G.R. No.

L-45824 June 19, 1985

VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION, petitioner, vs.

BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION FOR METAL, WORKERS, DMG,
INC., PEOPLE'S CAR, INC., KARBAYAN INC., and RTC TRADING, INC., respondents.

FACTS: Petitioner was once affiliated with the Associated Labor Union for Metal Workers (ALUMETAL for
short), both jointly entered into a collective bargaining agreement with respondent companies. Under Section 3,
Article I, of the CBA, the obligation of the respondent companies to deduct and remit dues to ALUMETAL is
conditioned on the individual check-off authorization of petitioner's members.

On March 10, 1976, a majority of petitioner's members decided to disaffiliate from respondent federation in order
to operate on its own as an independent labor group pursuant to Article 241 (formerly Article 240) of the Labor
Code.

Respondent companies sought the legal opinion of the respondent Bureau as regards the controversy between the
two unions, and to whether or not to continue deducting from employees' wages and remitting union dues to
respondent, ALUMETAL.

Med-Arbiter George A. Eduvalla of respondent Bureau rendered a Resolution which in effect found the
disaffiliation legal but at the same time gave the opinion that, petitioner's members should continue paying their
dues to ALUMETAL in the concept of agency fees. 

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the disaffiliation is valid.

2. Whether or not ALUMETAL is entitled to union dues payments from petitioner union's members
notwithstanding their disaffiliation from said federation.

HELD: 1. YES. The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. In previous cases, it
has been repeatedly held that a local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest
of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. 4 This right is consistent with
the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association (Article IV, Section 7, Philippine Constitution).

In the case at bar, it would go against the spirit of the labor law to restrict petitioner's right to self-organization due
to the existence of the CBA. We agree with the Med-Arbiter's opinion that "A disaffiliation does not disturb the
enforceability and administration of a collective agreement; it does not occasion a change of administrators of the
contract nor even an amendment of the provisions thereof."  But nowhere in the record does it appear that the
contract entered into by the petitioner and ALUMETAL prohibits the withdrawal of the former from the latter.

2. NO. ALUMETAL is entitled to receive the dues from respondent companies as long as petitioner union is
affiliated with it and respondent companies are authorized by their employees (members of petitioner union) to
deduct union dues. Without said affiliation, the employer has no link to the mother union. The obligation of an
employee to pay union dues is coterminous with his affiliation or membership. "The employees' check-off
authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is good only as long as they remain members of the union
concerned." 7 A contract between an employer and the parent organization as bargaining agent for the employees is
terminated by the disaffiliation of the local of which the employees are members.

G.R. No. L-35120 January 31, 1984

1|Page
ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC., petitioner, vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and ADAMSON & ADAMSON SUPERVISORY UNION
(FFW), respondents.

FACTS: The Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) informed the petitioner about its having
organized on the same date that the Adamson and Adamson, Inc. Salesmen Association (FFW) advised the
petitioner that the rank and file salesmen had formed their own union.

Petitioner contends that if affiliation will be allowed, only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and
rank-and-file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an indirect affiliation of supervisors and rank-and-
file employees with one labor organization; that there would be emerging of two bargaining units ; and that the
respondent union will loose its independence because it becomes an alter ego of the federation.

ISSUE: Whether or not a supervisor's union may affiliate with a federation with which unions of rank and-file
employees of the same employer are also affiliated.

HELD: The inclusion of FWW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates at the time of
registrations. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own Neither can it be construed that
their personalities are so merged with the mother federation that for one difference or another they cannot pursue
their own ways, independently of the federation.

The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Salesmen Association
(FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-laws. They are separately and independently registered of
each other. Both sent their separate proposals for collective bar agreements with their employer. There could be no
employer influence on rank-and-file organizational activities nor there could be any rank and file influence on the
supervisory function of the supervisors because of the representation sought to be proscribed.

G.R. No. L-43495-99               January 20, 1990

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES' UNION-CGW, ET. AL. vs

TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC., ET. AL.

FACTS: The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated (respondent company) organized a local
union called the Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU) and immediately sought affiliation with the National Association of
Trade Unions (NATU).  The NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation.

The CBA between respondent company and THEU-NATU contains a union security clause requiring its members
to maintain their membership therein as a condition of continued employment.

Later on, NATU received a letter jointly signed by the incumbent officers of the local union informing the NATU
that THEU was disaffiliating from the NATU federation. At the instance of NATU, the employees were dismissed
because, as respondent company contended, they violated the union security clause.

ISSUE: Whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation valid.
2|Page
HELD: The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-settled. A local union, being a
separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to
disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
association (Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, No. L-45824, June 19, 1985, 137 SCRA 42).

The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration with the Department
of Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU's affiliate at the time of the registration. It does not mean that
the said local union cannot stand on its own. Neither can it be interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue its own
interests independently of the federation. A local union owes its creation and continued existence to the will of its
members and not to the federation to which it belongs.

The CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union for joining another federation or
for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain membership therein. The case at bar does not involve
the withdrawal of merely some employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation.
Clearly, since there is no violation of the union security provision in the CBA, there was no sufficient ground to
terminate the employment of petitioners.

G.R. No. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983

DOLORES VILLAR, ROMEO PEQUITO, DIONISIO RAMOS, BENIGNO MAMARALDO, ORLANDO

ACOSTA, RECITACION BERNUS, ANSELMA ANDAN, ROLANDO DE GUZMAN and RITA
LLAGAS, petitioners, vs.
THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor, AMIGO
MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS
(PAFLU), respondents.

FACTS: On February 15, 1977, the Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU entered into a Collective
Bargaining Agreement with a union security clause provided for in Article XII thereof which is a reiteration of the
same clause in the old CBA.

Petitioners were dismissed by the respondent company at the request of PAFLU for allegedly violating the union
security clause in the said CBA.

Petitioners, who are among the 30% of the employees in the company who signed the petition for certification of
election, insist that their disaffiliation from PAFLU and filing a petition for certification election are not acts of
disloyalty but an exercise of their right to self-organization. They contend that these acts were done within the 60-
day freedom period when questions of representation may freely be raised.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioners were proper.

HELD: Petitoners, although entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new organization of their own,
must, however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA.

3|Page
It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of
association ordained by the Constitution.  But this Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form
of union security, and such provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of
freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Petitioners constituted a small minority for which reason they could not have successfully disaffiliated the local
union from PAFLU. Since only 96 wanted disaffiliation, it can be inferred that the majority wanted the union to
remain an affiliate of PAFLU and this is not denied or disputed by petitioners. The action of the majority must,
therefore, prevail over that of the minority members and petitioners being a mere minority of the local union may
not bind the majority members of the local union.

G.R. No. 77231 May 31, 1989

SAN JOSE CITY ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE, INC. (SAJELCO), petitioner, vs.

MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and MAGKAISA-ADLO, respondents.

FACTS: San Jose City Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. (SAJELCO) opposed the petition for direct certification
election filed by respondent MAGKAISA-ADLO, claiming that the employees who sought to be represented by
the latter are members-consumers of the Cooperative itself and at the same time composed the General Assembly.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employees-members of an electric cooperative can organize themselves for purposes
of collective bargaining.

HELD: As regards employees of SAJELCO who are members-consumers, the rule is settled that they are not
qualified to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. The reason for
withholding from employees of a cooperative who are members-co-owners the right to collective bargaining is
clear: an owner cannot bargain with himself. However, employees who are not members-consumers may form,
join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining notwithstanding the fact that employees of
SAJELCO who are not members-consumers were employed ONLY because they are members of the immediate
family of members-consumers. The fact remains that they are not themselves members-consumers, and as such,
they are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others
as are enshrined in Section 8, Article III and Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, Labor Code of the
Philippines and other related laws (Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc., supra, p. 10).

G.R. No. 85750 September 28, 1990

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION COMMISSION, petitioner vs

HON. PURA CALLEJA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS)
WFTU respondents.

G.R. No. 89331 September 28, 1990

4|Page
KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT TAC SA IRRI-ORGANIZED LABOR ASSOCIATION IN LINE
INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE, petitioner, vs
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC., respondents.

FACTS: ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in
Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the Holy See, as a non-profit agency involved in
international humanitarian and voluntary work.

IRRI on the other hand was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock
organization designed to carry out the principal objective of conducting “basic research on the rice plant, on all
phases of rice production, management, distribution and utilization with a view to attaining nutritive and economic
advantage or benefit for the people of Asia and other major rice-growing areas through improvement in quality
and quantity of rice.”

The labor organizations in each of the above mentioned agencies filed a petition for certification election, which
was opposed by both, invoking diplomatic immunity.

ISSUE: Whether or not the claim of immunity by the ICMC and the IRRI from the application of Philippine labor
laws valid.

HELD: Yes. The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly necessitated by their
international character and respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference
by the host country in their internal workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these
instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations,
in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of
member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.

G.R. Nos. 43633-34 September 14, 1990

PABLO ARIZALA, SERGIO MARIBAO, LEONARDO JOVEN, and FELINO BULANDUS, petitioners,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS: Petitioners, supervisory employees of the GSIS, were convicted for allegedly they violated the Industrial
Peace Act.

While their cases are pending on appeal, "1973 Constitution" took effect on January 17, 1973 and pursuant to
Proclamation No. 1104, the Industrial Peace Act was repealed and placed employees of all categories in
government-owned or controlled corporations without distinction within the Civil Service, and provided that the
terms and conditions of their employment were to be "governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations".

Petitioner contends that they ceased to fall within the coverage of the Industrial Peace Act and should thus no
longer continue to be prosecuted and exposed to punishment for a violation thereof. They pointed out further that
the criminal sanction in the Industrial Peace Act no longer appeared in the Labor Code. The Appellate Court
denied their plea for reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners' criminal liability for a violation of the Industrial Peace Act may be deemed
to have been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation and the provisions of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

5|Page
HELD: The decisive consideration is that at present, supervisors who were already members of a rank-and-file
labor organization at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6715, are authorized to "remain therein." It seems
plain, in other words, that the maintenance by supervisors of membership in a rank-and-file labor organization
even after the enactment of a statute imposing a prohibition on such membership, is not only not a crime, but is
explicitly allowed, under present law.

The repeal of a penal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the old
penal law prior to its repeal (People vs. Tamayo, 61 Phil. 225; People vs. Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000;
People vs. Binuya, 61 Phil. 208; U.S. vs. Reyes, 10 Phil. 423; U.S. vs. Academia, 10 Phil. 431. See dissent in
Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons, 57 Phil. 247, 252, 254).

G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor and
Employment, and THE ALL U.P. WORKERS' UNION, represented by its President, Rosario del
Rosario, respondent.

FACTS: Respondent Director Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations held that "professors, associate professors
and assistant professors (of the University of the Philippines) are . . rank-and-file employees . . ;" consequently,
they should, together with the so-called non-academic, non-teaching, and all other employees of the University, be
represented by only one labor organization. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the employees performing academic and non-academic functions may be represented by
only one labor organization.

HELD: Not much reflection is needed to perceive that the community or mutuality of interests which justifies the
formation of a single collective bargaining unit is wanting between the academic and non-academic personnel of
the university. It would seem obvious that teachers would find very little in common with the University clerks
and other non-academic employees as regards responsibilities and functions, working conditions, compensation
rates, social life and interests, skills and intellectual pursuits, cultural activities, etc. On the contrary, the
dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the nature of the work and duties as well as in the compensation and
working conditions of the academic and non-academic personnel dictate the separation of these two categories of
employees for purposes of collective bargaining. The formation of two separate bargaining units, the first
consisting of the rank-and-file non-academic personnel, and the second, of the rank-and-file academic employees,
is the set-up that will best assure to all the employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. These
special circumstances, i.e., the dichotomy of interests and concerns as well as the dissimilarity in the nature and
conditions of work, wages and compensation between the academic and non-academic personnel, bring the case at
bar within the exception contemplated in Section 9 of Executive Order No. 180. It was grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the Labor Relations Director to have ruled otherwise, ignoring plain and patent realities.

G.R. No. 75039 January 28, 1988

FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

HONORABLE CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS,

6|Page
FRANKLIN BAKER BROTHERHOOD ASSOCIATION (TECHNICAL AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES)-
ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), respondents.

FACTS: There are approximately 90 regular technical and office employees which form a unit, separate and
distinct from the regular rank and file employees and are excluded from the coverage of existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement; that said group of employees organized themselves as Franklin Baker Brotherhood
Association (technical and office employees) and affiliated with the local chapter of the Association of trade
Unions (ATU), a legitimate labor organization.

petitioner company did not object to the holding of such certification, but only sought the exclusion of inspectors,
foremen and supervisors, members of Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association (technical and office employees)
numbering 76 from the certification election on the ground that they are managerial employees.

ISSUE: Whether or not subject employees are managerial employees under the purview of the Labor Code and its
Implementing Rules.

HELD: Subject employees are not managerial employees because as borne by the records, they do not participate
in policy making but are given ready policies to execute and standard practices to observe, thus having little
freedom of action.

The test of "supervisory" or "managerial status" depends on whether a person possesses authority to act in the
interest of his employer in the matter specified in Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (m) of its
Implementing Rules and whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment. Thus, where such recommendatory powers as in the case at bar, are subject to evaluation,
review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although
present, are not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law (National Warehousing
Corp. v. CIR, 7 SCRA 602-603 [1963]).

[G.R. No. 108855. February 28, 1996.]

METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. 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, Respondents.

FACTS: Petitioner contends that managerial employees and executive secretaries of the company’s Management
Committee should not only be exempted from the closed-shop provision but should be excluded from membership
7|Page
in the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees as well on grounds that their executive secretaries are
confidential employees, having access to "vital labor information."

ISSUE: Whether or not the confidential employees should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

HELD: 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 or
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.

Confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file. As previously discussed, the nature of employment
of confidential employees is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus, warranting a separate category. Excluding
confidential employees from the rank and file bargaining unit, therefore, is not tantamount to discrimination.

8|Page