COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL V.
DOLE & CSBTI-SU-APSOTEU &  Under Article 245 of the Labor Code, supervisory employees are not eligible for
CSBTI-RAFU-ALU-TUCP
Salugsugan | Effect of affiliation with a National Union | 20 November 2006 | Quisumbing
SUMMARY: The rank-and-file union and supervisory union of the employer Coastal
Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. (CSBTI) filed separate petitions for certification election. The
employer opposed the petitions, stating that they were not legitimate labor
organizations because they were affiliated with two national federations which had a
common set of officers and were in effect affiliated with one and the same federation.
Before the SC, the employer argued that the two unions were engaged in commingling
and hence should not be allowed to file petitions for certification elections.
DOCTRINE: When there is commingling of officers of a rank-and-file union with a
supervisory union, the constitutional policy on labor is circumvented. Labor
organizations should ensure the freedom of employees to organize themselves for the
purpose of leveling the bargaining process but also to ensure the freedom of
workingmen and to keep open the corridor of opportunity to enable them to do it for
themselves.
FACTS:
 July 8, 1998 – Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. Rank-and-File Union (CSBTI-
RFU aka Rank and File Union) and Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc.
Supervisory Union (CSBTI-SU aka Supervisory Union) filed separate petitions
for certification election before the Med-Arbiter the Regional Office No. III.
o The rank-and-file union insists that it is a legitimate labor organization
having been issued a charter certificate by the Associated Labor
Union (ALU), and the supervisory union by the Associated
Professional, Supervisory, Office and Technical Employees Union
(APSOTEU). Both unions also alleged that the establishment in which
they sought to operate was unorganized.
 Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. (CSBTI aka Employer) opposed both
petitions for certification election alleging that unions were not legitimate labor
organizations, and that the proposed bargaining units were not particularly
described.
 Med-Arbiter: DISMISSED both petitions after finding that the ALU and
APSOTEU are one and the same federation having a common set of officers.
Thus, the supervisory and the rank-and-file unions were in effect affiliated with
only one federation. They appealed to the DOLE Secretary
 Secretary of Labor: REVERSED Med-Arbiter’s decision and ruled both unions
have separate legal personalities to file their separate petitions for certification
election.
o It further ruled that ALU and APSOTEU are separate and distinct labor
unions having separate certificates of registration from the DOLE. They
NOTES
also have different sets of locals.
 Under the rules implementing the Labor Code, a chartered local union
 CA: AFFIRMED Secretary of Labor’s decision. MR was denied.
acquires legal personality through the charter certificate issued by a duly
registered federation or national union, and reported to the Regional Office
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
in accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code.
1. Whether the two unions can file separate petitions for certification
elections and whether they were engaged in “commingling”? – NO, they
cannot file petitions for certification elections because they were engaged in
commingling.
membership in a labor union of rank-and-file employees because of potential
conflicts of interest.
o Further, a local supervisors’ union should not be allowed to affiliate with
the national federation of unions of rank-and-file employees where that
federation actively participates in the union activity within the company.
(Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma)
o Thus, 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.
(Atlas)
o In DLSU Medical Center and College of Medicine v. Laguesma, we
reiterated the rule that for the prohibition to apply, it is not enough that
the supervisory union and the rank-and-file union are affiliated with a
single federation. In addition, the supervisors must have direct
authority over the rank-and-file employees.
o APPLICATION IN THE CASE: The following circumstances are
present:
 ALU and APSOTEU have a common set of officers.
 In addition, APSOTEU, the supervisory federation, actively
participates in the CSBTI-SU while ALU, the rank-and-file
federation, actively participates in the CSBTI-RFU, giving
occasion to possible conflicts of interest among the
common officers of the federation of rank-and-file and the
federation of supervisory unions.
 THUS: For as long as they are affiliated with the APSOTEU and ALU, the
supervisory and rank-and-file unions both do not meet the criteria to attain the
status of legitimate labor organizations, and thus could not separately petition for
certification elections.
o When there is commingling of officers of a rank-and-file union with a
supervisory union, the constitutional policy on labor is circumvented.
o Labor organizations should ensure the freedom of employees to
organize themselves for the purpose of leveling the bargaining process
but also to ensure the freedom of workingmen and to keep open the
corridor of opportunity to enable them to do it for themselves.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated
August 31, 2001, in CA-G.R. SP No. 54128 and the Resolution dated February 5, 2003
are SET ASIDE. The decision of the Med-Arbiter is hereby AFFIRMED.
o 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. Mere
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 Hence, local unions are considered principals while the federation
is deemed to be merely their agent. As such principals, the unions
are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to seek certification as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit.