CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D.

CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONISM CASE: GSIS AND WINSTON GARCIA V. KAPISANAN
NG MANGGAGAWA SA GSIS,

FACTS:

The employees of GSIS including the KMG, organized a four-day rally and a mass
walkout. The manager of the GSIS Investigating Unit issued a memorandum directing
131 union and non-union members to show cause why they should not be charged
administratively. KMG’s counsel filed an MR because the employees already followed
the return to work order. The motion was denied upon the filing of the administrative
charges against them. KMG filed a petition for prohibition with the CA against these
charges. The CA granted the petition and enjoined the GSIS from implementing the
issued formal charges and from issuing other formal charges arising from the same
facts and events. The CA held that the right to strike is equated to the employees’ right
to from associations.

ISSUE:

Whether Garcia's "filing of administrative charges against KMG’s members is

tantamount to grave abuse of discretion which may be the proper subject of the writ of
prohibition”

HELD:

The Court held in the negative. The employees of GSIS is subject to CSC’s circulars
such as EO 180 that provides guidelines for the exercise of the right to self-organize of
government employees.

The four-day strike amounted to prohibited concerted activity which refers to any
collective activity undertaken by government employees, by themselves or through their
employees' organization, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption
in order to realize their demands or force concessions, economic or otherwise; it
includes mass leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar nature. Indeed, for four
straight days, KMG members and other GSIS employees staged a walk out and
participated in a mass protest or demonstration right at the very doorstep of the GSIS
main office building which constitutes, pursuant to EO 180, a prohibited concerted
activity.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONISM CASE: GSIS and WINSTON GARCIA vs. DINNAH
VILLAVIZA, et al.

FACTS:

Garcia filed charges against respondents for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service. It was alleged that on May 27, 2005, respondents,
wearing red shirts, marched to and appeared simultaneously at or just outside the office
of the Investigation Unit in a mass demonstration/rally of protest and support for Messrs.
Molina and Velasco.

Some of the employees badmouthed the security guards and the GSIS management
and raised clenched fists led by Atty. Velasco who was barred by Hearing Officer
Gatpayat in an Order from appearing as counsel for Atty. Molina. They alleged that the
activity of the respondents caused alarm and disrupted the work at the Investigation
Unit during office hours which was in contempt of CSC Reso. 021316. Respondents
Duque, Echavez, Rubio, Gracia, Layco, and Legarda, together with two others,
submitted a letter explaining and denying that there was a planned mass action. They
explained that some of them wants to show their support and they were interested in
that hearing as it might also affect them. For her part, respondent Villaviza submitted a
separate letter explaining that she had a scheduled pre-hearing at the GSIS-IU that day
and that she had informed her immediate supervisor about it.

ISSUE:

Whether the wearing of the shirt and the raising of clenched fists amounted to a
prohibited concerted activity.

HELD:

No. Not all collective activity or mass undertaking of government employees is

prohibited. Otherwise, we would be totally depriving our brothers and sisters in the
government service of their constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Under Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316, the phrase ''prohibited concerted
activity or mass action'' shall be understood to refer to any collective activity undertaken
by government employees, by themselves or through their employees organizations,
with intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption in order to realize their
demands of force concession, economic or otherwise, from their respective agencies or
the government. It shall include mass leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar
nature.

In this case, the CSC found that the acts of respondents in going to the office wearing
red shirts to see a public hearing, do not amount to a concerted activity or mass action
defined in the resolution. CSC held that the activity was an exercise of their
constitutional right to freedom of expression.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONISM CASE: DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT vs. RODRIGO
L. ARANJUEZ, ET. AL.

FACTS:

Respondents, who were officers and members of NAMADACWAD were charged with
several administrative cases due to acts committed during the anniversary celebration
of DCWD such as wearing of t-shirts with inscriptions bearing employees' grievances
and posting of bond papers outside the designated places. They were then required to
explain the reasons for the attire they wore. Through a collective letter, the officers and
members explained that the Memorandum only required the employees to wear any
sports attire. They countered that the inscriptions were just manifestations of their
constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of expression.

GM Gamboa issued several Orders. Three officials, Aranjuez, Cagula and Bondoc were
penalized with dismissal from employment for the reason that the infraction was the
second administrative offense of serious nature. On appeal to the CSC, it found that the
violations committed by the private respondents are not serious in nature due to the lack
of any abusive, vulgar, defamatory or libelous language. The CA affirmed the ruling.

ISSUE:

Whether the acts committed by respondents was constitutive of a prohibited mass

action under Resolution No. 021316.

HELD:

No, the acts were not constitutive of a prohibited mass action under Resolution No.
021316. The concerted activity is not prohibited because it was without the intent of
work stoppage or service disruption The time and place of the activity are not
determinative of the prohibition. Whether done within government hours, a concerted
activity is allowed if it is without any intent at work stoppage.

It is clear that the collective activity of joining the funrun in t-shirts with inscriptions on
the employees’ grievance was not to effect work stoppage or disrupt the service. As
pointed out by the respondents, they followed the advice of GM Gamboa "to be there" at
the fun run. Respondents joined and did not disrupt the said fun run. They were in
sports attire that they were required to wear. Otherwise, government employees would
be deprived of their constitutional right to freedom of expression. The Court ruled
against the findings of both the CSC and Court of Appeals.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION CASES

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND

GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEU PTGWO)  v. SAN MIGUEL
PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION PAMBANSANG DIWA NG
MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEU PDMP)

FACTS:

SMCEU PTGWO is the incumbent bargaining agent of the rank and file employees. It
sought for the cancellation of respondent’s registration and its dropping from the rolls of
legitimate labor organizations and accused the latter of fraud and non-compliance with
registration requirements in obtaining its certificate of registration pursuant to Article 234
of the Lavor Code.

DOLE NCR issued an Order stating that respondent is allowed to directly create a local
or chapter but it failed to comply with the 20% membership requirement. In an appeal
before the BLR, it argued that as a chartered local union, it is not required to submit the
number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least 20% of the
employees in the bargaining unit. It reversed the Regional Director's ruling that the 20%
membership is a requirement for respondent to attain legal personality as a labor
organization. The CA affirmed BLR. Thus, the recourse before the SC where apart from
the 20% membership requirement, petitioner insists that the 20% requirement for
registration of respondent must be based not on the number of employees of a single
division, but in all three divisions of the company.

ISSUE:

Whether SM Packing Employees is required to submit the number of employees and

names of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining
unit where it seeks to operate

HELD:

Yes.  The evidence revealed that respondent is registered with the BLR as a chapter of
PDMP. The applicable Implementing Rules provided a two-fold procedure for the
creation of a chapter or a local. The first involves the affiliation of an independent union
with a federation and he second one which is also applicable to the case at bar,
involves the direct creation of a local or a chapter through chartering.

When an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter, some of the

requirements for registration are no longer necessary. While an applicant for registration
of an independent union is mandated to 20% membership requirement, as provided
under the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of a
branch, local or chapter.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS
IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC-SUPER),
ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO-Union President vs. CHARTER CHEMICAL and
COATING CORPORATION

FACTS:

The union filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file
employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation. The petition was dismissed
by the corporation on the ground that the petitioner union is not a legitimate labor
organization because of (1) failure to comply with the documentation requirements set
by law, and (2) the inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.

The Med-Arbiter denied the petition, noting that the petitioner union's membership list
included supervisory workers who were barred from joining the petitioner union, which
sought to represent respondent company's rank-and-file employees. Not being a LLO,
they have no right to file the said petition for certification for purposes of collective
bargaining.

ISSUE:

Whether the mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees of petitioner union’s

membership nullifies the union’s legal personality and warrants the dismissal of petition
for certification election.

HELD:

No. R.A. No. 6715 failed to explain the specific impact of any infringement of the
prohibition [on the mixing of supervisory and rank-and-file employees] on a labor
organization's legality.  The defect was supplied by the Rules and Regulations
Implementing R.A. No. 6715. Supervisory staff and security guards are not eligible for
membership in a labor organization for rank-and-file employees, but they are allowed to
join, support, or organize other labor organizations.

Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union
abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronouncement
in Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the mixing of supervisory and rank-and-
file employees in a labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects
of it. The Court ruled that once a labor organization is registered, it is entitled to all of
the rights and privileges of a genuine labor organization. Any mingling of supervisory
and rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot jeopardize its legitimacy.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
ELECTROMAT MANUFACTURING vs. LAGUNZAD

FACTS:

The union, a charter affiliate of the Workers Advocates for Struggle, Transformation and
Organization, applied for registration with the BLR. Subsequently, the BLR issued a
Certification of Creation of Local Chapter, pursuant to D.O. 40-03.

The company filed a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration certificate,
because of the union’s failure to comply with Article 234 of the Labor Code arguing that
D.O. 40-03 is an unconstitutional diminution of the Labor Code’s union registration
requirements under Article 234.

ISSUE:

Whether D.O. 40-03 is a valid exercise of the rule-making power of the DOLE.

HELD:

Yes, it is a valid exercise of the rule-making power of the DOLE. The law's objective in
establishing less restrictions in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or
national union is to encourage local unions to affiliate with a federation or national union
in order to strengthen their bargaining power regarding labor terms and conditions.

D.O. 40-03 is a statement of the government's trade unionism implementation policy. It

improves on the previous rules by streamlining the prerequisites in forming locals or
chapters. As in D.O. 9, D.O. 40-03 is in line with the government's goal of encouraging
local unions to join a federation or national organization in order to strengthen their
bargaining power. In the case at bar, the local union has submitted and complied with
all the requirements needed.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
PAFLU vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR

FACTS:

The SSSEA's Registration Certificate was revoked on October 23, 1963, by the
Registration of Labor Organizations for failing to comply with Section 23 of R.A. No.
875. Specifically, it failed to submit non-subversive affidavits of its officers.

The provision that “a labor organization, association or union of workers must file with
the Department of Labor the following documents: (1) A copy of the constitution and by-
laws of the organization together with a list of all officers of the association, their
addresses and the address of the principal office of the organization; (2) A sworn
statement of all the officers of the said organization, association or union to the effect
that they are not members of the Communist Party and that they are not members of
any organization which teaches the overthrow of the Government by force or by any
illegal or unconstitutional method; and (3) If the applicant organization has been in
existence for one or more years, a copy of its last annual financial report. The
petitioners filed an action, pending the resolution of their motion for reconsideration to
prevent the respondents from enforcing Section 23 of R.A. 875, claiming that it violates
their freedom of assembly and association, is inconsistent with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and that the same provision should have been repealed
by ILO-Convention No. 87.

ISSUE:

Whether Section 23 of R.A. No. 875 violates the petitioners’ freedom of assembly and
association.

HELD:

No. The claim that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 unreasonably restricts the
freedom of assembly and association granted by the Bill of Rights is not meritorious.
The right to assemble or associate, which can be exercised with or without registration,
is unaffected by stated registration. The latter is only a pre-requisite for labor groups,
associations, or unions gaining legal personality and obtaining the "rights and privileges
afforded by law to genuine labor organizations."

These rights and benefits, much less personal identity, are only statutory constructions
The activities of labor groups, associations, and unions of workers have an impact on
the public interest, such a demand is a permissible exercise of the police power.
Furthermore, the requirement to submit financial statements as a condition for the non-
cancellation of a certificate of registration is a reasonable regulation for the benefit of
the organization's members, given that the latter frequently solicits funds or
membership, and frequently collects large sums of money due to them or the
organization on their behalf.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES (NUBE) vs. PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION (PEMA) AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

FACTS:

PNB used to be a GOCC, and PEMA, a public sector union, represented its rank-and-
file employees in collective bargaining. Then, PNB became a private corporation. PEMA
affiliated with NUBE, which is a labor federation composed of unions in the banking
industry, adopting the name NUBE-PNB Employees Chapter.

NUBE-PEC was then certified as the PNB rank-and-file employees' exclusive

bargaining agent, and a CBA was signed between NUBE-PEC and PNB. Under the
CBA, PNB has remit to NUBE P15 of the P65 union dues collected from the employees.
Subsequently, NUBE-PEC was registered as an independent labor organization
referred to as PEMA again and it disaffiliated with PEMA.

ISSUE:

Whether PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from NUBE, the resolution of which, in turn,
inevitably affects NUBE’s right to collect the union dues held in trust by PNB.

HELD:

Yes. In the case of MSMG-UWP v. Hon. Ramos, the Court held that a local union that
has joined a federation is able to break that affiliation at any time, and it is not
considered disloyalty.

In the case at bar, there is nothing shown in the records that PEMA was expressly
prohibited to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a
valid breakaway. Hence, PEMA is not precluded to disaffiliate from NUBE after
acquiring the status of an independent labor organization duly registered before the
DOLE.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS UNION, ET. AL. vs. LIBERTY COTTON
MILLS, INC., ET. AL

FACTS:

The Union is affiliated with PAFLU as provided in its Constitution. In 1959, a CBA was
entered into by and between the Company and the Union represented by PAFLU. While
the CBA was in effect, Castillo and Nepomuceno, President and Vice-President of the
Union, complained to PAFLU regarding the legal counsel it assigned them in the ULP
case they filed against the Company. In the letter, the Union stated its unhappiness with
and lack of trust in the PAFLU lawyers, saying that PAFLU never took any action in this
case.

32 out of the 36 members of the Union disaffiliated themselves from PAFLU. The latter
then wrote a letter to the Company requesting the termination of the employment of
worker-petitioners. PAFLU then expelled the said workers from their' union membership
in the mother federation for allegedly "instigating union disaffiliation”. The Company
then terminated the employment of the members by the PAFLU.

ISSUE:

Whether the Union validly disaffiliated from PAFLU

HELD:

Yes. The Court did not agree with both the stand of PAFLU and the respondent court.
While it is correct to say that a union security clause existed, this clause was limited by
the provision in the Unions' Constitution and By-Laws, which states that the Union shall
remain affiliated with PAFLU as long as 10 or more of its members evidence their desire
to continue the said local unions affiliation.

However, records show that only four out of its members remained since 32 out of the
36 members of the Union signed the resolution of disaffiliation. The disaffiliation was,
therefore, valid under the local's Constitution and By-Laws which, taken together with
the CBA, is controlling.

The disaffiliation, coming as it did from the greater majority of its members, is more than
enough to show the collective desire of the members of the Liberty Cotton Mills Workers
Union to sever their relations from the mother federation.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS vs.
CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC.

FACTS:

Respondent had an existing CBA with the petitioner. The parties renegotiated the
economic provisions but failed to reach an amicable settlement on the issue of wage
increases. Petitioner then declared a bargaining deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike
with NCMB.

Respondent, on the other hand, filed a Notice of Lockout. Petitioner went on strike. The
SOLE assumed jurisdiction and issued a Return-to-Work Order which was complied
with. Before the SOLE could rule on the controversy, respondent created an LMC
through which it concluded with petitioner a MOA that provides for daily wage increases
Petitioner submitted the MOA to the Secretary of Labor.

The SOLE resolved the CBA deadlock by awarding a wage increase of from ₱6.00 to
₱10.00 per day effective and adopting all other benefits as embodied in the MOA.

The SC held that the SOLE acted within its jurisdiction in ruling that the wage increases
be increased as such. In the MR, respondent avers that since petitioner had already
filed with DOLE a resolution of disaffiliation from the Federation of Free Workers (FFW)
during the pendency of the case, it now lacks personality to represent the workers in the
present case.

ISSUE:

Whether the disaffiliation of petitioner Union from FFW affected the Court's upholding of
the authority of the Secretary of Labor to impose arbitral awards higher than what was
supposedly agreed upon in the MOA

HELD:

No. Contrary to respondent's assertion, the "unavoidable issue of disaffiliation" has no

significant legal impact to warrant the reversal of the Court's Decision.

The disaffiliation of the Union was by virtue of a Resolution signed on February 23,
2010 and submitted to the DOLE two months after the present petition was filed thus, it
did not have an effect to FFW and its Legal Center's standing to file the petition nor this
Court's jurisdiction to resolve the same.

In all events, the issue of disaffiliation must be resolved in a different forum at the
instance of either the FFW and the Union or a rival labor organization or both and not
the employer.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER, GRAND PLAZA
HOTEL CORPORATION vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; MED-
ARBITER TOMAS F. FALCONITIN; and NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE
HOTEL, RESTAURANT and ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA
SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAINHHMSC)

FACTS:

NUWHRAIN-HHMSC filed a petition for certification election in order to represent the

supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel. Heritage Hotel then filed an opposition, but it
was denied and the Med-Arbiter issued an order to conduct a certification election. The
Hotel appealed the order but it was still denied. A pre-election conference was schedule
but it was suspended because of repeated non-appearance of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC.
The latter moved for the conduct of the pre-election conference with oppositions from
the Hotel

The DOLE, a few months later, issued a notice to schedule the certification elections.
The Heritage Hotel filed a special civil action for certiorari stating that the DOLE gravely
abused its discretion in not suspending the certification election.

The Med Arbiter ruled that the petition for the cancellation of union registration was not
a bar to the holding of the certification election. The SOLE denied the appeal. The CA
dismissed the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner has legal personality to assail the proceedings for certification
election.

HELD:

No. The Court held that the petitioner lacked the legal personality to assail the
proceedings for the certification election and it should merely act as a bystander who
could not oppose the petition. An employer, except when it is requested to bargain
collectively, is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election. The choice of
their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees.

It is well settled that the filing of the petition for the cancellation of the union’s
registration should not be a bar to the conduct of the certification election. Only a final
order for the cancellation of the registration would have prevented NUWHRAINHHMSC
from continuing to enjoy all the rights conferred on it as a legitimate labor union,
including the right to the petition for the certification election
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., v. DIGITEL EMPLOYEES
UNION (DEU), ARCELO RAFAEL A. ESPLANA, ALAN D. LICANDO, FELICITO C.
ROMERO, JR., ARNOLD D. GONZALES, REYNEL FRANCISCO B. GARCIA,
ZOSIMO B. PERALTA, REGINO T. UNIDAD and JIM L. JAVIER

FACTS:

Digitel Employees Union and Digital started collective bargaining negotiations but it

resulted in a bargaining deadlock. No CBA was executed between the parties despite
the order of the SOLE. A number of union members abandoned their work with Digitel
and the Union became inactive. After 10 years, Digitel received a letter containing the
list of officers, CBA proposals and ground rules from Esplana, the president of the
Union.

However, Digitel was hesitant to negotiate with the Union and demanded that the latter
show that it complied with the provisions of the Union’s constitution and By Laws
regarding membership and election of officers. Esplana together with his group filed a
case for Preventive Mediation before the NCMB. During the pendency of the
controversy, Digiserv, filed with the DOLE an Establishment Termination Report stating
that it will cease its business operation. The closure affected at least 100 employees, 42
of whom are members of the Union.

ISSUE:

Whether the SOLE erred in issuing the assumption order despite the pendency of the
petition for cancellation of union registration.

HELD:

The Court ruled in the negative. It is well-settled that the pendency of a petition for
cancellation of union registration does not preclude collective bargaining.

The Court held that a pending cancellation proceeding against the Union is not a bar to
set in motion the mechanics of collective bargaining. If a certification election may still
be ordered despite the pendency of a petition to cancel the unions registration
certificate even more that the collective bargaining process should continue despite its
pendency. Furthermore, the Court stated that the majority status of the Union is not
affected by the pendency of the Petition for Cancellation.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
LEGEND INTERNATIONAL RESORTS LIMITED, Petitioner, v. KILUSANG
MANGGAGAWA NG LEGENDA (KML-INDEPENDENT)

FACTS:

KML filed with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE a Petition for Certification Election.
Legend filed a motion to dismiss the petition alleging that KML-INDEPENDENT is not a
LLO because its membership is a mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees
which is violative of Article 245 of the Labor Code. KML-iNDEPENDENT stated that
even if majority of its members are supervisory employees and are excluded from
membership, the certification election should still be conducted because the required
number of the total rank and file employees is still complied with. It also asserted that its
legitimacy as a labor union could not be collaterally attacked in the certification election
proceedings but only through a separate and independent action.

The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election. The SOLE granted the
appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether the legal personality of KML-INDEPENDENT can be collaterally attacked.

HELD:

No, the legal personality of KML cannot be collaterally attacked. The Court held that a
certification election may be conducted during the pendency of the cancellation
proceedings. The reason is that at the time the petition for certification was filed, the
Union is presumed to be with legal personality to file it. Therefore, the assertion of
Legend that the cancellation of KML-INDEPENDENT’s certificate of registration should
retroact to its issuance has no basis

As held by the Court in the case of Laguna Autoparts, such legal personality may not be
subject to a collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted particularly for
the purpose of assailing it.

The Implementing Rules provides that a labor organization is deemed registered and
has legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a
certificate of registration is issued, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral
attack. In may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation 
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION VS. BLR

FACTS:
The APFLAA submitted a PCE as the APC flight attendants' SEBA. The election was
held and the majority of the votes cast were in support of APFLAA. APC filed a De-
Certification and Cancellation of Union Registration Petition against APFLAA claiming
that APFLAA was unable to register as a labor group since its membership included
both supervisory and rank-and-file flight attendants.
ISSUE:
Whether APFLAA’s union registration may be cancelled considering that the union is
allegedly composed of a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
HELD:
No. For the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-
and-file union includes ineligible employees in its membership. It must be proved that
there was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification, or in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of
officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents together with the list of
the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.

DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOL VS. BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA

FACTS:  
A Union Registration was issued to BMDOMMC. Later on, BMDOMSI was also issued
a Union Registration and a Certificate of Creation of Local and was declared as an
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
LLO. De Ocampo filed a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration with the
on the grounds of misrepresentation, false statement and fraud in connection with its
creation and registration as a labor union as BMDOMSI shared the same set of officers
and members with BMDOMMC. It further alegged that BMDOMSI has mixed
membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees.
ISSUE:
Whether BMDOMSI committed misrepresentation and fraud in connection with its
application by intentionally suppressing the fact that at the time of its application, there
was another union with whom they shared the same set of officers and members.
HELD:
No. Notwithstanding that there is no mutuality or commonality of interests among the
members of BMDOMSI, this is not enough reason to cancel its registration. The only
grounds on which the cancellation of a union's registration may be sought are those
found in Article 247 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article
247 of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud in connection with: (1) the adoption or ratification of the constitution
and by-laws or amendments thereto; (2) the minutes of ratification; (3) the election of
officers; (4) the minutes of the election of officers; and (5) the list of voters.
Other than the averment that BMDOMSI has the same set of officers with BMDOMMC
and the allegation of mixed membership, De Ocampo has cited no other evidence of
the alleged fraud and misrepresentation.
A party seeking the cancellation of a union's certificate of registration must bear in mind
that a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on fraud and
misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation which
deserves careful scrutiny.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
SMFI V. SMC SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION

FACTS:

The DOLE-NCR held pre-election talks in accordance with the Court's decision in the
matter of SMC vs. Laguesma. However, there was a disparity in the list of eligible voters
because the petitioner named 23 employees for the San Fernando plant and 33 for the
Cabuyao plant, respectively, while the respondent listed 60 and 82. The Med-Arbiter
issued an Order directing the Election Officer to proceed with the conduct of certification
election. On election day, SMFI filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters,
questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on the grounds that some of
them do not belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in expanding the scope of the bargaining unit as to include
employees who are not based in Cabuyao and San Fernando plants.

HELD:

The Court explained SMC vs. Laguesma that the employees of San Miguel Corporation
Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis form a single
bargaining unit, which is not in violation of the one-company, one-union policy. An
appropriate bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given employer,
consisting of all or a portion of the entire body of employees, that is best suited to serve
the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions
of the law, based on the collective interests of all employees, consistent with equity to
the employer.

Hence, there should be only one bargaining unit for the employees in Cabuyao, and
Otis of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in processing of "dressed" chicken and
Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in "live" chicken operations. Certain factors, such as
specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and
other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their mutuality of interest.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA and NORTH LUZON MAGNOLIA SALES LABOR UNION-INDEPENDENT,
FACTS:
Respondent union filed with the DOLE a petition for certification election. Petitioner first
opposed the petition and questioned the appropriateness of the bargaining unit sought to be
represented. It claimed that its bargaining history in its sales offices, plants and warehouses is
to have a separate bargaining unit for each sales office. Respondent union won the election
and has been certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the North Luzon Sales
Area. Petitioner appealed to SOLE claiming that Atty. Batalla was only authorized to agree to
the holding of certification elections subject to the following conditions: (1) there would only be
one general election; (2) in this general election, the individual sales offices shall still comprise
separate bargaining units. The Secretary of Labor, denied SMC's appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the employees located in different geographical location can form one union.
HELD:
Yes. The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are: (1)
the will of the employees; (2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial
Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment
status. The Court ruled that the existence of a prior collective bargaining history is not a
conclusive determinant of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.
The employees sought to be represented by the CB agent must have substantial mutual
interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they
perform. In this case, respondent union sought to represent the sales personnel in the various
Magnolia sales offices in northern Luzon. There is similarity of employment status for only the
regular sales personnel in the north Luzon area are covered. They have the same duties and
responsibilities and substantially the same compensation and working conditions. The
commonality of interest among the personnel in the north Luzon sales area cannot be
gainsaid. In fact, the employees concerned accepted respondent union as their exclusive
bargaining agent during the certification election and have expressed their desire to be one.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY vs. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA ST. JAMES
SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY
FACTS:
Samahang Manggagawa filed a petition for certification. There were 149 eligible voters and 84
voters voted. St. James filed a certification election protest challenging the 84 votes alleging
that it had 179 rank and file employees, none of whom voted in the certification election.
The Med-Arbiter ruled that the 84 votes cast would not be sufficient to constitute a majority of
all eligible voters. Samahang Manggagawa appealed and SOLE reversed the ruling of Med-
Arbiter. The DOLE ruled that Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the non-academic
personnel or the rank-and-file employees from the motor pool, construction and transportation
departments, and not all the rank-and-file employees of St. James. The DOLE ruled that the
list submitted by St. James contained only the administrative, teaching and office personnel of
the school. St. James filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Thus, a special civil
action before the Court of Appeals was filed. CA affirmed the decision of the DOLE. Hence,
the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether there is a quorum as to warrant the validity of the certification election.
HELD:
Yes. St. James has five campuses and the members of Samahang Manggagawa are
employees in the Tandang Sora campus. Under its constitution and by-laws, Samahang
Manggagawa seeks to represent the motor pool, construction and transportation employees of
the Tandang Sora campus. Hence, the computation of the quorum should be based on the
rank-and-file motor pool, construction and transportation employees of the Tandang Sora
campus.
In case of disagreement over the voters’ list or over the eligibility of voters, all contested voters
shall be allowed to vote. However, their votes shall be segregated and sealed in individual
envelopes in accordance with Section 9 of these Rules.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT, INC. (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL) vs.
MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION.

FACTS:
The Union, filed a PCE which was denied as it failed to comply with legal requirements.
Through its president, the union later notified petitioner of its intention to negotiate, by Notice to
Bargain, a CBA for its members. The Hotel refused to recognize such since it was not certified
by the as the SEBA. The union clarified that it sought to bargain "for its members only,".
The union announced its decision to go on strike by reason of the management’s refusal to
bargain collectively, and thus called for the taking of strike vote. Petitioner issued a Final
Reminder and Warning to respondent against continuing misinformation campaign. The union
went on to file a Notice of Strike due to ULP in that the Hotel refused to bargain and the rank-
and-file employees were being harassed and prevented from joining. Conciliation conferences
were conducted by the NCMB during which the union insisted on the adoption of a CBA for its
members
ISSUE:
Whether the Union may bargain collectively, thus warranting the legality of the strike.
HELD:
No. The union may not bargain collectively and the Court found the strike to be illegal.
Article 255 of the Labor Code provides that the labor organization designated or selected by
the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However,
an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present
grievances to their employer.
Only the labor organization selected by the majority of the employees is the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. Here, the
Union is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the majority of the employees, thus, it
could not demand from petitioner the right to bargain collectively in their behalf.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON.
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and STA. LUCIA EAST
COMMERCIAL CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CLUP LOCAL
CHAPTER), Respondents.

FACTS:

CLUP, in behalf of its chartered local, filed a Petition for Certification Election among the
rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia. The affiliate companies were included in the PCE
but it was dismissed. CLUP-SLECC then re-registered as CLUP-SLECCWA and it was
issued a Certification of Creation of a Local Chapter. Following that, it filed a PCE
claiming that no Certification Election has been held among them within the last 12
months, and while SMSLEC exists, it is not the EBA of the employees. On the other
hand, SLECC filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that SMSLEC has been voluntarily
recognized. As negotiation was already on motion, it claimed that the one year and
negotiation bar rules are in effect.

ISSUE:

Whether SLECC’s voluntary recognition of SMSLEC was valid.

HELD:

No. In order for a voluntary recognition to be valid, it is required that no other union is
existing within the bargaining unit. However, in the case at bar, during the said voluntary
recognition, CLUP-SLECC was then existing as a legitimate labor organization. Thus,
the voluntary recognition cannot be made at that time. Although CLUP-SLECC re-
registered itself, it does not mean that it ceased to exist as a legitimate labor
organization.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (PALEA), petitioner, vs. HON.
PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES NON-MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PANOMEA-FUR), and
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS:

PALEA prays for the issuance of a restraining order to enjoin the BLR from proceeding
with the CE. It alleges that it is the executing bargaining representative of the rank-and-
file employees of PAL including the members of PANOMEA However, BLR Director
Calleja directed the holding of the election and PALEA was certified by the BLR as the
exclusive bargaining agent.

ISSUE:

Whether PANOMEA seeks to dismember or fragmentize the existing unit in PAL.

HELD:

No. Every employees have the constitutional right to choose their own bargaining
representative. The Court also stated that there should be no circumvention on the
statutory policy of holding a certification election.

Furthermore, when a doubt exists as to whether a union represents the majority of the
rank-and-file employees, in the absence of a legal impediment, the holding of a
certification election is the most democratic method of determining the employees'
choice of their bargaining representative.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
PENINSULA EMPLOYEES UNION (PEU) VS. MICHAEL B. ESQUIVEL ET. AL.

FACTS:

PEU Board of Directors passed Local Board Resolution No. 12 authorizing the affiliation
of PEU with NUWHRAIN, and the direct membership of its individual members thereto.
Beginning January 1, 2009, PEU-NUWHRAIN sought to increase the union
dues/agency fees from one percent (1% ) to two percent (2%) of the rank-and-file
employees' monthly salaries, brought about by PEU's affiliation with NUWHRAIN, which
supposedly requires its affiliates to remit to it two percent (2%) of their monthly salaries.

The non-PEU members objected to the assessment of increased agency fees arguing
that the new CBA is unenforceable because no written CBA has been signed and
executed by PEU-NUWHRAIN and the Hotel and that the 2% agency fee is
unreasonable. Furthermore, the non-PEU members alleged that PEU-NUWHRAIN
failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for such increase.

ISSUE:

Whether PEU-NUWHRAIN has the right to collect the increased agency fees.

HELD:

Yes. The recognized collective bargaining union which successfully negotiated the CBA
with the employer is given the right to collect a reasonable fee or the “agency fee” from
non-union members who are employees of the appropriate bargaining unit, which is
also equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by union members. The legal basis of
the union's right to agency fees is quasi-contractual, deriving from the established
principle that non-union employees may not unjustly enrich themselves by benefiting
from employment conditions negotiated by the bargaining union. In the present case,
PEU-NUWHRAIN's right to collect agency fees is not disputed.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, CO., INC. vs. NLRC, BUAT,
GONZAGA, JR., ET AL., NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR (NFL), MARIANO
AKILIT and 350 OTHERS

FACTS:

Petitioner was found guilty of ULP and was prompted to pay 142 employees of their
benefits under the CBA. Petitioner Company complied and the case was considered
closed following NFL's manifestation that it will no longer appeal. However, a "Petition
for Relief" was filed by private respondents claiming that they were wrongfully excluded
from enjoying the benefits under the CBA.

Petitioner argued that the private respondents are not entitled to the said benefits
because employees hired after the term of a CBA are not parties to it even if they
subsequently become members of the bargaining unit.

ISSUE:

Whether employees hired after the stipulated term of a CBA entitled to the benefits
provided thereunder.

HELD:

Yes. In case laws, the Court has held that when a CBA is entered into by the union,
even the non-members are entitled to the benefits of the contract. To give its benefits
only to members of the union without any valid reason would constitute discrimination.

The benefits under the CBA in this case should be extended to those employees who
only became such after the year 1984. To exclude them would constitute undue
discrimination and deprive them of monetary benefits they would otherwise be entitled
to under a new collective bargaining contract to which they would have been parties.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILL WORKERS UNION-PTGWO vs. VA CALICA & INDOPHIL
TEXTILE MILLS, INC.

FACTS:

After the workers of Acrylic have been unionized and a CBA executed, the union
claimed that the plant facilities built and set up by Acrylic should be considered as an
extension or expansion of the facilities of the Company pursuant to the CBA, to wit, “c)
This Agreement shall apply to the Company's plant facilities and installations and to any
extension and expansion thereat.” Therefore, it is the union’s contention that Acrylic is
part of the Indophil bargaining unit.

The union’s contention was opposed by VA Calica which submits that it is a juridical
entity separate and distinct from Acrylic.

ISSUE:

Whether the rank-and-file employees working at Indophil Acrylic should be recognized

as part of the bargaining unit.

HELD:

No. In a jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that "the legal corporate entity is
disregarded only if it is sought to hold the officers and stockholders directly liable for a
corporate debt or obligation."

In the case at bar, the union does not seek to impose a claim against the members of
Acrylic but only seeks to pierce the veil of corporate entity, contending that the creation
of the corporation is a means to evade the application of the CBA. Thus, the Acrylic not
being an extension or expansion, the rank-and-file employees working at Acrylic should
not be recognized as part of the union, as the bargaining representative.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
ERSON ANG LEE DOING BUSINESS as "SUPER LAMINATION SERVICES," vs.
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER LAMINATION (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU)

FACTS:

Unions A, B and C filed a Petition for Certification Election to represent the rank-and-file
employees of their respective company. However, all three Petitions of the Unions were
denied. Upon appeal, the SOLE found that Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and
Express Coat were sister companies that had a common HR department and had
constantly rotated their workers, and that the latter's identification cards had only one
signatory. According to the SOLE, these circumstances indicated that the companies
might be considered as one and the same entity for the purpose of determining the
appropriate bargaining unit in a certification election.

ISSUES:

Whether the rank-and-file employees of Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and

Express Coat constitute an appropriate bargaining unit

HELD:

Yes. The test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is the application of a
standard wherein a unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of employees who
have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other
subjects of collective bargaining. In this case, there was a commonality of interest
among the rank-and-file employees of the companies and that they performed the same
or similar duties whenever rotated. Thus, aside from geographical location, their
employment status and working conditions were so substantially similar to justify the
findings that they shared a community of interest.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
REN TRANSPORT CORP. VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (2ND
DIVISION)

FACTS:

SMART is a registered union and had a five-year CBA with Ren Transport. The 60-day
freedom period of the CBA passed without a challenge. SMART then communicated its
willingness to bargain with Ren Transport and sent bargaining proposals.

Ren Transport failed to reply to the demand. Subsequently, two members of SMART
wrote to the DOLE-NCR. It came to the knowledge of the office that a majority of the
members of SMART decided to disaffiliate from their mother federation and formed
another union, RTEA. SMART opposed the disaffiliation through a letter. During the
pendency of the disaffiliation dispute, Ren Transport stopped the remittance of the
union dues to SMART that had been checked off from the salaries of union
workers. Furthermore, Ren Transport voluntarily recognized RTEA as the SEBA of the
rank-and-file employees of their company.

ISSUE:

Whether Ren Transport violated its duty to bargain collectively with SMART.

HELD:

Yes. Ren Transport had a duty to bargain collectively with SMART. Under Article 263 in
relation to Article 267 of the Labor Code, it is during the freedom period that another
union may challenge the majority status of the bargaining agent through the filing of a
PCE. If there is no petition filed during that, then the employer “shall continue to
recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification election is filed.”

In this case, no PCE was filed challenging the majority status of SMART during the
freedom period. Thus, SMART remained the SEBA of the rank-and-file employees.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
KIOK LOY vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and
PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN)

FACTS:

In a CE, the Kilusan won and subsequently certified by the BLR as the SEBA of the
rank-and-file employees of the Company. The Company’s MR of the said resolution was
denied. The Union furnished the Company with two copies of its proposed CBA. Also, at
that time, it requested the Company for its counter proposals. The Union again wrote
the Company reiterating its request for collective bargaining and for the Company to
give them with its counter proposals. Both requests were ignored a not acted upon by
the Company. The Union filed a Notice of Strike with the BLR. All attempts for an
amicable settlement failed so the BLR certified the case to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration.

ISSUE:

Whether the CBA which was approved and adopted by the NLRC is a total nullity for it
lacks the company’s consent.

HELD:

No. The Court decided that the Company is guilty of ULP. A Company’s refusal to make
counter proposal in relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad faith.
Although it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor dispute to accept or agree to the
proposals of the other, however, the empty gestures of the Company in this case should
not be tolerated.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
HONGKONG BANK INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (HBILU) VS. HONGKONG AND
SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED

FACTS:

The BSP issued regulation providing that, financing plans and amendments thereto
shall be with prior approval of the BSP. Pursuant to such provision, HSBC submitted its
Financial Assistance Plan to the BSP for approval. It was alleged that the Plan
contained a credit checking provision stating that “[r]epayment defaults on existing loans
and adverse information on outside loans will be considered in the evaluation of loan
applications.” The BSP approved the Plan. HBILU entered into a CBA with the bank.
When the CBA was about to expire, the parties started negotiations for a new CBA and
during the those negotiations, HSBC proposed amendments with respect to salary
loans to align the wordings of the CBA with its BSP approved Plan. 

ISSUE:

Whether HSBC could validly enforce the credit checking requirement under its BSP-
approved Plan in processing the salary loan applications of covered employees even
when it is not recognized under the CBA.

HELD:

No. The parties in a CBA may establish stipulations, terms and conditions as they may
deem convenient provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy. Hence, where the CBA is unambiguous, it is the law between the
parties and it must be complied with as mandated by the law.

In the case at bar, evidence proved that the Plan was never made part of the CBA. The
subsequent implementation of the Plan’s external credit check provisions in relation to
employee loan applications under Article XI of the CBA was then an imposition solely by
HSBC.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT and DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU, r

FACTS:

The Union was certified as the SEBA of the University. The Union submitted its
proposal and the University requested for a preliminary conference. The conference did
not materialize because of a letter sent by the Union’s resigned vice-president
unilaterally withdrawing the CBA proposals.

After 3 years, the Union which had affiliated with the Associated Labor Union, sent a
request for a conference to continue the CB negotiations. Despite the Union’s requests,
the University stayed silent. DWUEU-ALU filed with the NCMB-DOLE a notice of strike
on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and ULP.

ISSUE:

Whether DWUEU-ALU’s proposals may be unilaterally imposed on the University.

HELD:

The Court ruled in the affirmative. It observed that SOLE found that there was a
bargaining deadlock because there was a stoppage of bargaining.

In this case, the attitude of the University towards collective bargaining resulted in the
failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable agreement. DWUEU-ALU consistently
requested for conferences but, due to the reluctance, inaction and passive attitude of
the University towards the said requests, no agreement has been made.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, GENERAL
MILLING CORPORATION INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ELU), and RITO
MANGUBAT

FACTS:

The 190 employees GMC are also members of GMC-ELU the SEBA. A day before the
expiration of the existing CBA between GMC and GMC-ELU, the union submitted its
proposal to GMC with a request for a counter-proposal. GMC had received from its
workers, letters withdrawing their support for the union. GMC believed that the union no
longer enjoyed the support of the employees so it did not send its counter-proposal.

The union officers denied the claim. When a union member was dismissed due to
incompetence, the union requested that the matter be submitted to grievance procedure
provided under the CBA but GMC did not comply. The union filed a complaint for ULP
for GMC’s refusal to bargain collectively, interference with the right to self-organization,
and discrimination.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner GMC is guilty of ULP for its refusal to collectively bargain with the
union.

HELD:

Yes, GMC is guilty of ULP. The Court observed that the CBA was entered into by the
parties on April 28, 1989 and was retroactive to December 1, 1988. Prior the effectivity
of RA 6715, the effectivity of the CBA was for three (3) years, thus, the said CBA should
have been effective until November 30, 1991.

Under the Labor Code, the representation provision of the CBA shall be effective for 5
years. Based on the foregoing, the union, as the SEBA, had the right to request for a
renegotiation of the economic provisions of the CBA. Hence, the failure GMC to submit
its counter-proposal and its refusal to negotiate in good faith with the union is a ULP
under the Labor Code.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY v. ASIA
BREWERY, INC.,

FACTS:

Asia Brewery entered into a CBA with BLMA, the SEBA of Asia Brewery rank-and-file
employees. Those employees excluded in the CBA are the confidential and executive
secretaries and purchasing and quality control staff.

A dispute started when Asia Brewery management stopped deducting union dues from
81 employees, believing that their membership in the union violated the CBA. These
employees were Sampling Inspectors, Machine Gauge Technician, which are both part
of the Quality Control Staff, checkers assigned to different departments, and secretaries
and clerks directly under the respective division managers. During the pendency of the
case, Tunay na Pagkakaisa won in the CE.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the 81 employees may be validly excluded from the bargaining unit.

HELD:

No. There is no showing in this case that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted
or acted in a confidential capacity to persons who effectuate labor relations policies.
Confidential employees are those who assist or act in a confidential capacity to persons
who formulate, determine and effectuate management policies in labor relations. Those
requisites not being present in this case, the Court ruled the exclusion of the 81
employees is not valid.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., vs. HONORABLE MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-
CONFESOR, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment and METRO DRUG CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION -
FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS,

FACTS:

The CBA between Metrolab and the Union expired and the negotiation ended in a
deadlock. The Union filed a notice of strike and they failed to settle their dispute despite
the conciliation efforts of the NCMB. The SOLE issued an order resolving all the
disputed items in the CBA and ordered the parties involved to execute a new CBA. The
Union filed an MR and during its pendency, Metrolab laid off 94 of its rank and file
employees.

The Union filed a motion for a cease and desist order to prevent Metrolab from
implementing the mass layoff. Metrolab contended that the layoff was temporary and in
the exercise of its management prerogative.

ISSUE:

Whether the SOLE gravely abused her discretion in including executive secretaries as
part of the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees.

HELD:

Yes. Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist
any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this
prohibition to confidential employees as well or those who are required to assist or act in
a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and privy to highly confidential records.

The reason for this inhibition is that if these managerial employees would belong to or
be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in
view of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become company-dominated
with the presence of managerial employees.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA,
Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, and BENECO EMPLOYEES LABOR
UNION

FACTS:

BWLU- ADLO filed a petition for direct certification as the SEBA of all the rank and file
employees of BENECO alleging that the latter has 214 rank and file employees and
92.5% of these have supported the filing of such petition. BELU filed an opposition
contending that it was certified as the SEBA pursuant to an order issued by the Med-
Arbiter.

BENECO, filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming that it is a non-profit electric
cooperative and that the employees sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are not
eligible to form, join or assist labor organizations because they are members and joint
owners of the cooperative.

The med-arbiter gave due course to the PCE but it limited the election among the rank
and file employees of BENECO who are non-members and those without any
involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative.

ISSUE:

Whether the certification election held was valid.

HELD:

No. It is provided in Article 268 of the Labor Code, “To have a valid, election, at least a
majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent of all workers in the unit . . .”

The Med-Arbiter made a specific finding that there are only 37 employees of BENECO
who are not members of the cooperative and who are the only employees eligible to
form or join a labor union for collective bargaining. However, the minutes of the said CE
show that a total of 83 employees were allowed to vote. Even those not eligible were
allowed to vote. In this case, it cannot be determined whether BELU was duly elected
by the eligible voters since even those who are ineligible to join labor union were
allowed to vote in the CE.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION VS. NLRC AND
BERNADETTE GALANG

FACTS:

International Catholic Migration Commission hired Galang as a probationary cultural

orientation teacher. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and
unpaid wages against petitioner when after 3 months after hiring, she was informed,
orally and in writing, that her services were being terminated for her failure to meet the
prescribed standards.

ISSUE:

Whether an employee who was terminated during the probationary period of her
employment is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her six-month
probationary employment.

HELD:

No. Galang was terminated during her probationary period of employment for failure to
qualify as a regular member of petitioner's teaching staff in accordance with its
reasonable standards. Records show that Galang was found to be deficient in
classroom management, teacher-student relationship and teaching techniques. Failure
to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards of the
employer is a just cause for terminating a probationary employee specifically recognized
under Article 281 of the Labor Code. Hence, Galang shall not be entitled to her salary
for the unexpired portion of her probationary employment.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
BENJAMIN VICTORIANO vs.ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and ELIZALDE
ROPE FACTORY, INC., defendants, ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION,

FACTS:

Victoriano is a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers Union who later resigned from his
affiliation due to a prohibition of his religion for its members to become affiliated with any
labor organization. The union has a closed shop agreement in their CBA that all
permanent employees must be a member of the union and such was later amended
by RA 3350 with the provision stating "but such agreement shall not cover members of
any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor
organization"..

The union wrote a letter to the company to terminate Victoriano fro his employment. The
union contends that RA 3350 impairs obligation of contract stipulated in their CBA and
discriminatorily favors religious sects in providing exemption to be affiliated with any
labor unions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not RA No. 3550 is unconstitutional for infringing on the fundamental

freedom to form associations.

HELD:

No. The Constitution recognizes and guarantees the right to form or join unions and
corollary there to, the right to refrain from joining a union.

A member of a religious sector cannot be obliged to join unions even when such unions
have closed shop agreements. RA 3550 seeks to insure freedom of belief and religion
and to promote the general welfare by preventing discrimination against those members
of religions organizations which inhibits their members to join unions.

The Court further stated that the free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior
to contract rights and in case of conflict, the latter must yield to the former.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M. NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA, and 138
others, petitioners, vs. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau
of Labor Relations, Med. Arbiter PATERNO ADAP, and TRI-UNION EMPLOYEES
UNION, et al., 

FACTS:

TUEU-OLALIA and TUPAS are competing unions. 348 workers were deemed to be
qualified voters for the CE. Among the 348 qualified voters, only 240 voted, 141 of these
are members of the Iglesia ni Kristo. The INK protested to the exclusion of their votes.
They filed petition to cancel the election alleging that it was unfair. TUEU-OLALIA
opposed the petition. The Med Arbiter saw no merit in the INK employees’ petition
which prompted the petitioners to appeal before BLR which also denied the appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether the members of the INK are guaranteed right to self-organize.

HELD:

Yes. The right not to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or resign
from a labor organization, is included in the right to join, affiliate with, or assist any
union.

The purpose of a CE is to ascertainment the wishes of the majority of the employees in

the appropriate bargaining unit. If the results of the election reflects that the majority of
the workers do not wish to be represented by any union, then their wishes must be
respected,
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD v. BLR, HANJIN HEAVY
INDUSTRIES AND CONSTRUCTION CO.,

FACTS:

Samahan was issued with a certificate of registration. Then, Hanjin filedertificate of

registration was issued in favor of Samahan. Then Hanjin filed a petition for cancellation
of Samahan's. It alleged that 1/3 of the members of the association had definite
employers and that it committed a misrepresentation by making it appear that its
members were all qualified to become members of the workers' association.

ISSUE:

Whether the Samahan cannot form a worker’s association of employees.

HELD:

Yes. All workers have a right to self-organize. Also inherent in the right to self-
organization is the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes of collective
bargaining or a workers' association for purposes of providing mutual aid and protection.

The Court stated that there is no provision in the Code which states that employees with
definite employees should only form unions. Clearly, there is nothing in the foregoing
implementing rules which provides that workers, with definite employers, cannot form or
join a workers' association for mutual aid and protection.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
MANILA ELECTRIC CO. VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

FACTS:

STEAM-PCWF filed a PCE to represent regular employees of MERALCO.

The petition alleged that “while there exists a duly-organized union for rank and file
employees in Pay Grade I-VI, there is no other labor organization except STEAM-
PCWF claiming to represent the MERALCO employees.

MERALCO file a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the employees of
Patrol Division and Treasury Security Service Section are tasked with providing security
to the company, thus, they are not eligible to join the rank and file bargaining unit.

ISSUE:

Whether security guards may join a labor organization of the rank and file or that of the
supervisory union, depending on their rank.

HELD:

Yes. President Cory Aquino issued E.O No. 111 which eliminated the provision on the
disqualification of security guards. What was retained was the disqualification of
managerial employees.

Security guards are free to join a rank and file organization. Furthermore, Sec. 18 of RA
6715 amended Art. 245 of the Labor Code, particularly the second sentence disqualified

supervisory employees from membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file

employees but it does not include security guards in the disqualification.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL VS. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

FACTS:
Private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis – Holy Child Catholic
School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS) filed a PCE. It is
claimed that PIGLAS is a LLO, and that it represents HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS.

Holy Child stated that its employees consist of ninety-eight (98) teaching personnel,
twenty-five (25) non-teaching academic employees, and thirty-three (33) non-teaching
non-academic workers. The school also averred that the members of the union do not
belong to the same class, hence, it cannot file a PCE for being an illegitimate labor
organization.

ISSUE:

Whether the employer has the right to interfere with the right to self-organization of
private respondent.

HELD:

No. The Court mentioned the “Bystander Rule,” which states that a certification election
is the sole concern of the workers, except when the employer itself has to file the PCE
and even after such filing its role in the certification process ceases and becomes
merely a bystander. 

In this case, the employer lacks the personality to prevent the election and has no right
to interfere at all therein. 
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
UNITED POLYRESINS, INC., ERNESTO UY SOON, JR., and/or JULITO UY
SOON, Petitioners vs. MARCELINO PINUELA, Respondent

FACTS:

Pinuela was employed by UPI and he became a member of PORFA and was elected as
its President.

During his tenure as President, he allegedly committed violations constituting an

infringement of the union's Constitution, particularly Article XV, Section 1, paragraphs
(e) and (f) thereof, which specifically prohibit the misappropriation of union funds and
property and give ground for the impeachment and recall of union officers. PORFA
expelled Pinuela from the union and UPI issued a letter of termination to Pinuela.

ISSUE:

Whether Pinuela’s termination from employment was valid.

HELD:

No. Pinuela's expulsion from PORFA is grounded on Article XV, Section 1 of the union's
Constitution, which states misappropriation of union funds and property and willful
violation of any provision of the constitution or rules are grounds for impeachment of
union officers. These provision pertains to impeachment of union officers and not the
expulsion from union membership.

Therefore, any officer found guilty of violating these provisions shall be removed from
office, but he or she remains a member of the union. It was a clear error on the part of
PORFA and the petitioner to have terminated Pinuela’s employment based on the
above mentioned provision.
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
LIANA'S SUPERMARKET, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and NATIONAL LABOR UNION, respondents

FACTS:

A class suit was filed against petitioner for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of
overtime pay, monthly emergency allowance, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave
pay and 13th month pay. 3 other cases were filed and all 4 cases were consolidated.
When petitioner learned of the charges before the Labor Arbiter it demanded the
resignation of the employees from the Union and withdrawal of their cases or face
criminal charges. It also threatened to withhold their wages and even to dismiss them
from their employment. Since they refused to resign petitioner dismissed them. Hence,
charges of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal were added as causes of action in
their complaints.

ISSUE:

Whether this case is a class suit.

HELD:

No. This is a representative suit. A class suit is filed when the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons, and the parties are
so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court as opposed to a
representative suit which is filed In this case, there are multiple rights or causes of
action pertaining separately to several, distinct employees who are members of
respondent Union. Hence, the applicable rule is Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

Sec. 3. Representative parties. A trustee of a an express trust, a guardian, executor or

administrator or a party authorized by statute (emphasis supplied), may sue or be sued
without joining the party for whose benefit the action is presented or defended; but the
court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order such beneficiary to be made a party. .
CASTAÑAGA, JEZREEL D. CASE DIGESTS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

UNDERTAKING

I, Jezreel D. Castañaga, assure you that this output is my own work.

Respectfully,

jdcastanaga
Jezreel D. Castañaga