G.R. No.

196276, June 4, 2014 misrepresented the number of rank-and-file

Takata (Phils) Corp. vs. Bureau of Labor employees.
Relations
Issue:
Facts: WON there was misrepresentation on the
Petitioner filed with the DOLE a Petition for part of the respondent in the application for the
Cancellation of the Certificate of Union Registration registration of the union.
of Respondent Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng
Takata (SALAMAT) on the ground that the latter is Ruling:
guilty of misrepresentation, false statement and No.
fraud with respect to the number of those who
participated in the organizational meeting, the It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the
adoption and ratification of its Constitution and By- Labor Code that the attendees in the organizational
Laws, and in the election of its officers. meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in
Petitioner contended that in the the bargaining unit. In fact, even the Implementing
organizational meeting of respondent, only 68 Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code does not
attendees signed the attendance sheet or only 17% so provide.
of the total number of the 396 regular rank- and-file The 20% minimum requirement pertains to
employees which respondent sought to represent, the employees’ membership in the union and not to
and hence, respondent failed to comply with the the list of workers who participated in the
20% minimum membership requirement. organizational meeting. Indeed, Article 234 (b) and
Petitioner insisted that the document (c) provide for separate requirements, which must
"Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon" bore no be submitted for the union's registration, and which
signatures of the alleged 119 union members; and respondent did submit.
that employees were not given sufficient In the present case, the total number of
information on the documents they signed; that the employees in the bargaining unit was 396, and 20%
document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi" of which was about 79. Respondent submitted a
was not submitted at the time of the filing of document showing the names of 119 employees as
respondent's application for union registration. union members, thus respondent sufficiently
Respondent denied the charge and claimed complied even beyond the 20% minimum
that the 119 union members were more than the membership requirement.
20% requirement for union registration. The
document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi sa
Unyon" which it presented in its petition for
certification election supported their claim of 119
members. Respondent also contended that
petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal
personality as it agreed to a certificate election and
actively participated in the pre-election conference
of the certification proceedings.
Respondents argued that the union
members were informed of the contents of the
documents they signed and that the 68 attendees
to the organizational meeting constituted more than
50% of the total union membership. Hence, a
quorum existed for the conduct of the said meeting.
DOLE Regional Director granted the petition
for cancellation of respondent's certificate of
registration.
BLR: reversed the decision of the DOLE
RD, finding that petitioner failed to prove that
respondent deliberately and maliciously
G.R. No. 96425, February 4, 1992 statement on the set of officers, and the books of
Progressive Development Corporation vs. accounts all of which are certified under oath by the
Secretary secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such
local or chapter, and attested to by its president.
Facts: Absent compliance with these mandatory
Respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng requirements, the local or chapter does not become
Paggawa (KILUSAN) -TUCP filed with DOLE a a legitimate labor organization.
petition for certification election among the rank- The certification and attestation
and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it requirements are preventive measures against the
is a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, commission of fraud. They likewise afford a
Progressive Development Employees Union, was measure of protection to unsuspecting employees
issued with a charter certificate. who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-
KILUSAN claimed that there was no existing by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control
collective bargaining agreement and that no other union funds or to use the union for dubious ends.
legitimate labor organization existed in the
bargaining unit.
Progressive Development filed its motion to
dismiss the petition 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.
KILUSAN-TUCP submitted a rejoinder to
Progressive's motion to dismiss claiming that it had
submitted the necessary documentary
requirements for registration. Kilusan further
averred that no books of accounts could be
submitted as the local union was only recently
organized.
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.

Issue:
WON private respondents failed to
substantially comply with the registration
requirements.

Ruling:
Ordinarily, a labor organization acquires
legitimacy only upon registration with the BLR. A
local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate
labor organization only upon submission of the
charter certificate, constitution and by-laws, a
 “does not intend to change and/or amend the
provisions of the present collective bargaining
G.R. No. L-41955, December 29, 1977 agreement but only to be given the chance to
Elisco-Elirol Labor Union (NAFLU) vs. Noriel enforce the same since there is a shift of allegiance
in the majority of the employees at respondent
Facts: company.
In the present case, a CBA was negotiated In formulating the “substitutionary” doctrine,
and executed between the petitioner union and the only consideration involved was the employees’
Elizaled Steel while the former is yet to be interest in the existing bargaining agreement. The
registered with the BLR. agent’s interest never entered the picture.
Upon registration, at a special meeting, the
genereal membership of petitioner union decided to
disaffiliate from NAFLU, its mother union.
Subsequently, the union informed the
company by means of a letter of its disaffiliation
and requested the company to recognize them as
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees of the company.
However, the company without justifiable
reason refused and continued to refuse to
recognize the union as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees and
actually dismissed the union officers and board
members.
By virtue of said refusal, petitioners filed a
petition before the BLR against respondent
company, and NAFLU be ordered to stop from
presenting itself as the collective bargaining agent.

Issue:
WON the petitioner union should be
recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees of the respondent
company and not NAFLU.

Ruling:
Yes.
Elisco-Elirol Labor Union-NAFLU, consisting
of employees and members of the local union was
the principal party to the agreement. NAFLU as the
“mother union” in participation in the execution of
the bargaining agreement with respondent
company acted merely as agent of the local union,
which remained the basic unit of the association
existing principally and freely to serve the common
interest of all its members, including the freedom to
disaffiliated when the circumstances so warranted
as in the present case.
Corollarily, the “substitutionary” doctrine
likewise fully supports petitioner’s stand. Petitioner
union to whom the employees owe their allegiance
has from the beginning expressly avowed that it
G.R. No. L-46509, November 26, 1978
Chrysler Philippines vs. Estrella

Facts:
Chrysler Philippines has been duly
registered as a labor organization as early as 1965
with an independent certificate of registration. It
remained the same registration when it affiliated
with Associated Labor Union (ALU) in 1974 and
had its name changed to Chrysler Philippines Labor
Union.
In 1977, it filed a petition for Direct
Certification with Preliminary Injunction with the
BLR wherein it alleged that the ALU is claiming to
represent the workers as the bargaining unit but it
represents the minority. Petitioner union prayed
that the BLR, after proper proceedings, directly
certify them as the exclusive bargaining agent of
the workers.
Petitioner union members in an attached
general membership resolution, alleged that they
have no knowledge and have not authorized ALU
to amend and to change their union’s name through
another registration certificate. Furthermore, they
alleged to maintain as an independent labor
organization and disaffiliate from the ALU and to
maintain membership with petitioner union.

Issue:
WON CPLU has the legal personality to file
a petition for certification election notwithstanding
its disaffiliation from Associated Labor Union.

Ruling:
Yes, petitioner has legal personality to file a
petition for certification election notwithstanding its
disaffiliation from ALU.
There is nothing in the Labor Code which
provides that a duly registered local union which
disaffiliates with a national union or federation loses
its legal personality, much less is there any
provision which requires that upon the disaffiliation,
it should register anew to be entitled to all the rights
and privileges of a duly registered labor union.
On the contrary, the Labor Code expressly
allows disaffiliation for the purpose of operating as
an independent labor organization.
 including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare its
autonomy from the federation to which it belongs
when circumstances warrant, in accordance with
the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
G.R. No. 113907, February 28, 2000 association.
Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. There is no disloyalty to speak of, neither is
Greenfield (MSMG-UWP) vs. Ramos there any violation of the federation's constitution
because there is nothing in the said constitution
Facts: which specifically prohibits disaffiliation or
Malayang Samahan is an affiliate of United declaration of autonomy.
Lumber (federation). A local union election was Hence, there cannot be any valid dismissal
held under the action of the federation. The because Article II, Section 4 of the union security
defeated candidates filed a petition for clause in the CBA limits the dismissal to only three
impeachment. Malayang Samahan held a general (3) grounds, to wit: failure to maintain membership
membership meeting. Several union members in the union (1) for non-payment of union dues, (2)
failed to attend the meeting. It then requested the for resignation; and (3) for violation of the union's
company to deduct the union fines from the wage Constitution and By-Laws.
of those union members who failed to attend the
general membership meeting. The imposition of the
fine became the subject of a bitter disagreement
between United Lumber and Malayang Samahan
culminating to the latter’s declaration of general
autonomy from the former.
United Lumber asked the company to stop
the remittance of the local union’s share in the
education funds. It also called a meeting placing
the Malayang Samahan under trusteeship and
appointed an administrator.
Malayag Samahan officers received letters
from the administrator requiring them to explain
why they should not be removed from the office
and expelled from union membership. The officers
were expelled from the federation. United Lumber
advised the company of the expulsion of the 30
union officers and demanded their separation
pursuant to the Union Security Clause in the CBA.
It filed a notice of strike with the NCMB to compel
the company to effect the immediate termination of
the expelled union officers. Under the pressure of a
strike, the company terminated the 30 union
officers from employment.

Issue:
WON petitioner has the right to disaffiliate
from its mother union.

Ruling:
Yes.
A local union has the right to disaffiliate from
its mother union or declare its autonomy. A local
union, being a separate and voluntary association,
is free to serve the interests of all its members
 a deadlocked collective bargaining agreement
negotiations between the PLDT and the Union.

Issue:
WON there was a valid check-off.
G.R. No. L-70067, September 15, 1986
Galvadores vs. Trajano
Ruling:
Facts: No. The attorney’s fees that is due to Atty.
Respondent Counsel has been the legal Espina in view of his services in the collective
counsel of respondent Union since 1964. For his bargaining negotiations between PLDT and the
services, he was hired on a case-to-case union which resulted to a deadlock, according to
contingent fee basis. the SC, is not considered as an exemption to the
The Executive Board of the Union passed a rule that it is not necessary that there is individual
resolution requesting PLDT to deduct P115.00 per authorization. The law is clear that no check-offs
employee for the legal services extended to the from any amounts due employees may be effected
Union by respondent Counsel. without individual written authorizations duly signed
Petitioners filed a letter-complaint before the by the employee.
MOLE through their authorized representative, Contrary to respondent Union’s and
petitioner Carlos Galvadores assailing the Counsel’s stand, the benefits awarded to PLDT
imposition of P115 per employee as attorney's fees employees still formed part of the collective
of respondents’ counsel. Petitioners took the bargaining negotiations although placed already
position that the attorney's fees of respondent under compulsory arbitration. This is not
counsel were not only unreasonable but also considered a “mandatory activity” which dispenses
violative of Article 242(o) of the Labor Code; and the individual written authorization requirement.
that the deductions cannot given legal effect by a The cardinal principle should be borne in mind that
mere Board resolution but needs the ratification by employees are protected by law from unwarranted
the general membership of the Union. practices that diminish their compensation without
Respondents Union and Counsel, on the their knowledge and consent.
other hand, proffered the argument that the Therefore, an individual authorization is
attorney s fees being exacted pertained to his necessary before the same can be checked-off
services during compulsory arbitration proceedings from the individual monetary benefits of the PLDT
and cannot be considered as negotiation fees or employees.
attorney's fees and that contrary to petitioners'
claim that Respondent Counsel surfaced only as
lawyer of the Union when the employees
themselves engaged in mass action to force a
solution to the deadlock in their negotiations.
Petitioners proposed a solution offering to pay
P10.00 per employee, but Respondent Counsel
refused.
Petitioner employees of the Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) and
members of respondent Free Telephone Workers
Union, now the Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa
Pilipinas (simply referred to hereinafter as the
Union), question the legality of the check-off for
attorney's fees amounting to P1M, more or less, of
respondent Atty. Jose C. Espinas (hereinafter
referred to as "Respondent Counsel") from the
monetary benefits awarded to PLDT employees in
G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015
Samahan ng Mangagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard vs.
Bureau of Labor Relations

Facts:
Samahan filed for their registration as a
workers’ association. Hanjin Industries prayed for
the cancellation of registration on the grounds that,
first, most of the employees had definite employers
and should have formed a union instead, and
second, that the name Hanjin Shipyard should be
dropped as the members are not official employees
of the company.

Issue:
WON Samahan can form a worker’s
association.

Ruling:
The SC clarified that there is no prohibition
for definitely employed members of society to form
workers’ associations, the people are given the
choice as to whether they will form a union or a
workers’ association.
More often than not, the right to self-
organization connotes unionism. Workers,
however, can also form and join a worker’s
association as well as labor management councils.
Expressed in the highest law of the land is the right
of all workers to self-organization. Art. 252 of the
LC provides that the right of all workers to self-
organization which includes the right to form, join or
assist labor organization for the purpose of
collective bargaining through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in lawful
concerted activities for the same purpose for the
mutual aid and protection.
Furthermore, workers shall have the right to
participate in policy and decision-making processes
of the establishment where they are employed
insofar as said processes will directly affect their
rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose,
workers and employers may form labor
management council.
 Ruling:
A cooperative is, by its nature, different from
an ordinary business concern being run either by
persons, partnerships, or corporations. Its owners
and/or members are the ones who run and operate
the business while the others are its employees.
An employee therefore of such a
cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof
G.R. No. L-77951, September 26, 1988 cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for
Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or
Pura Ferrer Calleja, et. al. his co-owners.
However, in so far as it involves
Facts: cooperatives with employees who are not members
Petitioner Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are
City, Inc. is a cooperative banking corporation entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to
operating in Davao City. It is owned in part by the organization, collective bargaining, negotiations
Government and its employees are members and and others as are enshrined in the Constitution and
co-owners of the same. The petitioner has around existing laws of the country.
16 rank-and-file employees.
As of August 1986, there was no existing
collective bargaining agreement between the said
employees and the establishment. On the other
hand, the herein private respondent Federation of
Free Workers is a labor organization registered with
the Department of Labor and Employment. It is
interested in representing the said employees for
purposes of collective bargaining.
Private respondent filed with the Ministry of
Labor and Employment a verified Petition for
certification election among the rank-and-file
employees of the petitioner. Herein public
respondent issued an Order granting the Petition
for certification election.
Petitioner filed an Appeal Memorandum and
sought a reversal of the Order of the Med-Arbiter.
The petitioner argued therein that, among others, a
cooperative is not covered by the Rules governing
certification elections inasmuch as it is not an
institution operating for profit. The petitioner also
adds that two of the alleged rank-and-file
employees seeking the certification election are
managerial employees disqualified from joining
concerted labor activities. In sum, the petitioner
insists that its employees are disqualified from
forming labor organizations for purposes of
collective bargaining.

Issue:
WON the employees of a cooperative can
organize themselves for purposes of collective
bargaining.

G.R. No. 84433, June 2, 1992
Reyes vs. Trajano
Facts:
Public Respondent Trajano as OIC of the
Bureau of Labor Relations sustained the denial by
the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred
forty-one members of the “Iglesia ni Kristo” (INK),
all employed in the same company, at a
certification election at which two labor
organizations were contesting the right to be the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit.
The certification election was authorized to
be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations
among the employees of Tri-Union Industries
Corporation. The competing unions were Tri-Union
Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in
Line Industries and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA),
and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied
Services (TUPAS).
The challenged votes were those cast by
the 141 INK members. They were segregated and
excluded from the final count in virtue of an
agreement between the competing unions, reached
at the pre-election conference, that the INK
members should not be allowed to vote “because
they are not members of any union and refused to
participate in the previous certification elections.”
The INK employees promptly filed a petition
to cancel the election alleging that it “was not fair”
and the result thereof did “not reflect the true
sentiments of the majority of the employees.”
TUEU-OLALIA opposed the petition contending
that the petitioners “do not have legal personality to
protest the results of the election,” because “they
are not members of either contending unit, but . . .
of the INK” which prohibits its followers, on religious
grounds, from joining or forming any labor
organization.
Issue:
WON employees who are not part of any
union may validly exercise their right to vote in a
certification election.
Ruling:
YES. Guaranteed to all employees or
workers is the “right to self-organization and to
form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.
The right of self-organization includes the
right to organize or affiliate with a labor union or
determine which of two or more unions in an
establishment to join, and to engage in concerted
activities with co-workers for purposes of collective
bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing, or for their mutual aid and protection, i.e.,
the protection, promotion, or enhancement of their
rights and interests.
The right to form or join a labor organization
necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain
from exercising said right. The fact that a person
has opted to acquire membership in a labor union
does not preclude his subsequently opting to
renounce such membership.
The purpose of a certification election is
precisely the ascertainment of the wishes of the
majority of the employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented by a
labor organization.
If the results of the election should disclose
that the majority of the workers do not wish to be
represented by any union, then their wishes must
be respected, and no union may properly be
certified as the exclusive representative of the
workers in the bargaining unit in dealing with the
employer regarding wages, hours and other terms
and conditions of employment.
The respondents’ 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 file, under RA 6715, they may now freely join a
labor organization or not. labor organization of the rank and file or that of the
supervisory union, depending on their rank.
However, there are possible consequences
in the implementation of the law in allowing security
personnel to join labor unions within the company
they serve. The law is apt to produce divided
loyalties in the faithful performance of their duties.
Economic reasons would present the employees
concerned with the temptation to subordinate their
G.R. No. 91902, May 20, 1991 duties to the allegiance they owe the union of which
Manila Electric Co. vs. Secretary of Labor and they are members, aware as they are that it is
Employment, et. al. usually union action that obtains for them increased
pecuniary benefits.
Facts: Thus, in the event of a strike declared by
The Staff and Technical Employees their union, security personnel may neglect or
Association of MERALCO (STEAM-PCWF), a labor outrightly abandon their duties, such as protection
organization of staff and technical employees of of property of their employer and the persons of its
MERALCO, filed a petition for certification election, officials and employees, the control of access to the
seeking to represent regular employees of employer’s premises, and the maintenance of order
MERALCO who are non-managerial employees in the event of emergencies and untoward
with Pay Grades VII, non-managerial employees incidents.
in the Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services
Section, Secretaries who are automatically
removed from the bargaining unit and employees
within the rank and file unit who are automatically
disqualified from becoming union members of any
organization within the same bargaining unit.
MERALCO moved for the dismissal of the
petition on the grounds that the employees sought
to be represented by petitioner are either
managerial who are prohibited by law from forming
or joining supervisory union, security services
personnel who are prohibited from joining or
assisting the rank-and-file union, secretaries who
do not consent to the petitioner’s representation
and whom petitioner cannot represent, and rank-
and-file employees represented by the certified or
duly recognized bargaining representative of the
only rank-and-file bargaining unit in the company.

Issue:
WON managerial employees, Supervisory
employees and security guards may join the rank-
and-file union.

Ruling:
Art. 245 of the Labor Code provides that
Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist
or form any labor organization. While therefore
under the old rules, security guards were barred
from joining a labor organization of the rank and

G.R. No. 110399, August 15, 1997
San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and
Exempt Union vs. Laguesma
Facts:
Petitioner union filed before the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Petition for
Direct Certification or Certification Election among
the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC
Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San
Fernando and Otis.
Med-Arbiter Danilo L. Reynante issued an
Order ordering the conduct of certification election
among the supervisors and exempt employees of
the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of
Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis as one
bargaining unit.
Respondent San Miguel Corporation
opposed pointing out, among others, the Med-
Arbiter’s error in grouping together all three (3)
separate plants, Otis, Cabuyao and San Fernando,
into one bargaining unit, and in including
supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions are
confidential in nature.
Issue:
WON Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and
the exempt employees of the company are
considered confidential employees, hence ineligible
from joining a union.
Ruling:
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.
The exclusion from bargaining units of
employees who, in the normal course of their
duties, become aware of management policies
relating to labor relations is a principal objective
sought to be accomplished by the “confidential
employee rule.” The broad rationale behind this rule
is that employees should not be placed in a position
involving a potential conflict of interests. An
important element of the “confidential employee
rule” is the employee’s need to use labor relations
information. Thus, in determining the confidentiality
of certain employees, a key question frequently
considered is the employee’s necessary access to
confidential labor relations information.
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.” In the case at bar,
supervisors 3 and above may not be considered
confidential employees merely because they
handle “confidential data” as such must first be
strictly classified as pertaining to labor relations for
them to fall under said restrictions.
The information they handle are properly
classifiable as technical and internal business
operations data which, to our mind, has no
relevance to negotiations and settlement of
grievances wherein the interests of a union and the
management are invariably adversarial. Since the
employees are not classifiable under the
confidential type, this Court rules that they may
appropriately form a bargaining unit for purposes of
collective bargaining. Furthermore, even assuming
that they are confidential employees, jurisprudence
has established that there is no legal prohibition
against confidential employees who are not
performing managerial functions to form and join a
union.
 Ruling:
As a general rule, the inclusion of the
employees that are ineligible to join a labor
organization is not a ground for cancellation of
union registration, UNLESS, their inclusion was
through misrepresentation, false statement, or
fraud.
Clearly then, for the purpose of decertifying
a union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-
and-file union includes ineligible employees in its
membership.
It must be shown that there is
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
G.R. No. 172132, July 23, 2014 connection with the adoption or ratification of the
The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. Secretary of constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto,
Labor and Employment the minutes of ratification, or in connection with the
election of officers, minutes of the election of
Facts: officers, list of voters, or failure to submit these
Respondents filed a petition for certification documents together with the list of the newly
of pre-election with the DOLE. The Med-Arbiter elected-appointed officers and their postal
approved the pre-election. However, the addresses to the BLR.
certification election was delayed, but pushed
through nonetheless. Petitioner filed for
cancellation of the certification due to the failure of
respondent to submit its financial statements to the
Bureau of Labor Relations.
The Med-Arbiter still ruled in favor of
respondents. Petitioner appealed the decision to
the regional director of the DOLE.
The Regional director still rendered a
decision in favor of respondents, which prompted
petitioners to appeal the decision to the director of
the Bureau of Labor Relations. The director of the
BLR inhibited from the issue, as he was previously
the counsel of respondents. The Secretary of Labor
resolved the issue in the stead of the BLR director.
She ruled in favor of respondents.
The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision, but was turned
down. Petitioner then filed for certiorari, challenging
the jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary. An appeal
from the decision of the Regional Director is
supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the BLR.
Also, petitioner claims to have been deprived of
due process as it was not informed of the inhibition
of the BLR director.

Issue:
WON the inclusion of the employees that
are ineligible to join a labor organization, a ground
for cancellation of union registration.
 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 judgment. All employees not falling
within any of the above definitions are considered
rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book.'

There are, therefore, two kinds of managerial

employees under Art. 212 of the Labor Code.
Those who 'lay down management policies', such
as the Board of Trustees, and those who 'execute
management policies and/or hire, transfer,
suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees'.
G.R. No. 207971, January 23, 2017
Asian Institute of Management vs. Asian
Institute of Management Faculty Association

Facts:
On May 16, 2007, respondent filed a petition for
certification election6 seeking to represent a
bargaining unit in AIM consisting of forty faculty
members. Petitioner opposed the petition, claiming
that respondent's members are neither rank-and-
file nor supervisory, but rather, and managerial
employees. On July 11, 2007, petitioner filed a
petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate
of registration on the grounds of misrepresentation
in registration and that respondent is composed of
managerial employees who are prohibited from
organizing as a union.

Issues:

Whether or not the members of AIMFA are

managerial employees.

Held:

The Supreme Court finds the employees to be

managerial employees.
Article 212 of the Labor Code defines managerial
employees as:
ART. 212. Definitions.
Managerial employee' is 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. Supervisory employees are
those who, in the interest of the employer,
G.R. No. 193798, September 9, 2015
Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Ilocos
Professional and Technical Employees Union
(IPTEU)

Facts: