pineda executed
the retainer´s contract in 1967, the Halili Transit had already stopped operations in Metro
Manila. He knew that all the workers would be out of work which would mean that the
45% contingent fee would apply to all.
— The contract was executed when Atty Espinas was still handling the appeal of the Halili
Transit in the main case before the Supreme Court.
— The retainer´s contract was not notarized.

b. Union Funds
Art 250 b,g,h,i,j,l,m,n,o
Art 289

60
 c. Source of Payament of Attorney´s Fees
Art 250 o, n
Art 228 b
 Pacific Banking Corp v Clave ( March 7, 1984)
Facts
— Since January 1979, negotiations between the Pacific Banking Corporation and the
Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization (PABECO) for a collective
bargaining agreement for 1979 to 1981.
— Atty Saavedra who was the lawyer for the union, filed his notice of attorney's lien on
March 24, 1920.
— The CBA was finalized on June 3, 1980. The union officials requested the bank to withold
around P345,000 out of total benefits as 10% of the attorney´s fees.
— Presidential Executive Assistant Clave directed that the attorney's fees may be
deducted from the total benefits and paid to Saavedra according to Article 111 of the
Labor Code, faliing to notice that the said article refers to a proceeding for recovery of
wages and not to CBA negotiations.
— Finally Deputy Presidential Executive Assistant Venus Jr ordered the bank to pay the
union treasurer the attorneyñs fees less the amount corresponding to the protesting
employees.
Issue
WON attorney´s fees may be collected from the monetary benefits awarded in a collective
bargainin agreement.
Ruling
— Yes. Saavedra is entitled to the payment of his fees. Article 228 (222) ordains that
union funds should be used for that purpose. The union, not the employees, is
obligated to Saavedra.
o ART. 222. Appearances and Fees. - x x x. (b) No attorney's fees,
negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective
bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective agreement shall be
imposed on any individual member of the contracting union. Provided,
however, that attorney's fees may be charged against union funds in an
amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or
arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void.

d. Examination of Books
Art 250 g, h, n, o
 Duyag v Inciong (July 5, 1980)
Facts
— Respondents’ argument: the Bureau of Labor Relations may remove guilty union
officers only when members could not do so under the union’s constitution and
by-laws and that the removal should be subject to review by the SOLE.
— Opinion of the Director of Labor Relations: power of removal belongs to union
members since they were the ones who elected them; the med-arbiter and the
Director are only tasked to assist the union members in enforcing its constitution
and by-laws
Ruling
— The membership of Manalad and Puerto in another union is a sufficient ground
for their removal under the constitution and by-laws of the union
— Respondents violated the rights and conditions of membership in the union within
the meaning of Article 242 Labor Code. Hence, their expulsion is justified.
— Effects of violation of the rights and conditions of union membership: either
ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officer from office,
whichever is appropriate
— Said violation may be reported to be Bureau of Labor Relations by at least 30%
of all the union members or any member or members specially concerned. In
effect, the Bureau shall have the

61
 o power to hear & decide any reported violation in order to impose the
appropriate penalty.
o after hearing and even without submitting the matter to the union
members, erring union officials may be removed by the Director of Labor
Relations – as clearly provided in Art. 242
— Thus, the Director erred in holding that since the issue of expulsion is a political
one, only the union members can resolve it. It is necessary and desirable that the
Bureau of Labor Relations and the SOLE should exercise close and constant
supervision over labor unions, particularly the handling of their funds, so as to
forestall abuses and venalities.
— In the case at bar, the Director acted correctly in ordering an examination of the
books and records of the union – also in order to verify the charge against
respondents.

e. Deposit Funds
BVRXI
BVRXII
 Consolidated Workers union v CIR (March 28, 1969)
 There is no merit to the argument of herein petitioner that the order of the
court to deposit union dues into court deprives it of property without due
process of law.
 It assumes that the union dues ordered to be deposited are its property,
which is precisely in issue in the main case. Moreover, as pointed out in the
appealed order, if the Industrial Court, after hearing, should ultimately find
that the Consolidated Workers Union is company dominated or is a company
union and order it disestablished, the result would be that petitioner would
have to return all moneys and dues collected by it from the workers, since
the union would have had no authority to represent the workers. Because the
moneys collected might be improperly spent by the time the disestablishment
order is made, it was logical for the court below to order that such moneys be
deposited in the meantime.

f. Union Dues
BVRXII
 Rodriguez v DIR, BLR (Aug 31, 1988)
Facts
Issue
Ruling

g. Source of Payment os Special Assessments

 Gabriel v Sec of Labor (March 16, 2000)
Facts
— Pet comprise the executive board of the solid bank union, while respondents are
members of the said union.
— Unions executive board decided to retain Atty ‘Lacsina as union counsel in
connection with the negotiations for a new CBA. Majority of all union member
approved and signed a resolution confirming the decision of the executive board
to engage the services of said Atty. 10% of the total economic benefits that may
be secured through the negotiation must be given to Atty Lacsina as atty fee.
CBA also contained an authorization for SolidBank Corp to check-off said atty
fees from the first lump sum payment of benefits and to turn over said amount to
atty. Lacsino.
— Respondents instituted a complaint against the Union and it counsel before the
DOLE for illegal deduction of atty fees.

62
 — Med-arb ordered the refund to the complainants.
— Sec of Labor affirmed but ordered that refund shall be limited to those union
members who have not signified their conformity to the check off of attys fees.
Issue
WON the check off was valid and legal
Ruling
— CHECK OFF IS ILLEGAL.
— ART. 241 OF LABOR CODE PROVIDES THAT CHECK OFF IN ORDER TO BE
VALID MUST COMPLY WITH 3 REQUISITES FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR UNION INCIDENTAL EXPENSES, ATTYS FEES
AND REPRESENTATION EXPENSES.
1.) Authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members
of 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 the
employees concerned.
IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO INDIVIDUAL CHECK OFF AUTHORIZATION
BY THE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED AND SO THE ASSESMENT CANNOT BE
LEGALLY DEDUCTED BY THE EMPLOYER. IT SHOUD BE CHARGED TO
THE UNION’S GENERAL FUND OR ACCOUNT.

PART FOUR – THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT

A. Law and Definition

Art 267 Exclusive Bargaining Representation and Workers Participation in Policy and Decision
Making
BVR1S1
 Belyca Corp v Calleja (Nov 29, 1988)
Substantial mutual nterest test: When all the employees would have the same collective
bargaining interest. They can unionize!
Test of proper grouping IS NO LONGER OPERATIONAL
 International School Allliance of Educators v Quisumbing (June 1, 2000)
 Sta Lucia East Commerical Corp v Sec of Labor (Aug 14, 2009)

B. Determination of Appropriate Bargaining Unit

1. Factors – Unit Determination
a) In General
 UP v Ferrer-Calleja
2 unions, academic(All Workers Union) and for non academic personnel
(ONAPUP)
Issue: should there be one bargaining unit for the two types of union.
APC and University Council, there decisions are merely recommendatory.
No, UP is allowed to have one baragining unit for the acedmic personnel and
one BU for the non academic personnel.

b) History
 San Miguel Corp v Laguesma
They want one bargaining unit for the whole of Luzon.
Issue: WON smc is correct to have separate bargaining offices
Held: No. The exsitence of a prior baragining history is not conclusive. The
test of grouping is commonality of interest. They have the similar e.

c) Geography – Locationi

63
 UP Ferrer
If UP Diliman, Los Banos and Manila, its ok. If UP visayas, the no.

d) Corporate entities
 Indophil Textile Mills Workers Union v Calica
CBA if there is a plant expansion, then the employees will become part of the
existing bargaining unit. After a while, Acrylic Corp

 San Miguel Corp Emplloyees Union v Confessor

e) Management
 Phil Scouts Veterans et al v Torres
f) Test to Determine Bargaining Unit
 SMC v Laguesma
 Golden Farms Inc v Sec of Labor
 San Miguel Corp Supervisors v Laguesma
g) Unit severance and Gobe Doctrine
 Mechanical Department Labor Union v CIR
2. Size of Unit and Effect on Self-Organization
a) Unit Scope and Self-Organization
 Filoil Refinery Corp v Filoil Supervisory et al
b) Supervisor Unit
 Negros Oriental Electric Corp v Sec of DOLE
3. Effect of Prior Agreements
Non parties effect
 General Rubber and Footwear Corp v BLR
 DLS v DLS Employees
4. Determining Agency
Agency and Finality Order
 Filoil Refinery Corp v Filoil Supervisory and Confidential employees

64