CASE NO.

# (Name of Person who made Digest)

NAME v NAME
GR | Date | Topic
Petitioner:
Respondent:

Recit ready summary of case with ruling:

Doctrine:
***Indicate if mahaba yung case i.e. exceeding 20 pages**
FACTS:
1. Main Fact
Sub fact
ISSUES:
RULING:
1. Ruling:
a. Sub-ruling

● PLS do not exceed 3 pages unless di talaga kaya.

● Exclude unnecessary facts.
● Make it short for everyone’s benefit.
● If the SC cited a provision pls indicate the updated provision number kasi
laging narerevise ang labor code
● Indicate if medjo sabaw yung case and medjo di na gets ng digester para
we can fix it as a group (not all cases are equal haha).
● Use PETITIONER and RESPONDENT, or the names of parties. Pls do not
use Plaintiff/defendant.
● [Add other rules as necessary]

1
CASE NO. 1 (Aniwer)
Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 164561, August 30, 2006
G.R. No. 164561 | Aug. 30, 2006 | Workers with right of self-organization
Petitioner: CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION, BENJAMIN CHUA
JR., VIRGILIO AGERO, and LEONARDO VISORRO, JR.
Respondent: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CAPASCO UNION OF
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES (CUSE) and ENRIQUE TAMONDONG III
Recit ready summary of case with ruling:
Tamandong, a Personnel Superintendent of CAPASCO, was dismissed by
ISSUES:
CAPASCO for his joining and participating in the labor union, CUSE. CAPASCO
W/N Tamandong is not eligible to join or participate in the union activities.
reasoned out that his position and function, an alleged managerial employee, is
incompatible and in conflict with his union activities.
RULING:
The SC clarified that Tamandong is a supervisory employee and not a managerial
employee. While the Art. 245 (now 255) of the Labor Code disqualifies
managerial employees to join, participate, form or assist in a labor organization, a
supervisory employee is not disqualified from joining, participating, forming, and
assisting a labor organization or union.
Doctrine: While the Art. 245 (now 255) of the Labor Code disqualifies managerial
employees to join, participate, form or assist in a labor organization, a supervisory
employee is not disqualified from joining, participating, forming, and assisting a
labor organization or union.
***Indicate if mahaba yung case i.e. exceeding 20 pages**
FACTS:
1. Four employees of CAPASCO, a domestic corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing steel products, filed an illegal dismissal and ULP
case before the NLRC.
a. In the course of the proceedings, three of them signed quitclaims.
Only Tamandong remained.
2. CAPASCO hired Tamandong as Asst. to the Personnel Manager. He was
later promoted to Personnel Superintendent.
3. Later on, the supervisory personnel of CAPASCO organized a union
(CUSE), in which Tamandong was even elected as one of its officers.
CAPASCO then required Tamandong to explain and to discontinue from
his union activities, with a warning that a continuance thereof shall
adversely affect his employment in the company/
4. Tamandong ignored the warning, invoking his right as a supervisory
employee to join and organize a labor union.
5. CAPASCO then terminated Tamandong on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence, citing his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty
to the company.
6. The LA ruled in favor of Tamandong.
7. The NLRC reversed the LA ruling.
8. The CA reinstated the LA ruling.
9. Before the SC, CAPASCO argued that Tamondong was validly dismissed
and the reason for preventing him to join a labor union was the nature of his
position and functions as Personnel Superintendent, a managerial employee,
which position was incompatible and in conflict with his union activities.
1. NO. The Court clarified that Tamandong is a supervisory employee and not
a managerial employee, thus, eligible to join or participate in the union
activities. Records show that:
a. Tamondong observes a fixed daily working hours from 8:00 am to
12:00 noon and from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. This imposition upon
Tamondong, according to the CA, is very uncharacteristic of a
managerial employee;
b. While he may have possessed enormous powers and was
performing important functions that goes with the position of
Personnel Superintendent, nevertheless, there was no clear
showing that he is at liberty, by using his own discretion and
disposition, to lay down and execute major business and
operational policies for and in behalf of CAPASCO;
c. Tamondong may have been exercising certain important powers,
such as control and supervision over erring rank-and-file
employees, however, x x x he does not possess the power to hire,
transfer, terminate, or discipline erring employees of the company.
At the most, the record merely showed that [private respondent]
Tamondong informed and warned rank-and-file employees with
respect to their violations of CAPASCO’s rules and regulations.
2. While the Art. 245 (now 255) of the Labor Code disqualifies managerial
employees to join, participate, form or assist in a labor organization, a
supervisory employee is not disqualified by the provision from joining,
participating, forming, and assisting a labor organization or union.
3. Hence, Tamandong, a supervisory employee, is allowed to participate in the
union, and it is indeed an ULP on the part of CAPASCO to dismiss him on
account of his union activities.
2
CASE NO. 2 (Marasigan)
FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION vs. FILOIL SUPERVISORY &
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
G.R. No. L-26736 | August 18, 1972 | Supervisors
Petitioner: FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION
Respondent: FILOIL SUPERVISORY & CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Recit ready summary of case with ruling: Respondent association is composed
exclusively of the supervisory and confidential employees of petitioner
corporation. Petitioner alleges that supervisors are not employees within the
meaning of RA 875, the Industrial Peace Act (IPA). Since they are part of
management, they do not have the right to bargain collectively although they may
organize an organization on their own. Respondent Court ruled in favor of
respondent organization and held that Supervisors were enfranchised by Congress
to organize themselves into a labor organization and were not denied the right to
strike. The right to strike was not denied them since no special reason obtains
abome supervisors as it does obtain about government employees. The Supreme
Court upheld the decision of the respondent Court. Supervisors may form its own
labor organization. See Doctrine.
Doctrine: A supervisor has dual status – representative of management and as an
employee 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 through representations of their
own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection and that individuals employed as
supervisors may form separate organizations of their own.
FACTS: [Sorry if the structure is confusing. The Decision is confusing also.]
1. Respondent association is a labor organization duly registered with the
Department of Labor. It is composed exclusively of the supervisory and
confidential employees of petitioner corporation.
2. Filoil Employees & Workers Association (FEWA) is another distinct labor
association composed of the corporation’s rank and file employees.
Petitioner executed a CBA with FEWA (Union of the rank-and-file
employees), which expressly excluded from its coverage petitioner’s
supervisory and confidential employees.
3. Respondent association filed a petition for certification as the sole and
exclusive collective bargaining agent of all of petitioner’s supervisory and
confidential employees working at its refinery in Rosario, Cavite.
4. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of lack of
cause of action and of respondent court’s lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter. It alleged that supervisors are not employees within the
meaning of RA 875, the Industrial Peace Act (IPA). Since they are part of
management, they do not have the right to bargain collectively although
they may organize an organization on their own.
5. RESPONDENT COURT (CIR): Sec. 3, IPA states that “Individuals
employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
organization of employees under their supervision but may form separate
organizations of their own.”
a. It rejected petitioner’s claim against respondent association’s right
to bargain collectively. It stated that if the Congress deemed it wise
for supervisors not to have the right to strike, then it should have
been so expressly stated as in the case of government employees.
b. This entails that the Congress was aware of the implication that
when supervisors were given the right to organize themselves into
a labor organization, they have the correlative right to declare
strike.
c. Supervisors were enfranchised by Congress to organize themselves
into a labor organization and were not denied the right to strike.
The right to strike was not denied them since no special reason
obtains abome supervisors as it does obtain about government
employees.
d. Respondent Court also stated that supervisors as a general rule
should form an association of their own and should exclude all
other types of personnel unless a special consideration exists. One
instance is when they are so few in number and that there are other
technical men or confidential men equally few in number. In this
case, supervisors, technical men, and confidential employees may
be constituted into one unit.
e. Petitioner’s MRw as denied and no appeal has been taken from the
resolution.
6. Petitioner was proposing that the 47 members should be broken up into 5
separate collective bargaining units:
a. Supervisors should form a distinct unit separate from the rest of
the personnel.
b. Personnel should be divided into separate and independent units or
confidential employees, professional personnel, fringe employees
(5 firemen and 12 office and clerical employees).
7. RESPONDENT COURT’S ORDER (July 23, 1966): Evidence was
received by respondent court and it was satisfied that executive personnel
handling personnel matters for the employer were duly excluded from
respondent association. Thus, it is noted that "not one of the employees
listed under Groups I and II including '(their supervisor) Leonardo R.
Santos under Group III, is a member of (respondent association)", since "It
3
 appears that the personnel listed under Groups I and Group II are in the to their employer, the company which is owned by the "stockholders
category of executives who have supervision over the supervisors who are and bondholders (capital)" in petitioner's own words, and should
members of (respondent association) and that Marcelo Bernardo handles therefore be entitled under the law to bargain collectively with the top
personnel matters of the employer. All of them should, therefore, be management with respect to their terms and conditions of employment.
excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit." ● The other principal ground of petitioner's appeal questioning the
a. The Respondent Court also held that since the confidential confidential employees' inclusion in the supervisors' bargaining unit is
employees are very few, they were allowed to be included in the equally untenable. Respondent court correctly held that since the
bargaining unit of supervisors. confidential employees are very few in number and are by practice and
b. Petitioner’s suggestion that the bargaining units should be divided tradition identified with the supervisors in their role as representatives of
into 5 was shut down by the Respondent Court as it would not management vis-a-vis the rank and file employees, such identity of interest
serve the interest of industrial peace. A small union with scanty has allowed their inclusion in the bargaining unit of supervisors-managers
members will greatly impair their organizational value. for purposes of collective bargaining in turn as employees in relation to the
8. Respondent Court certified respondent organization as the sole and company as their employer.
exclusive bargaining agent for all the employees in the unit. ● No arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion can be attributed against
9. Petitioner comes to the SC arguing that supervisors form part of respondent court's allowing the inclusion of the confidential employees in
management and are not considered as employees entitled to bargain the supervisors' association for as admitted by petitioner itself, supra, the
collectively, arguing that as supervisors form part and parcel of supervisors and confidential employees enjoy its trust and confidence This
management, it is absurd for management to bargain collectively with itself. identity of interest logically calls for their inclusion in the same bargaining
unit and at the same time fulfills the law's objective of insuring to them the
ISSUES: W/N supervisors are allowed to form their own organization? YES. full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining,
which could hardly be accomplished if the respondent association's
RULING: membership were to be broken up into five separate ineffective tiny units,
● [Stated in the Module] Petitioner's argument that since supervisors form part as urged by petitioner.
of management, to allow them to bargain collectively would be tantamount ● Petition dismissed.
to management bargaining with itself may be a well-turned phrase but
ignores the dual status of a supervisor as a representative of
management and as an employee.
● If indeed the supervisor is absolutely undistinguishable from management,
then he would be beyond removal or dismissal, for as respondent
association counters, "how can management remove or dismiss itself?"
● AG&P v. CIR: 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
through representations of their own choosing and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection and that individuals employed as supervisors may form separate
organizations of their own. Indeed, it is well settled that in relation to his
employer, a foreman or supervisor is an employee within the meaning of the
Act. For this reason, supervisors are entitled to engage in union activities
and any discrimination against them by reason thereof constitutes an
unfair labor practice.
● IPA grants supervisors the right to organize and bargain collectively, which
are beyond the Court’s power of review. Supervisors and confidential
employees, even though they may exercise the prerogatives of management
as regards the rank and file employees, are indeed employees in relation

4

CASE NO. #3 (Rigor)
Paper Industries Corp. v. Laguesma
G.R. No. 101738, April 12, 2000 | Managerial Employees
Petitioner: Paper Industries Corporation (PICOP)
Public Respondent: Hon, Bienvenido Laguesma, Secretary of Labor and
Employment
Private Respondent: PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees
Union (PBSTSEU)
Recit ready: The Petitioner employer objected to the inclusion of some section
heads and supervisors in participating in the Certification Election to determine
the sole bargaining agent of employees for CBA purposes. They said that these
officers had power to hire and fire so they are managerial employees barred by the
Labor Code from participating.
The SC ruled in favor of allowing said employees to join the union. The Court
distinguished managers and supervisors, pointing that the employees were actually
only supervisory employees that do not lay down company policies.
Doctrine:
Managerial employees fall in two 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.
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
FACTS:
1. PICOP is engaged in the manufacture of paper and timber products.
2. It has over 9,000 employees, 944 of whom are supervisory and technical
staff employees. More or less 487 of these supervisory and technical staff
employees are signatory members of PBSTSEU (supervisory and technical
staff union)
3. PBSTSEU instituted a Petition for Certification Election to determine the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory and technical staff
employees of PICOP for CBA purposes.
4. During the pre-election conference, PICOP objected to the inclusion of
some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it
averred were re-classified as managerial employees in the light of the
reorganization.
5. Under the Revised Organizational Structure of the PICOP, the company
was divided into 4 main business groups, namely: Paper Products Business,
Timber Products Business, Forest Resource Business and Support Services
Business.
a. A vice-president or assistant vice-president heads each of these
business groups.
b. A division manager heads the divisions comprising each business
group.
c. A department manager heads the departments comprising each
division.
d. Section heads and supervisors, now called section managers and
unit managers, head the sections and independent units,
respectively, comprising each department.
6. PICOP advanced the view that considering the alleged present authority of
these section managers and unit managers to hire and fire, they are
classified as managerial employees, and hence, ineligible to form or join
any labor organization.
7. Med-Arbiter Pura issued an Order holding that supervisors and section
heads of the petitioner are managerial employees excluded from the list of
voters for purposes of certification election.
8. Laguesma, Secretary of Labor, set aside the Order of the Med-Arbiter and
declared that the subject supervisors and section heads are supervisory
employees eligible to vote in the certification election.
PICOP sought reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, PICOP’s filing of the
petition for certiorari seeking to annul the resolution.
ISSUES: WON positions of Section Heads and Supervisors, who have been
designated as Section Managers and Unit Managers were converted to managerial
employees under the decentralization and reorganization program and hence,
ineligible for union membership under Article 245 of the Labor Code. (NO)
RULING:
(Also see doctrine)
5
 1. 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.
2. PICOP's contention that the subject section heads and unit managers
exercise the authority to hire and fire is quite misleading because the
authority they exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in
character.
a. Theirs is not a final determination of the company policies
inasmuch as any action taken by them on matters relative to hiring,
promotion, transfer, suspension and termination of employees is
still subject to confirmation and approval by their respective
superior.
b. Thus, where such power, which is in effect recommendatory in
character, is subject to evaluation, review and final action by the
department heads and other higher executives of the company, the
same, although present, is not effective and not an exercise of
independent judgment as required by law.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the Resolution and Order of
public respondent Laguesma finding the subject supervisors and section heads as
supervisory employees eligible to vote in the certification election are AFFIRMED.

6
Case No. 4 (ALON)
Metrolab Industries, Inc v. Roldan-Confesor
GR No. 108855 | February 28, 1996 | Confidential Employees
Petitioner: Metrolab Industries, Inc
Respondent: Hon. Ma. Nieves Roldan-Confesor (in her capacity as Sec. of
DOLE), and Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association-Federation of Free
Workers
Recit ready summary of case with ruling:
The CBA of the Union and Metrolab had expired. They then entered into a CBA
negotiation but was met with a deadlock. Since the deadlock was neither resolved,
this prompted the Union to file a notice of strike against Metrolab. The SOLE
assumped jurisdiction over the dispute since the industry is a medical industry
which is of national interest. The Sole issued an order ordering the parties to enter
into a CBA. The Union filed an MR. While the MR was in pendency, Metrolab
laid off 94 of its employees due to lack of available work. This prompted
Metrolab to file a motion for Cease and Desist Order to enjoin the mass lay off.
The SOLE issued a resolution declaring the mass lay off illegal. Metrolab then
filed a partial MR. Later on, the parties entered into a new CBA, but the signing
of the new CBA was delayed due to the Partial MR filed by Metrolab. In the
meantime, Metrolab laid off 73 employees. This was again opposed by the Union,
leading to the SOLE issuing another cease and desist order.
In the order the sole included that executive secretaries are excluded from the
closed shop provision of the CBA, but not from the bargaining unit. The
union argued that Confidential employees like the executive secretaries are rank
and file employees and therefore they should be granted the benefits of the CBA.
----------------------------- Facts relevant to Issue #2 ---------------------------
SC (Issue #2) held that Confidential employees 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. Therefore, similar to Managerial employees, they are
excluded from the bargaining unit.
Issue #2 is the relevant issue pertaining to the topic
FACTS:
1. Private Respondent Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association-
Federation of Free Workers (Union) is the representative of rank and file
employees of Petitioner Metrolab and Metro Drug, Inc (2 companies
nirerepresent nung Union)
2. In December 31, 1990, the CBA between the Union and Metrolab expired
a. The negotiations for a new CBA ended in a deadlock.
b. This led to the Union filing a notice of strike against Metrolab and
Metro Drug, Inc.
3. To contain the escalating dispute, the Sec. of Labor and Employment
(SOLE), Rubin D. Torres, issued an assumption order in September 20
1991
a. The order assumed jurisdiction over the entire labor dispute
between the union and the companies
b. Ordered that any strike or lockout is strictly enjoined
c. That Metrolab and Metro drug should not do anything that would
exacerbate the situtation.
4. The SOLE issued an order ordering the parties to execute a new CBA
a. Union filed an MR
5. In the pendency of the MR, Metrolab laid off 94 of its employees.
a. Allegedly due to lack of available work
b. This prompted Metrolab to file a motion for a cease and desist
order to enjoin the mass lay off
6. In April 14 1992, the then acting SOLE, Nieves Confesor, issued a
resolution declaring the mass layoff illegal, and ordered that they be
reinstated with full backwages.
7. Metrolab filed a Partial Motion for reconsideration alleging that
a. The layoff did not aggravate the dispute.
8. In June 29, 1992, the parties entered into a new CBA
a. But the signing of the new CBA was delayed in view of the motion
for reconsideration filed by the company
9. Later, in October 2, 1992, Metrolab laid off 73 employees on the ground of
redundancy due to lack of work
a. This was, again, opposed by the Union
b. This led to another cease and desist order issued by the SOLE
(Confessor)
10. In the order by the SOLE it was included there that:
a. Executive Secretaries are excluded from the closed-shop provision
of the CBA, but not from the bargaining unit.
b. Closed-shop - an agreement whereby an employer will hire only
members of the union who must continue to remain members in
good standing to keep their jobs
11. The SOLE clarified that:
12. Metrolab in opposing the closed shop provision maintained that:
a. The Executive Secretaries are all members of the company’s
Management Committee.
b. That they should be exempted from the Closed-shop provision and
membership in the bargaining unit of the employees
c. This is because they are confidential employees having access to
“vital labor information”
13. The union argued that:
a. Confidential employees are rank and file employees, and therefore
they should be granted the benefits of the CBA.
7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Union filed a motion for execution of the SOLE’s order but this was
opposed by Metrolab.
a. Metrolab filed a petition for Certiorari to the SC with a TRO
ISSUES #1: Whether the SOLE acted in Grave abuse of discretion in declaring the
layoffs instituted by Metrolab as illegal on the ground that this exacerbated the
situation? -no- (Note that at that time the union and companies were in a deadlock as
regard the CBA)
RULING:
1. This Court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives and often
declines to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of the employer.
a. However, this privilege is not absolute but subject to limitations
imposed by law
b. MP must not circumvent the law, CBA, and general principles of
fair play and justice.
2. The Labor Code expressly gives power to the SOLE to assume jurisdiction
over labor disputes involving industries indispensable to national interest
a. See Article 278 (g) of our current labor code
3. Metrolab’s business is of national interest since it is one of the leading
manufacturers and supplies of medical products in the country.
a. Metrolab's management prerogatives, therefore, are not being
unjustly curtailed but duly balanced with and tempered by the
limitations set by law, taking into account its special character and
the particular circumstances in the case at bench.
4. It should be remembered that Metrolab and the Union were still in the
process of resolving their CBA deadlock when petitioner Metrolab
implemented the lay offs. This resulted into:
a. Motions and oppositions diverting the parties’ attention
b. Delaying resolution of the CBA deadlock
c. And postponed the signing of their new CBA
d. The above 3 enumeration aggravated the whole conflict
5. [Not important but just in case] Petitioner Metrolab argued that the lay off
of the 94 workers (See fact #5) are temporary.
a. But according to the Court, if it were temporary then they could
have simply stated to that effect in a notice sent to the workers and
DOLE.
Issue #2 (main issue relevant to topic): Whether the Confidential employees
should be treated as managerial employees? -yes-
Ruling:
1. Although Article 245 (Article 255 of current LC) limits the ineligibility to
join, form, and assist any labor organization to managerial employees.
However:
a. Jurisprudence extended this prohibition to confidential employees.
b. Confidential employees - 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.
2. The SC cited a few jurisprudence which could be summarized as follows:
a. By the very nature of their (Confidential employees) functions,
they 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. As such, the rationale
behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or
join a labor union equally applies to them
b. In the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are
supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act as its
representatives, and to see to it that its interest are well protected.
The employer is not assured of such protection if these employees
themselves are union members
i. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider
the position of confidential employees as included in the
disqualification found in Art. 245 (Art 255 of Current LC)
3. In this case, confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file.
a. As previously discussed, the nature of employment of confidential
employees is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus, warranting
a separate category.
b. Excluding confidential employees from the rank and file
bargaining unit, therefore, is not tantamount to discrimination.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is partially GRANTED. The
resolutions of public respondent Secretary of Labor dated 14 April 1992 and 25
January 1993 are hereby MODIFIED to the extent that executive secretaries of
petitioner Metrolab's General Manager and the executive secretaries of the
members of its Management Committee are excluded from the bargaining unit
of petitioner's rank and file employees
8
 1) Respondent ABI (asia brewery) entered into a CBA with Bisig at Lakas ng
CASE NO. #5 (Punzal) mga Manggagawa sa Asia-Independent (BLMA-INDEPENDENT), the
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia Brewery, Inc., exclusive bargaining representative of ABI’s rank-and-file employees.
G.R. No. 162025, August 3, 2010 | THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION –
WHO ENJOYS THE RIGHT 2) Article I of the CBA defined the scope of the bargaining unit, as follows:
Petitioner:Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery
The UNION shall not represent or accept for membership
Respondent: Asia Brewery, Inc
employees outside the scope of the bargaining unit herein defined.
Recit ready summary of case with ruling:
Section 2. Bargaining Unit. The bargaining unit shall be comprised
Asia Brewery entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with BLMA, the
of all regular rank-and-file daily-paid employees of the
exclusive bargaining representative of Asia Brewery rank-and-file employees.
COMPANY. EXCEPT Confidential and Executive Secretaries
Those employees explicitly excluded in the CBA are, among others, confidential
and Purchasing and Quality Control Staff.
and executive secretaries and purchasing and quality control staff.
3) The CBA expressly excluded Confidential and Executive Secretaries from
A dispute arose when Asia Brewery management stopped deducting union dues
the rank-and-file bargaining unit, for which reason ABI seeks their
from 81 employees, believing that their membership in the union violated the
disaffiliation from petitioner.
CBA. These employees were Sampling Inspectors, Machine Gauge Technician,
4) LA ruled that the subject employees qualify under the rank-and-file
both part of the Quality Control Staff, checkers assigned to different departments,
category because their functions are merely routinary and clerical. He noted
and secretaries and clerks directly under the respective division managers.
that the positions occupied by the checkers and secretaries/clerks in the
different divisions are not managerial or supervisory, as evident from the
Under the CBA, the Union cannot represent or accept for membership confidential
duties and responsibilities assigned to them
and executive secretaries and purchasing and quality control staff. Thus, ABI
5) CA reversed the VA, ruling that the 81 employees are excluded from and
seeks disaffiliation from the Petitioners.
are not eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit as defined in Section 2,
Article I of the CBA.
SC held that confidential employees (in this case, the checkers and
secretaries/clerks of the company) are
ISSUES: Whether the checkers and secretaries/clerks of respondent company are
rank-and-file employees who are eligible to join the Union of the rank-and-file
Doctrine:
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
RULING: YES
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
1. Although Article 245 (255) of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join,
managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly
form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees,
confidential records. Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-
jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or
file bargaining unit.
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
Confidential employees are defined as those who:
likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. Confidential
1) assist or act in a confidential capacity,
employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit.
2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies
in the field of labor relations.
2. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any
labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees
FACTS: because if allowed to be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be
assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the Union
can also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial

9
 employees in the Union membership. Having access to confidential
information, confidential employees may also become the source of undue
advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement.

3. Confidential employees are defined as those who:

a. assist or act in a confidential capacity,
b. to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management
policies in the field of labor relations.

4. The two (2) 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.

10
CASE NO. # 6 (Vergeire)
San Miguel Foods, Inc. v San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union
GR 146206 | Aug. 1, 2011 | Excluded Employees/Workers - Confidential Employees
Petitioner: San Miguel Foods, Inc
Respondent: San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union
Recit ready summary of case with ruling:
Pursuant to SMCEU v. Laguesma, the DOLE conducted pre-election conferences.
The med-arbiter ordered the continuation of the conduct of the certification
election. SMFI filed an opposition questioning the eligibility to vote by some of
the EEs. The med-arbiter directed SMCEU to submit proof showing that the EEs
are covered by the certification election and belong to the bargaining unit. After
the ballots were opened and counted, the med-arbiter issued an order stating that
SMCEU was certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors and
exempt EEs. The DOLe-Usec affirmed. CA affirmed.
SC: Confidential EEs are those who assist or act in a confidential capacity, in
regard to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies
in the field of labor relations. However, the payroll master and the other EEs that
had access to salary and compensation do not fall under this definition. But the HR
assistant and Personnel Assistant are confidential EEs, hence, excluded from the
bargaining unit.
Doctrine:
Confidential EEs are those who assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard to
persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field
of labor relations.
FACTS:
1. In SMCEU v. Laguesma, the SC held that even if they handle confidential
data regarding technical and internal business operations, supervisory EEs 3
and 4 and the exempt EEs of SMFI are not to be considered confidential
EEs since they do not pertain to labor relations, particularly negotiation and
settlement of grievances.
2. Pursuant to that court decision, the DOLE conducte pre-election
conferences. However, there was a discrepancy in the list of eligible voters.
3. The Med-Arbiter issued an order to proceed with the conduct of the
certification election.
4. SMFI filed the omnibus objections and challenge to voters, questioning the
eligibility to vote by some of its EEs on the grounds that they do not belong
to the same bargaining unit or that there was no ER-EE relationship.
5. The Med-Arbiter issued an order directing SMCEU to submit proof
showing that the EEs are covered by the original certification election and
belong to the bargaining unit it seeks to represent.
6. The Med-Arbiter issued the resolution directing parties to appear before the
election officer of the LRD for the opening of the ballots.
7. Based on the results, the Med-Arbiter issued the order stating that SMCEU
was certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors and
exempt EEs.
8. On appeal, DOLE Usec. affirmed with modification the order. The MR of
SMFI was denied. CA affirmed with modification the resolution of the
DOLE Usec. SMFI’s MR was also denied.
ISSUES: 1. WON the inclusion of the EEs was a departure from the SC’s definition
of a confidential EE? [NO]
2. WON HR Assistant and Personnel Assistant should be excluded from the
bargaining unit? [YES]
RULING:
WON the inclusion of the EEs was a departure from the SC’s definition of a
confidential EE?
1. The SC held that confidential EEs are defined as those who:
a. Assist or act in a confidential capacity.
b. In regard to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate
management policies in the field of labor relations.
2. The SC said that 2 criteria must be met.
3. The exclusion from the bargaining units of EEs who, in the normal course
of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor
relations insa principal objective sought to be accomplished by the
confidential EE rule.
4. The SC stated that a confidential EE is one entrusted with the confidence on
delicate or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the ER’s
property.
5. Confidential EEs, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from
the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential information may become
the source of undue advantage.
6. However, such a fact did not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the
whole gamut of EEs who, as perceived by SMFI, had access to salary and
compensation date.
7. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not involve
dealing with confidential labor relations information in the course of
performance of his functions.
WON HR Assistant and Personnel Assistant should be excluded from the
bargaining unit?
1. The SC held that jurisprudence has extended the prohibition in ARt. 245 LC
to confidential EEs.
11
2. The SC rationalized this by stating that if allowed to be affiliated with a
union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident
COIs and the union can also become company-denominated with the
presence of managerial EEs in the union membership.
a. Having access to confidential information, confidential EEs may
also become the source of undue advantage. Said EEs may act as
spies of either party to a CBA.
3. The CA was correct in ruling that the position of HR assistant and
Personnel Assistant belong to the confidential EEs, hence, excluded from
the bargaining unit.

12
CASE #7 (Tan)
BATANGAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE V. YOUNG
G.R. NO. 62386 | NOVEMBER 9, 1998 | Workers-Members of a Cooperative
G.R. No. 62386
Petitioner: Batangas Electric Cooperative Labor Union
Respondents: Romeo Young; Batangas-I Electric Cooperative
G.R. No. 70880
Petitioner: Bulacan Electric Cooperative Inc
Respondents: Eliseo Penaflor; Cresenciano Trajano; Federation of Free Workers
G.R. No. 74560
Petitioner: Albay Electric Cooperative
Respondents: Cresenciano Trajano; FFW Aleco 1 Chapter
RECIT-READY:
Three unions filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent the
employees of Batangas Electric Cooperative, Bulacan Electric Cooperative and Albay
Electric Cooperative, respectively. The Cooperatives alleged that cooperative
members are prohibited from joining labor organizations and that the formation of a
union in a cooperative is illegal and invalid, the officers and members of the union
being the owners thereof. ISSUE: W/N employees of electric cooperatives are
qualified to form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. The
Supreme Court held that.. (insert doctrine -general rule + exception). IN THIS
CASE, insofar as the employees of cooperatives who are not members or co-owners
are concerned, they are very much entitled to exercise their right to collective
bargaining and can be represented by a union, so long as the 30% jurisdictional
requirement provided in the old Article 258 of the Labor Code (the law then
prevailing) is compiled with.
DOCTRINE:
GENERAL RULE: Employees of cooperatives who are themselves members of the
cooperative have no right to form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective
bargaining for being themselves co-owners of the cooperative.
EXCEPTION: However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are
not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled to exercise
the rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others
as are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country.
Note: This case involved three consolidated petitions.
FACTS:
In G.R. No. 62386
1. Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Union (UNION) filed with DOLE at San
Pablo City, a petition for certification election alleging that:
a. it is a legitimate labor organization
b. the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Inc. (BATELEC) has 150
employees, more or less;
c. the UNION desires to represent the regular rank and file
employees of BATELEC for purposes of collective bargaining;
d. there is no other union existing in BATELEC except the UNION;
e. there is no certified collective bargaining agreement in the said
cooperative; and
f. there has been no certification election conducted in BATELEC
during the last twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the
petition.
2. The Med-Arbiter gave due course to the petition. However, BATELEC filed
a motion for reconsideration contending that there was a legal impediment
to the holding of a certification election considering that the formation of
a union in a cooperative is illegal and invalid, the officers and members
of the union being the owners thereof.
3. Romeo Young, the OIC of Bureau of Labor Relations, revoked the Med-
Arbiter’s order mandating the holding of a certification election.
4. The UNION filed an MR but it was denied. It then filed this present petition
contending that the respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations
committed a palpable error of law and/or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of and/or in excess of jurisdiction in finding and
concluding that employees of an electric cooperative who are at the
same time members of the cooperative are not allowed to form or join a
labor union in the electric cooperative for purposes of collective
bargaining.
In G.R. No. 70880
5. Federation of Free Workers (FFW) filed with DOLE at San Fernando,
Pampanga, a petition for certification election. The petition alleged that
a. FFW is a legitimate labor organization;
b. the Bulacan II Electric Cooperative Inc. (BECO II) is engaged in
the service and supply of electric current and, therefore, an
employer under the provisions of the Labor Code;
c. the FFW seeks to be certified as the sole and exclusive collective
bargaining representative of the regular rank and file employees
and workers of BECO II for purposes of collective bargaining;
d. there are more or less 140 regular rank and file employees and
workers of BECO II;
13
 e. there is no other union existing in BECO II except the FFW, and
there is no certified collective bargaining agreement in said
establishment; and
f. there has been no certification election conducted in BECO II
during the last twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the
petition.
6. BECO II contended that since electric cooperatives are subject to the
supervision and control of the National Electrification Administration
pursuant to PD 269, as amended by PD 1645, BECO II in effect is a
government institution; and that there is no representation issue as there is
no other labor organization involved except the FFW.
7. The Med-Arbiter directed the holding of a certification election among the
rank and file employees and workers of BECO II.
8. BECO II appealed, which was dismissed. Thus, BECO II filed this instant
petition contending that the Med-Arbiter acted with grave abuse of
discretion in ruling that under Article 244 (now Article 243) of the Labor
Code, members and part owners of electric cooperatives are eligible to
form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective
bargaining
In G.R. No. 74560
9. The Federation of Free Workers (FFW) ALECO I Chapter filed a petition
for certification election, alleging that
a. it is a legitimate labor organization and the Albay Electric
Cooperative I (ALECO I) is an electric cooperative servicing
electricity in the Province of Albay;
b. ALECO I has 160 employees, more or less, majority of whom are
FFW members;
c. there is no other union existing nor a collective bargaining
agreement existing in the cooperative;
d. no certification election has been held for the past twelve (12)
months prior to the filing of the petition.
10. The FFW submitted 63 signatures in support of the petition for certification
election.
11. ALECO I employees filed its position paper alleging that out of the 63
signatories to the petition, 51 are not qualified to join the union as they are
members- consumers of the ALECO I and are considered joint owners
of the cooperative pursuant to PD 269, and Art. II Sec. I of the revised
bylaws of ALECO I.
12. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order calling for a certification election.
ALECO I appealed from this order but it was dismissed.
13. Hence, ALECO I filed this instant petition contending that the Med-Arbiter
erred in holding that the FFW ALECO I CHAPTER whose members are
members/part owners of the cooperative are eligible to join a labor
organization for collective bargaining.
ISSUE: Whether or not employees of electric cooperatives are qualified to form
or join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. - As a general
rule NO. But see doctrine for exception.
RULING:
1. Eligibility to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of
collective bargaining is governed by Article 243 of the Labor Code. (see
codal)
2. Jurisprudence held that an employee of a cooperative who is a member and
co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining.
3. A cooperative, therefore, 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.
a. As above stated, irrespective of the name of shares owned by its
member they are entitled to cast one vote each in deciding upon the
affair of the cooperative.
b. Their share capital earn limited interests. They enjoy special
privileges as — exemption from income tax and sales taxes,
preferential right to supply their products to State agencies and
even exemption from the minimum wage laws.
4. An employee therefore of such a 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.
In G.R. No. 62386
5. Thus, the assailed resolution of Romeo A. Young, Officer-in-Charge,
Bureau of Labor Relations revoking the Med-Arbiter's order calling for a
certification election must be upheld (see fact #3).
6. The records in this case do not show that minus the rank and file employees
(also members of the respondent BATELEC) who supported the petition,
there was still a sufficient number to constitute 30% of the bargaining unit
as a jurisdictional requirement
a. On the contrary, there is sufficient evidence showing that all
those who supported the petition were such members.
7. Petitioner UNION admitted in its petition that its officers and members are
also members- consumers of the cooperative.
a. Such being the case, the employees belonging to petitioner
UNION are not qualified to form a labor organization and
bargain collectively.
In G.R. No. 70880
8. The records show that the petitioner BECO II has 143 employees and that
73 employees of the petitioner supported the petition for certification
election
a. No clear evidence was adduced by petitioner to prove that 28 of its
employees are managerial employees.
14
 b. However, 24 employees are members of the cooperative.
9. Even if the 24 cooperative members, assuming, that all of them supported
the petition, are to be deducted from the said 73 employees, there still
remain forty-nine (49), a sufficient compliance with the 30%
jurisdictional requirement provided in the old Article 258 of the Labor
Code, the law then prevailing.
In G.R. No. 74560
1. The decision which ordered the holding of a certification election is
reversed.
2. It is clear from the records in this case that the petitioner ALECO I has 141
rank and file employees. Hence, there are 90 rank and file employees,
non- members of the cooperative, who may validly form, join or assist
labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.
3. It is likewise clear that 63 rank and file employees supported the petition for
certification election but 51 of them are members of the petitioner
cooperative, a fact not disputed by the private respondent union.
4. Hence, only 12 rank and file employees who were qualified to form, join or
assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining, signed the
petition, which definitely is a number short of the 30% jurisdictional
requirement as provided in Article 258 of the Labor Code, the law then
prevailing.
a. Thirty (30%) percent of the 90 rank and file employees who are
not members of the cooperative is 27.

15
 Doctrine: Diplomatic privileges and immunities accorded to international
organizations and specialized agencies extend to immunity from the application of
Philippine labor laws to assure the unimpeded performance of the functions of the
agency or organization.

CASE NO. 8 (Alejo)

FACTS:
INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION V. CALLEJA In GR 85750 - ICMC v. Calleja
GR 85750/89331 |September 28, 1990 | Excluded Employees: Employees of
International Organizations 1. In 1981, after the Vietnam War, the Philippines and the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees agreed to establish an operating center in
Petitioner:
Bataan for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for resettlement to other
GR 85750 - International Catholic Migration Commission
countries. ICMC was among the accredited organizations to operate the
GR 89331 - Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI - Organized Labor
refugee center. ICMC is an international organization voluntarily rendering
Association in Line Industries and Agriculture
humanitarian services in the Philippines whose activities parallel the
International Committee for Migration and the International Committee of
Respondent:
the Red Cross.
GR 85750 - Hon. Pura Calleja (BLR), and Trade Unions of the Phil. and Allied
a. ICMC was organized in New York at the request of the Pope and
Services (TUPAS) WFTU
is duly registered with the UN Economic and Social Council.
GR 89331 - Secretary of Labor and Employment, and International Rice Research
b. ICMC enjoys Consultative Status Category II
Institute Inc.
2. In 1986, TUPAS filed a petition for certification election among the rank-
Recit ready summary of case with ruling: Under the specialized agency ICMC and
and-file employees of ICMC. However, the Labor Secretary opposed the
the international organization IRRI operating in the Philippines, the unions TUPAS
petition because ICMC is an international organization registered with the
and the Kapisanan filed petitions for certificate election under their respective
UN and enjoys diplomatic immunity even from labor laws.
organizations. ICMC and IRRI argued against the petitions because the diplomatic
immunities accorded to them by the Philippines exempted them from coverage from
3. The Med-Arb dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, in agreement
Philippine labor laws. BLR Director Calleja granted the petitions for certificate
with the Labor Secretary’s reasons.
elections, but ICMC, IRRI, the Labor Secretary, and the DFA opposed this.
4. Subsequently, the Dept. of Foreign Affairs (DFA), through a MOA, granted
Does the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC and IRRI extend to
ICMC the status of a specialized agency with diplomatic privileges and
immunity from the application of Philippine Labor Laws?
immunities.
Yes. Absent a waiver or withdrawal of the immunities by the government, ICMC
5. ICMC sought the dismissal of TUPAS’ petition, invoking its diplomatic
and IRRI are exempt from the application of Philippine labor laws. The reason for
immunity but was denied by BLR Director Calleja who ordered the pre-
these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of the performance of
election conference despite the objections of the DFA and ICMC.
the functions by the agency or organization. Furthermore, the proper laws applicable
a. DFA was granted leave to intervene during ICMC’s petition for a
to matters of labor are the international laws governing these organizations/agencies
TRO as it was the highest executive dept on matters involving
and their agreements with the Philippine Government. In this case, the Convention
diplomatic immunity and privileges, and diplomatic and consular
on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies and the Philippines MOA
relations with foreign governments and UN organizations.
with ICMC and PD 1620 for IRRI should govern the question of self-organization
b. After ICMC acquired a TRO, the Supreme Court gave due course
of employees of ICMC and IRRI.
to the petition.
16

6. ICMC argues that the Philippine government has already given it the status
of a specialized agency with diplomatic immunities as contemplated in the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies by
the UNGA, an international law recognized and adopted by the Philippines
under Sec 2 Art 2 Const on the adoption of the generally accepted principles
of international law.
a. DFA adds that allowing the certification election would violate
diplomatic immunity.
7. Director Calleja, TUPAS, and OSG argue that the State policy and labor
laws in Sec 18 Art 2 and Sec 8 Art 3 Const, and Arts 253 and 257 LC
justify the grant of the certification election. They also claim that the
certification election is not a litigation, but a mere investigation of a non-
adversary fact-finding character.
In GR 89331 - Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI v. Secretary and IRRI
1. The Philippine government and the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations
established IRRI at Los Banos, Laguna, an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-
free, non-profit, and non-stock organization conducting basic research on
rice planting, production, management, and distribution for nutritive and
economic advantage or benefit for Asia and other major rice growing areas
through improvement in quality and quantity of rice.
2. The Kapisanan union filed a petition for certification election before the
Region IV office of DOLE, but IRRI opposed the petition arguing that it
held the status of an international organization with immunity from all civil,
criminal, and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws.
3. The Med-Arb upheld IRRI’s opposition, but Director Callejo again set the
Med-Arb’s order aside and granted the certification election. Callejo
claimed that, under Art 253 LC and Sec 3 Art 13 Const., the immunities and
privileges granted to IRRI do not include exemption from coverage of
Philippine labor laws.
4. Upon appeal, the Labor Secretary set aside BLR Director Callejo’s order
stating that PD 1620 granted IRRI the status, prerogatives, privileges, and
immunities of an international organization, such immunities include
exemption from domestic labor laws.
5. Before SC, Kapisanan alleged the Secretary’s grave abuse of discretion,
arguing that Art 3 PD 1620 granting IRRI immunities is unconstitutional as
it deprives Filipino workers of their constitutional right to form trade unions
for collective bargaining.
a. Raising a procedural issue, Kapisanan argues that the Secretary
doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain IRRI’s appeal because an
order from the BLR Director is final and unappealable under Secs
7 - 10 Rule 5 Omnibus Rules.
ISSUES: Does the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC and
IRRI extend to immunity from the application of Philippine Labor Laws?
RULING: Yes. Absent a waiver or withdrawal of the immunities by the
government, ICMC and IRRI are exempt from the application of Philippine labor
laws. Furthermore, the proper laws applicable to matters of labor are the
international laws governing these organizations/agencies and their agreements with
the Philippine Government.
1. Diplomatic immunity has been granted to both ICMC and IRRI. Art 2 of the
MOA between the Philippine Government and ICMC provides that ICMC
has the status of a specialized agency. Secs 4 - 5 Art 3 of the Convention on
the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies provide that such
agencies enjoy immunity from every form of legal processes and its
premises and properties are inviolable.
a. Likewise, Art 3 PD 1620 explicitly grants IRRI immunity from
any legal processes.
2. The determination and recognition by the Executive Department of the
grant of such immunities is a political question which is conclusive upon
courts and cannot be questioned in order not to embarrass a political
department of the Government.
a. It’s a principle in international law and in the separation of powers
that diplomatic immunity is a political question.
3. An international organization is an organization setup by an agreement of
2 or more states. Such organizations are endowed with some degree of
international legal personality and are capable of exercising specific rights,
duties, and powers. These organizations are organized mainly as a means
for conducting general international business in which the member states
have an interest.
a. Example - the UN is an international organization dedicated to
propagating world peace.
4. Specialized Agencies are international organizations having functions in
particular fields. Arts 57 and 63 of the UN Charter allows specialized
agencies to carry out the UN’s general task of promoting progress and
international cooperation in economic, social, health, cultural, educational,
and related matters. These agencies, having functions in fields such as
17
 telecommunications, aviation, meteorology, etc, accomplish these
responsibilities.
5. The growth of international organizations under international law
necessitated the concept of international immunities. There are 3
propositions underlying the grant of international immunities to these
organizations:
a. International institutions should have a status protecting them
against the control and interference of any government in the
performance of their functions to effectively discharge their
responsibilities to the democratically constituted international
bodies in which all nations concerned are represented.
b. No country should have any national financial advantage by
levying fiscal charges on common international funds.
c. International organizations, as collective States members, are
accorded facilities for the conduct of its official business
customarily extended to each other by the individual member
States.
6. The reason for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance
of the performance of the functions by the agency or organization.
7. ICMC and IRRI’s immunity from local jurisdiction doesn’t deprive their
workers of basic rights. For ICMC, in case of disputes, the provisions on the
Convention on Privileges and Immunities apply. Likewise, the MOA
provides that should there be an abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Philippine
government may withdraw the privileges and immunities.
a. IRRI employees have their remedies in the Council of IRRI
Employees and Management to hear their grievances.
8. The immunities of ICMC and IRRI are subject to their waiver or
withdrawal by the Philippine government, thus, it’s not accurate to say that
a certification election is beyond the scope of immunity. Clauses on
jurisdictional immunity are said to be standard provisions in the
constitutions of international organizations. The immunity covers the
organization concerned, its property and its assets. It is equally applicable to
proceedings in personam and proceedings in rem.
9. As a last note, there is no procedural infirmity in the case since Callejo’s
order has not become final and executory because a motion for
reconsideration was filed by IRRI. Thus, there was no grave abuse of
discretion committed by the Labor Secretary in assuming appellate
jurisdiction under Art 272 LC.
10. The Court is gratified to note that the heretofore antagonistic positions
assumed by two departments of the executive branch of government have
been rectified and the resultant embarrassment to the Philippine
Government in the eyes of the international community now, hopefully,
effaced.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
Art 253 LC: Coverage and Employees' Right to Self-Organization. — All persons
employed in commercial, 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 protection.
Art 257 LC: Non-Abridgment of Right to Self-Organization. — It shall be unlawful
for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere 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 purpose of
collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection,
subject to the provisions of Article 264 of this Code.
Art 272 LC: Appeal from Certification Election Orders. — Any party to an election
may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter
directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground that the rules and
regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
for the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided
within fifteen (15) calendar days.
Sec 2 Art 2 Const: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Sec 8 Art 3 Const: The right of the people, including those employed in the public
and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Sec 3(2) Art 13 Const: It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
18
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled
to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decisionmaking processes affecting their rights and benefits
as may be provided by law.
CASE NO. 9 (De Mesa)
Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical-Super v. Charter Chemical and
Coating Corp., G.R. No. 169717, [March 16, 2011] ,
Petitioners: Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in
the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (SMCC-SUPER), Zaccarrias Jerry
Victorio
Respondent: Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation
Doctrine: The inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking
to represent the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its
status as a legitimate labor organization.
FACTS:
● Samahang Manggagawa (petitioner union) filed a petition for certification
election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical
and Coating Corporation (Charter Chemical for brevity) with the Mediation
Arbitration Unit of DOLE.
● Charter Chemical filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Samahang
Manggagawa is not a legitimate labor organization because of the inclusion
of supervisory employees within petitioner union.
● The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election.
● It held that under Article 245 of the Labor Code, said supervisory
employees are prohibited from joining Samahang Manggagawa, which
seeks to represent the rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical.
● As a result, not being a legitimate labor organization, Samahang
Manggagawa has no right to file a petition for certification election for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
● The DOLE initially issued a Decision in favor of Charter Chemical,
however it reversed its earlier ruling, stating that there is no obstacle to the
grand of Samahang Manggagawa’s petition for certification election.
● The CA upheld the Med-Arbiter’s finding that the infirmity in the
membership of petitioner union cannot be remedied, pursuant to the ruling
in Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. Labor
Union.
● Samahang Manggagawa then argues that the alleged illegal composition of
its membership are not grounds for the dismissal of a petition for
certification election under Sec. 11, Rule XI of D.O. No. 9, Series of 1997,
as amended, nor are they grounds for the cancellation of a union’s
registration under Section 3, Rule VIII of said issuance.
ISSUES:
Whether the inclusion of supervisory employees in petitioner union divests it of its
status as a legitimate labor organization?
RULING:
● The CA and the respondent corporation erred in relying on Toyota due to
the Court’s subsequent ruling in Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg.,
Philippines, Inc. (Kawashima).
● It should be emphasized that the petitions for certification election involved
in Toyota were led on November 26, 1992, hence, the 1989 Rules was
applied. But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules
was further amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1997
Amended Omnibus Rules).
● Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended
Omnibus Rules — that the petition for certification election indicate that the
bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not been mingled with
supervisory employees — was removed.
● The Court also discussed Tagaytay Higghlands Int’l Golf club, Inc. v.
Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union, where it was discussed that while
there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for
the effects thereof.
● Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has been registered, it
may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization.
Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its
membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds
for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about
by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the
Labor Code.
19
● The applicable law and rules in the instant case are the same as those in
Kawashima because the present petition for certification election was filed
in 1999 when D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, was still in effect. Hence,
Kawashima applies with equal force here.
● As a result, petitioner union was not divested of its status as a legitimate
labor organization even if some of its members were supervisory
employees; it had the right to file the subject petition for certification
election.

20