1. Garcia v.

Philippine Airlines, 2009

2. St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 1998
3. Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 2001
4. Tirazona v. Phil EDS Techno-Service Inc., 2009
5. UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio, 1999
6. Reyes v. Trajano, 1992
7. Heritage Hotel Manila v. Piglas – Heritage, 2009
8. Central Negros Electric Cooperative v. Secretary of Labor, 1991
9. Kapatiran sa Mean and Canning Division v. Calleja, 1988
10. FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation Inc. v. Trajano, 1992
11. Toyota Motor Phil. Corp. v. Toyota Motor Phil. Corp. Labor Union,
1997
12. Manila Electric Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 1991
13. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors v. Laguesma, 1997
G.R. No. 164856               January 20, 2009
JUANITO A. GARCIA and ALBERTO J. DUMAGO, Petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent.

Facts:

Petitioners Juanito A. Garcia and Alberto J. Dumago assail the December 5, 2003
Decision and April 16, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. SP No.
69540 which granted the petition for certiorari of respondent, Philippine Airlines, Inc.
(PAL), and denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
The case stemmed from the administrative charge filed by PAL against its
employees-herein petitioners3 after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing
shabu when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers raided the
PAL Technical Center’s Toolroom Section on July 24, 1995.
After due notice, PAL dismissed petitioners on October 9, 1995 for transgressing the
PAL Code of Discipline,4 prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and
damages which was, by Decision of January 11, 1999, 5 resolved by the Labor Arbiter
in their favor, thus ordering PAL to, inter alia, immediately comply with the
reinstatement aspect of the decision.

Issue:
Whether petitioners may collect their wages during the period between the Labor
Arbiter’s order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC decision overturning
that of the Labor Arbiter, now that respondent has exited from rehabilitation
proceedings.

Ruling:
No. the petitioners may not collect if it is shown that the reinstatement pending
appeal was without fault on the part of the employer.

After the labor arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may
be barred from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing
the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer.
The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual delay or the fact that the order of
reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and (2) the
delay must not be due to the employer’s unjustified act or omission. If the delay is
due to the employer’s unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to pay
the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

In sum, the obligation to pay the employee’s salaries upon the employer’s failure to
exercise the alternative options under Article 223 of the Labor Code is not a hard
and fast rule, considering the inherent constraints of corporate rehabilitation.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY DENIED. Insofar as the Court of Appeals
Decision of December 5, 2003 and Resolution of April 16, 2004 annulling the NLRC
Resolutions affirming the validity of the Writ of Execution and the Notice of
Garnishment are concerned, the Court finds no reversible error.
G.R. No. 130866. September 16, 1998
ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
MARTINEZ, COMMISSION and BIENVENIDO ARICAYOS, Respondents.

Facts:
The present petition for certiorari stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed
by herein private respondent before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. III, in San Fernando, Pampanga. Private
respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Manager of petitioner St.
Martin Funeral Home on February 6, 1995. However, there was no contract of
employment executed between him and petitioner nor was his name included in the
semi-monthly payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his employment
for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00 which was intended for payment by
petitioner of its value added tax (VAT) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR).1cräläwvirtualibräry

Petitioner on the other hand claims that private respondent was not its employee but
only the uncle of Amelita Malabed, the owner of petitioner St. Martins Funeral Home.
Sometime in 1995, private respondent, who was formerly working as an overseas
contract worker, asked for financial assistance from the mother of Amelita. Since
then, as an indication of gratitude, private respondent voluntarily helped the mother
of Amelita in overseeing the business.

Issue: Whether there id existence of employer employee relationship?

Ruling: The court remanded the case to the lower court to determine the existence
of employer employee relationship. The labor arbiter concluded there none.
One final observation. We discern in the proceedings in this case a propensity on the
part of petitioner, and, for that matter, the same may be said of a number of litigants
who initiate recourses before us, to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial
system by seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the same is
available in the lower courts in the exercise of their original or concurrent jurisdiction,
or is even mandated by law to be sought therein. This practice must be stopped, not
only because of the imposition upon the precious time of this Court but also because
of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the
case which often has to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper
forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since
this Court is not a trier of facts. We, therefore, reiterate the judicial policy that this
Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling
circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of our
primary jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the instant petition for certiorari is
hereby REMANDED, and all pertinent records thereof ordered to be
FORWARDED, to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition
consistent with the views and ruling herein set forth, without pronouncement as to
costs.
G.R. No. 138270  June 28, 2001
SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES INC., petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROSALINDA E.
SAQUILON, respondents.
BUENA, J.:

Facts of the Case:

The Resolutions1 of the Court of Appeals dated February 24, 1999, and March 30,
1999, in C.A. G.R. SP No. 50344 which dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari
and motion for reconsideration, are being impugned in this present petition.
Adonis Saguilon, husband of private respondent, was recruited and hired by Fil-Pride
Shipping Co. Inc. (Fil-Pride) to work as a fitter on board the vessel M/V Anne Gro
(renamed M/V Etoile) owned by Oceanbulk Maritime S.A., a foreign corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of Greece.
Private respondent demanded death and burial benefits, and medical and sickness
allowance from petitioner Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Western Shipping
Agencies, Fil-Pride, Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., and More Maritime
Agencies Inc. Their failure and refusal to pay said claims impelled private respondent
to file on May 11, 1993, a complaint for death and burial benefits and medical and
sickness allowance before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA), which case was later referred to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) pursuant to R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers Act.
Issue: Whether the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals should be
dismissed due to failure to comply the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?
Ruling:
The petition is without merit.
A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, or final order or resolution,
of the Court of Appeals x x x, as in this case, may file with the Supreme Court a
verified petition for review on certiorari7 within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
judgment, final order or resolution appealed from. 8
Petitioner, instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, filed with this Court the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65, an
improper remedy as pointed out by the Solicitor General in his comment to the
petition. By availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition merits
an outright dismissal pursuant to Circular No. 2-90. 9
In light of this, this Court is not unaware that "excusable negligence" and "oversight"
have become an all too familiar and ready excuse on the part of counsels remiss in
their bounden duty to comply with established rules. Truly, we can neither
overemphasize nor underestimate the significance of procedural rules in the
adjudication of the respective rights and liabilities of litigants.
Judicial review of the decisions of the NLRC by way of a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 is confined only to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction
and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the tribunal rendering them. 15In fine, we
find no cogent reason to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.WHEREFORE,
the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. The instant
petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
G.R. No. 169712               January 20, 2009
MA. WENELITA S. TIRAZONA, Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE EDS TECHNO- SERVICE INC. (PET INC.) AND/OR KEN KUBOTA,
MAMORU ONO and JUNICHI HIROSE, Respondents.

Facts of the Case:

Before Us is a Motion for Leave to File [a] Second Motion for Reconsideration, 1 with
the Second Motion for Reconsideration incorporated therein, where petitioner Ma.
Wenelita Tirazona (Tirazona) seeks the reconsideration of the Resolution 2 of this
Court dated 23 June 2008. Said Resolution denied for lack of merit petitioner’s
previous Motion for Reconsideration, 3 which sought the reversal of our
Decision4 dated 14 March 2008 or, in the alternative, modification thereof by
awarding her separation pay and retirement benefits under existing laws.
Tirazona, in this case, has given PET more than enough reasons to distrust her. The
arrogance and hostility she has shown towards the company and her stubborn,
uncompromising stance in almost all instances justify the company’s termination of
her employment. Moreover, Tirazona’s reading of what was supposed to be a
confidential letter between the counsel and directors of the PET, even if it concerns
her, only further supports her employer’s view that she cannot be trusted. In fine, the
Court cannot fault the actions of PET in dismissing petitioner. 5
Issue: Whether the Petitioner Ma. Wenelita Tirazona (Tirazona) is entitled for
separation pay and retirement benefits under existing laws?
Ruling:
Supreme Court Ruled she is not entitled pf separation pay and retirement benefits.
[S]eparation 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. x x x.
The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply
because it is committed by the underprivileged. 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.In
accordance with the above pronouncements, Tirazona is not entitled to the award of
separation pay.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Leave to File [a] Second Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the Second Motion for Reconsideration
incorporated therein is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION in view of the denial of the
former.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 131235. November 16, 1999
UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU),et al Petitioners,
vs.
Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR et al, Respondents.
Facts of the Case:
This case is a Petition for Certiorari which assails the August 15, 1997 Resolution 2
of Director Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio Jr. of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
in BLR Case No. A-8-49-97, which affirmed the February 11, 1997 Decision of Med-
Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin.
""Accusing appellants of usurpation, appellees characterized the election as spurious
for being violative of USTFU’s CBL, specifically because the general assembly
resulting in the election of appellants was not called by the Board of Officers of the
USTFU; there was no compliance with the ten-day notice rule required by Section 1,
Article VIII of the CBL; the supposed elections were conducted without a COMELEC
being constituted by the Board of Officers in accordance with Section 1, Article IX of
the CBL; the elections were not by secret balloting as required by Section 1, Article V
and Section 6, Article IX of the CBL, and, the general assembly was convened by
faculty members some of whom were not members of USTFU, so much so that non-
USTFU members were allowed to vote in violation of Section 1, Article V of the CBL.
Issue:
(1) Whether 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

Ruling:
No. the faculty members who is not members of the union do not have the right to
suspend the provisions of the constitution and by-laws of the union.
"On joining a labor union, the constitution and by-laws become a part of the
member’s contract of membership under which he agrees to become bound by the
constitution and governing rules of the union so far as it is not inconsistent with
controlling principles of law. Petitioners claim that the numerous anomalies allegedly
committed by the private respondents during the latter’s incumbency impelled the
October 4, 1996 election of the new set of USTFU officers. They assert that such
exercise was pursuant to their right to self-organization.
"The constitutional right to self-organization is better understood in the context of ILO
Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of Right to Organize), to
which the Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the Convention provides that workers’
organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitution and rules and to elect
their representatives in full freedom, free from any interference from public
authorities. It is the organic law that determines the validity of acts done by any
officer or member of the union. Without respect for the CBL, a union as a democratic
institution degenerates into nothing more than a group of individuals governed by
mob rule.
Thus, the October 4, 1996 election cannot properly be called a union election,
because the procedure laid down in the USTFU’s CBL for the election of officers was
not followed.
G.R. No. 84433 June 2, 1992
ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M. NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA, and 138
others, petitioners,
vs.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations,
Med. Arbiter PATERNO ADAP, and TRI-UNION EMPLOYEES UNION, et
al., respondent.

Facts of the Case:

The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano)
sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one
(141) members of the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK), all employed in the same company, at
a certification election at which two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right
to be the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. That
denial is assailed as having been done with grave abuse of discretion in the special
civil action of certiorari at bar, commenced by the INK members adversely affected
thereby.
He opined that the petitioners are "bereft of legal personality to protest their alleged
disenfrachisement" since they "are not constituted into a duly organized labor union,
hence, not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole and exclusive
bargaining representative." He also pointed out that the petitioners "did not
participate in previous certification elections in the company for the reason that their
religious beliefs do not allow them to form, join or assist labor organizations."
Issue:

Whether the petitioners are "bereft of legal personality to protest their alleged
disenfrachisement" since they "are not constituted into a duly organized labor union,
hence, not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole and exclusive
bargaining representative."

Ruling: The argument that the petitioners are disqualified to vote because they "are
not constituted into a duly organized labor union" — "but members of the INK which
prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from joining or forming any labor
organization" — and "hence, not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole
and exclusive bargaining representative," is specious.

Neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees
affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification election. On the
contrary, 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED; the Decision of the then
Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated December 21, 1987
(affirming the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated July 22, 1988) is ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE; and the petitioners are DECLARED to have legally exercised their right to
vote, and their ballots should be canvassed and, if validly and properly made out,
counted and tallied for the choices written therein. Costs against private
respondents.SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 177024               October 30, 2009

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA

HOTEL CORPORATION) Petitioner
vs.
PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE
MANILA (PIGLAS-HERITAGE), Respondent.

Facts of the Case:

This case is about a company’s objections to the registration of its rank and file union
for non-compliance with the requirements of its registration.
Sometime in 2000, certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel
Manila (petitioner company) formed the "Heritage Hotel Employees Union" (the HHE
union). The Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-
NCR) later issued a certificate of registration 1 to this union.
Petitioner company filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, 21 assailing
the order of the BLR. But the latter court dismissed the petition, not being
accompanied by material documents and portions of the record. 22 The company filed
a motion for reconsideration, attaching parts of the record that were deemed
indispensable but the court denied it for lack of merit. 23 Hence, the company filed this
petition for review under Rule 45.

Issues:
Whether or not "dual unionism" is a ground for canceling a union’s registration.

Ruling:
The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS union’s members were also members of
the old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not a ground for canceling the new
union’s registration. The right of any person to join an organization also includes the
right to leave that organization and join another one. Besides, HHE union is dead. It
had ceased to exist and its certificate of registration had already been cancelled.
Thus, petitioner’s arguments on this point may also be now regarded as moot and
academic.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the
Bureau of Labor Relations in BLR-A-26-3-05 dated May 26, 2006.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 94045 September 13, 1991
CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CENECO), petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, and
CENECO UNION OF RATIONAL EMPLOYEES (CURE), respondents.

Facts of the Case:

This case is a special civil action for certiorari, petitioner Central Negros Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (CENECO) seeks to annul the order 1 issued by then Acting
Secretary of Labor Bienvenido E. Laguesma on June 6, 1990, declaring the
projected certification election unnecessary and directing petitioner CENECO to
continue recognizing private respondent CENECO Union of Rational Employees
(CURE) as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank-and-file
employees of petitioner's electric cooperative for purposes of collective bargaining.
CENECO filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that there are legal constraints to
the filing of the certification election, citing the ruling laid down by this Court
in Batangas I Electric Cooperative Labor Union vs. Romeo A. Young ,5 (BATANGAS
case) to the effect that "employees who at the same time are members of an electric
cooperative are not entitled to form or join unions for purposes of collective
bargaining agreement, for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-
owners."
Issue: Whether 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 bargaining agreement proposed by the latter.
Ruling: Yes 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 bargaining agreement
The argument of CENECO that the withdrawal was merely to subvert the ruling of
this Court in the BATANGAS case is without merit. The case referred to merely
declared that employees who are at the same time members of the cooperative
cannot join labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining. 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.
As discussed by the Solicitor General, Article I, Section 9 of the Articles of
Incorporation and By- Laws of CENECO provides that "any member may withdraw
from membership upon compliance with such uniform terms and conditions as the
Board may prescribe." The same section provides that upon withdrawal, the member
is merely required to surrender his membership certificate and he is to be refunded
his membership fee less any obligation that he has with the cooperative. There
appears to be no other condition or requirement imposed upon a withdrawing
member. Hence, there is no just cause for petitioner's denial of the withdrawal from
membership of its employees who are also members of the union. 7
WHEREFORE, the questioned order for the direct certification of respondent CURE
as the bargaining representative of the employees of petitioner CENECO is hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The med-arbiter is hereby ordered to conduct a
certification election among the rank-and- file employees of CENECO with CURE
and No Union as the choices therein.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 82914 June 20, 1988
KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AND CANNING DIVISION (TUPAS Local Chapter No.
1027), petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE BLR DIRECTOR PURA FERRER CALLEJA, MEAT AND
CANNING DIVISION UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION and MEAT AND
CANNING DIVISION NEW EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNITED LABOR
ORGANIZATION, respondents.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division TUPAS Local Chapter No.
1027) hereinafter referred to as "TUPAS," seeks a review of the resolution dated
January 27, 1988 (Annex D) of public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja, Director of the
Bureau of Labor Relations, dismissing its appeal from the Order dated November 17,
1987 (Annex C) of the Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah ordering a certification
election to be conducted among the regular daily paid rank and file
employees/workers of Universal Robina Corporation-Meat and Canning Division to
determine which of the contending unions:
a) Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division TUPAS Local Chapter No.
1027 (or "TUPAS" for brevity);
b) Meat and Canning Division New Employees and Workers United
Labor Organization (or "NEW ULO" for brevity);
c) No union.
shall be the bargaining unit of the daily wage rank and file employees in the Meat
and Canning Division of the company.

Issue:
Whether the members of the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect not to join a labor union for
being contrary to their religious beliefs, bar the members of that sect from forming
their own union?

Ruling:
We find no merit in the Petition. The public respondent did not err in dismissing the
petitioner's appeal in BLR Case No. A-12-389-87. This Court's decision in Victoriano
vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54, upholding 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 public respondent correctly observed that the "recognition of the tenets of the
sect ... should not infringe on the basic right of self-organization granted by the
constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation."
As pointed out by Med-Arbiter Abdullah, a "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."
Since it has not been shown that this order is tainted with unfairness, this Court will
not thwart the holding of a certification election (Associated Trade Unions [ATU] vs.
Noriel, 88 SCRA 96).
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is denied, with costs against the petitioner.
G.R. No. 76273               July 31, 1987
FEU-DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. CRESENCIANO TRAJANO and RICARDO C. CASTRO, FAR EASTERN
UNIVERSITY DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC. ALLIANCE OF
FILIPINO WORKERS (AFW), respondents.

Facts of the Case:

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the
respondent Director which affirmed the Order of the Med-Arbiter in the petition for
certification election (NCR-LRD-N-2-050-86) filed by private respondent, thus
ordering the holding of a certification election among the rank and file employees of
the herein petitioner.
On April 17, 1986, the Med Arbiter issued an Order granting the petition, declaring
that a certification election be conducted to determine the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the rank and file employees of the petitioner (p. 4, Rollo).
Respondent Director affirmed said Order on appeal. In dismissing the appeal,
however, respondent Director said that:
... respondent's (petitioner herein, reliance on the petition with the Supreme Court involving as it
does the provisions of Article 244 of the Labor Code vis-a-vis the character of the hospital, which
has been alleged as a non-profit medical foundation, has been rendered moot and academic by
virtue of the amendatory BP #70, which allows employees of non-profit medical institutions to
unionize.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Director gravely abused his discretion in granting
the petition for certification election, despite the pendency of a similar petition before
the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 49771) which involves the same parties for the same
cause.
Ruling:
The Petition is devoid of merit.
At the time private respondent filed its petition for certification election on February
13, 1986, Article 244 of the Labor Code was already amended by Batas Pambansa
Bilang 70, to wit:
Art. 244. Coverage and employees' right to self-organization. — All persons employed in commercial,
industrial and charitable, medical or educational institutions whether operating for profit or not , shall have the
right to self-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 the purpose of enhancing and defending their interests and for their mutual aid
and protection. (underscoring supplied).
Under the aforequoted provision, there is no doubt that rank and file employees of
non-profit medical institutions (as herein petitioner) are now 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 (p. 15, Rollo), it was incumbent upon respondent Director to
conduct such certification election to ascertain the bargaining representative of
petitioner's employees (Samahang Manggagawa Ng Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Noriel, 134
SCRA 152).
WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED, and the decision appealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 121084 February 19, 1997
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION , Petitioner, 
vs. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION LABOR UNION AND THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, Respondents.

Facts of the Case:

[T]he controvertible fact is that petitioner could not have been issued its Certificate
of Registration on November 24, 1992 when it applied for registration only on
November 23, 1992 as shown by the official receipt of payment of filing fee. As
Enrique Nalus, Chief LEG, this office, would attest in his letter dated September 8,
1994 addressed to Mr. Porfirio T. Reyes, Industrial Relations Officer of respondent
company, in response to a query posed by the latter,
"It is unlikely that an application for registration is approved on the date that it is filed
or the day thereafter as the processing course has to pass thought routing,
screening, and assignment, evaluation, review and initialing, and
approval/disapproval procedure, among others, so that a 30-day period is provided
for under the Labor Code for this purpose, let alone opposition thereto by interested
parties which must be also given due course.
Issue: Whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing, contrary to law and
facts the findings of the Med-Arbiters to the effect that:
1) the inclusion of the prohibited mix of rank-and file and supervisory employees in
the roster of members and officers of the union cannot be cured by a simple
inclusion-exclusion proceeding
Ruling:
The Secretary of Labor committed error in its findings. We grant the petition.
The purpose of every certification election is to determine the exclusive
representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining. 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. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the
granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of
any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on
the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.
While there may be a genuine divergence of opinion as to whether or not union
members occupying Level 4 positions are supervisory employees, it is fairly obvious,
from a reading of the Labor Code's definition of the term that those 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. 21 
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution dated April 20,
1995 and Order dated July 14, 1995 of respondent Secretary of Labor are hereby
SET ASIDE. The Order dated September 28, 1994 of the Med-Arbiter is
REINSTATED.
G.R. No. 91902             May 20, 1991
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, STAFF AND
TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF MERALCO, and FIRST LINE
ASSOCIATION OF MERALCO SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, respondents.

Facts of the Case:

This petition seeks to review the Resolution of respondent Secretary of Labor and
Employment Franklin M. Drilon
Among others, the petition alleged that "while there exists a duly-organized union for
rank and file employees in Pay Grade I-VI, which is the MERALCO Employees and
Worker's Association (MEWA) which holds a valid CBA for the rank and file
employees,1 there is no other labor organization except STEAM-PCWF claiming to
represent the MERALCO employees.
The petition was premised on the exclusion/disqualification of certain MERALCO
employees pursuant to Art. I, Secs. 2 and 3 of the existing MEWA CBA as follows:
Further, the First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees
(FLAMES) is included as among the choices in the certification election.
Let, therefore, the pertinent records of the case be immediately forwarded to
the Office of origin for the conduct of the certification election.
SO ORDERED. (p. 7, Rollo)
Issue: Whether the Supervisory employees and security guards shall not be eligible
for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join,
assist or form separate labor organizations of their own?

On March 2, 1989, the present Congress passed RA 6715. 2 Section 18 thereof

amended Art. 245, to read as follows:
Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory
employees.—Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor
organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist, or form separate labor organizations of their own.
(emphasis ours)
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. We AFFIRM with modification
the Resolution of the Secretary of Labor dated November 3, 1989 upholding an
employee's right to self-organization. A certification election is hereby ordered
conducted among supervisory employees of MERALCO, belonging to Pay Grades
VII and above, using as guideliness an employee's power to either recommend or
execute management policies, pursuant to Art. 212 (m), of the Labor Code, as
amended by Sec. 4 of RA 6715, with respondents STEAM-PCWF and FLAMES as
choices.
Employees of the Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services Section and
Secretaries may freely join either the labor organization of the rank and file or that of
the supervisory union depending on their employee rank. Disqualified employees
The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued on February 26, 1990 is hereby
LIFTED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 110399 August 15, 1997
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND
ERNESTO L. PONCE, President, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA IN HIS CAPACITY AS
UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HONORABLE DANILO L.
REYNANTE IN HIS CAPACITY AS MED-ARBITER AND SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION, respondents.

Facts of the Case:

This is a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction
seeking to reverse and set aside the Order of public respondent, Undersecretary of
the Department of Labor and Employment, Bienvenido E. Laguesma, dated March
11, 1993, in Case No. OS MA A-2-70-911 entitled "In Re: Petition for Certification
Election Among the Supervisory and Exempt Employees of the San Miguel
Corporation Magnolia Poultry Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis, San
Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union, Petitioner." The Order excluded
the employees under supervisory levels 3 and 4 and the so-called exempt
employees from the proposed bargaining unit and ruled out their participation in the
certification election.

Issues:
Whether Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company
are considered confidential employees, hence ineligible from joining a union.

Ruling:
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.
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. 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. 5 The two criteria are
cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential
employee — that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee
and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities
relating to labor relations. 6
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. 25
WHEREFORE, the assailed Order of March 11, 1993 is hereby SET ASIDE and the
Order of the Med-Arbiter on December 19, 1990 is REINSTATED under which a
certification election among the supervisors (level 1 to 4) and exempt employees of
the San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San
Fernando, and Otis as one bargaining unit is ordered conducted.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-54334. January 22, 1986.]

KIOK LOY, doing business under the name and style SWEDEN ICE CREAM
PLANT, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and
PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN), Respondents.
Ablan and Associates for Petitioner.
Abdulcadir T. Ibrahim for Private Respondent.
Facts: Petition for CERTIORARI to annul the decision 1 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) dated July 20, 1979 which found petitioner Sweden
Ice Cream guilty of unfair labor practice for unjustified refusal to bargain, in violation
of par. (g) of Article 249 2 of the New Labor Code, 3 and declared the draft proposal
of the Union for a collective bargaining agreement as the governing collective
bargaining agreement between the employees and the management.chanrobles
virIn a certification election held on October 3, 1978, the Pambansang Kilusan ng
Paggawa (Union for short), a legitimate labor federation, won and was subsequently
certified in a resolution dated November 29, 1978 by the Bureau of Labor Relations
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of
Sweden Ice Cream Plant (Company for short). The Company’s motion for
reconsideration of the said resolution was denied on January 25, 1978.
Issue: Whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement approved and adopted by the
National Labor Relations Commission is unreasonable and lacks legal basis.
Ruling: The petition lacks merit.
We agree with the pronouncement that it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor
controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. But an
erring party should not be tolerated and allowed with impunity to resort to schemes
feigning negotiations by going through empty gestures. 13 More so, as in the instant
case, where the intervention of the National Labor Relations Commission was
properly sought for after conciliation efforts undertaken by the BLR failed. The instant
case being a certified one, it must be resolved by the NLRC pursuant to the mandate
of P.D. 873, as amended, which authorizes the said body to determine the
reasonableness of the terms and conditions of employment embodied in any
Collective Bargaining Agreement. To that extent, utmost deference to its findings of
reasonableness of any Collective Bargaining Agreement as the governing
agreement by the employees and management must be accorded due respect by
this Court.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order

issued on August 27, 1980, is LIFTED and SET ASIDE.