Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DE LA SALLE vs. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FACTS - On December 1986, De la Salle University and De la Salle University Employees Association National Federation of Teachers and Employees Union (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), which is composed of regular non-academic rank and file employees, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a life span of three (3) years, that is, from December 23, 1986 to December 22, 1989. - During the freedom period, or 60 days before the expiration of the said collective bargaining agreement, the Union initiated negotiations with the University for a new collective bargaining agreement which, however, turned out to be unsuccessful, hence, the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, National Capital Region. - After several conciliation-mediation meetings, only five (5) out of the eleven (11) issues raised in the Notice of Strike were resolved by the parties, one of which is the issue discussed in this matrix. A partial collective bargaining agreement was thereafter executed by the parties. ISSUE Whether or not the computer operators and discipline officers who were previously recognized as confidential employees should be included in the bargaining unit composed of rank and file employees? RULING - Yes. The Court held that the express exclusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the bargaining unit of rankFACTS
25 June 2011
and-file employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement does not bar any re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. During the freedom period, the parties may not only renew the existing collective bargaining agreement but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. With regard to the alleged confidential nature of the said employees' functions, after a careful consideration of the pleadings filed before the Court, it ruled that the said computer operators and discipline officers are not confidential employees. The service record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are basically clerical and non-confidential in nature. As to the discipline officers, based on the nature of their duties, they are not confidential employees and should therefore be included in the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. Moreover, the Court also held that the employees of the College of St. Benilde should be excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees of Dela Salle University, because the two educational institutions have their own separate juridical personality and no sufficient evidence was shown to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction.
On Jan 24, 2000, Kawashima Free Workers Union (KFWU) filed with the DOLE Regional Office, a Petition for Certification Election to be conducted in a bargaining unit composed of 145 rank & file employees of Kawashima Phil. The Union attached to this petition a Certification of Creation of Local/Chapter issued on Jan 19 by the
1 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
ISSUES 1. W/N mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election. 2. W/N the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can be collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification election through a motion to dismiss filed by an employer. RULING 1. NO. RA 9481, enacted on June 14, 2007, made several amendments to the LC. Such as in Article 245-A,which provides that The inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of membership of said union." It also provided that "Art. 238-A. Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of Registration. - A petition for cancellation of union registration shall not suspend the proceedings for certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for certification election. And in Art. 258-A, it states that the employer is a mere bystander and cannot oppose a pertition for certification election. However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14, 2007; hence, it applies only to labor representation cases filed on or after said date. As the petition for certification election subject matter of this case was filed by KFWU on January 24, 2000, R.A. No. 9481 cannot apply to it. Instead, the law and rules in force at the time of the filing by KFWU of the petition for certification election on January 24, 2000 is R.A. No. 6715. Thus, the former law provides that when there is a comingling of supervisory and R&F employees in a single
2 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof. ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY vs. SAMAHANG MANGGAWGAWA SA ST. JAMES FACTS The Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City (Samahang Manggagawa) filed a petition for certification election to determine the collective bargaining representative of the motor pool, construction, and transportation employees of St. James School of Quezon City. At the certification election held, 84 out of the 149 eligible voters cast their votes. St. James filed a certification election protest alleging that it had 179 rank and file employees, none of whom voted in the certification elections and that those who voted are constructions workers of an independent contractor, Architect Conrado Bacoy. ISSUES 1. Whether or not St. James can attack the validity of the formation of the labor union? 2. Whether or not there was a valid certification election? RULING 1. No. St. James can no longer argue that the members of Samahang Manggagawa are not its employees and thereby
3 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
1. No protest had been filed or, even if one was filed, the same was not perfected within the five-day period for perfection of the protest; 2. No challenge of eligibility issue was raised or even if one was raised, the resolution of the same will not materially change the result. For this purpose, the election officer shall immediately issue the corresponding certification, copy furnished all parties, which shall form part of the records of the case. The winning union shall have the rights, privileges and obligations of a duly certified collective bargaining representative from the time the certification is issued. The proclamation and certification so issued shall not be appealable. Section 2, Rule XII, Book V: Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings. All employees who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by the petitioner at the time of the certification or consent election shall be qualified to vote. A dismissed employee whose dismissal is being contested in a pending case shall be allowed to vote in the election. 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. y
4 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
- Yes. Under Section 13 of the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code, the election officers authority to certify the results of the election is limited to situations in which there has been no protest filed; or if there has been any, it has not been perfected or formalized within five days from the close of the election proceedings. - In this case, the protest was filed after five days from the close of the CE. However, the Court took note of the fact that the respondent-union, which filed the petition to nullify the CE, was only formed after petitioners misrepresentations. The SC said that the election officer should have deferred the certification of petitionerunion upon the filing of the petition. - Also, the SC said that the rules of technicality should not be used to curtail the welfare of the workers. Notably, after respondent had applied for registration with the BLR, it filed its Petition to nullify the certification election. Petitioner insistently opposed the Petition, as respondent had not yet been issued a certificate of registration at the time. The certificate was issued in favor of the latter only four days after the filing of the Petition, on December 23, 1997. However, the fact that respondent was not yet a duly registered labor organization when the Petition was filed is of no moment, absent any fatal defect in its application for registration. - The circumstances in the present case show that the employees did not sleep on their rights. Hence, their failure to follow strictly the procedural technicalities regarding the period for filing their protest should not be taken against them. Mere technicalities should not be allowed to prevail over the welfare of the workers. What is essential is that they be accorded an opportunity to determine freely and intelligently which labor organization shall act on their behalf. Having been denied this opportunity by the betrayal committed by petitioners officers in the present case, the employees were
5 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
CLUP-SLECCWA filed a petition for certification election. Sta. Lucia filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it already voluntarily recognized another union, SMSLEC, as the exclusive bargaining representative for rank-and-file employees. Moreover, a CBA between Sta. Lucia and SMSLEC was already registered with the DOLE. The Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of Sta. Lucia and dismissed CLUPSLECCWAs petition for certification election due to the contract bar rule, considering that Sta. Lucia already voluntarily recognized and alreadyhad a CBA with SMSLEC. On appeal, the DOLE Secretary reversed the decision of the medarbiter and instead ruled in favor of conducting a certification election (as prayed for by CLUP-SLECCWA). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Both the Secretary and the Court of Appeals ruled that Sta. Lucias alleged voluntary recognition of SMSLEC is void because of the existence of another legitimate labor organization (CLUP-SLECCWA).
ISSUE STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION vs. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR FACTS - Confederated Labor Union of the Philippines (CLUP), in behalf of its chartered local, filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation and its affiliates (Sta. Lucia). This union is to be known as CLUP-SLECC. - The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition because of inappropriateness of the bargaining unit. Thus, CLUP- SLECC reorganized itself and re-registered as CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association, limiting its membership to purely rank-and-file employees. This union is to be known as CLUP-SLECCWA. Whether or not Sta. Lucias voluntary recognition of SMSLEC as its exclusive bargaining representative is void for having been done during a time when another legitimate labor organization is in existence among the rank-and-file employees? RULING YES. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals in favor of CLUP-SLECCWA is affirmed. 1. A legitimate labor organization according to Art. 212 (g) of the LC is any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. Upon compliance with documentary requirements, a certificate of registration will be issued in favor of the labor organization, which vests in it legal personality as well as all the rights and duties of a legitimate labor organization under the LC.
6 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
JULY 2001, THE SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS AND RESULTING REGISTRATION OF A CBA EXECUTED BY STA.LUCIA AND SMSLEC ARE VOID AND CANNOT BAR CLUP-SLECCWAS PRESENT PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ELECTION. 3. The Supreme Court likewise said that Sta. Lucia had no standing to oppose CLUP-SLECCWAs petition for certification election through a motion to dismiss because in such petitions, the employer is deemed to be a bystander. An exception to this rule is when the employer is requested to bargain collectively. However, this exception is not present in the case at bar.
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA-LIKHA vs. SAMMA CORPORATION FACTS Petitioner Union (Samma-Likha) filed a petition for certification election with the DOLE. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition arguing that (1) LIKHA Federation failed to establish its legal personality; (2) petitioner failed to prove its existence as a local chapter; (3) it failed to attach the certificate of non-forum shopping and (4) it had a prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioners failed to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping. The Union filed a MR with the regional director of DOLE. The Acting DOLE Sec, treating it as an appeal, reversed the Med-Arbiter. Respondent filed MR, but DOLE Sec. denied. Respondent elevated the case to the CA and it ultimately ruled in favor of respondent, saying that under Administrative Circular No.
7 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
remedial orders to redress rights, but culminates solely in an official designation of bargaining units and an affirmation of the employees' expressed choice of bargaining agent Notably, under the Labor Code and the rules pertaining to the form of the petition for certification election, there is no requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping either in D.O. No. 9, series of 1997 or in D.O. No. 40-03, series of 2003 which replaced the former. Considering the nature of a petition for certification election and the rules governing it, we therefore hold that the requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping is inapplicable to such a petition
CHRIS GARMENTS CORPORATION vs. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS FACTS Chris Garment Corporation (CGC) is engaged in the manufacture and export of quality garments and apparel. Chris Garments Workers Union-PTGWO, Local Chapter No. 832 filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbiter. The union sought to represent the rank-and-file employees not covered by its CBA with the Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Chris Garments Corporation-Solidarity of Union in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (SMCGC-SUPER) the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees. CGC moved to dismiss the petition alleging that they already have an existing CBA (July 1, 1999-June 30, 2004 with SMGC-SUPER which bars any petition for certification election prior to the 60-day freedom period. They also argued that the union members are not their employees since they are the direct employees of qualified and independent contractors.
8 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
thereof by the parties and that it shall not be subject of a motion for reconsideration 2. NO. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit. y The elements of res judicata are: y (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; y (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; y (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and y (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action y In the case at bar, the fourth elements (same cause of action) is missing. y The Secretary of Labor and Employment dismissed the first petition as it was filed outside the 60-day freedom period. At that time therefore, the union has no cause of action since they are not yet legally allowed to challenge openly and formally the status of SMCGC-SUPER as the exclusive bargaining representative of the bargaining unit. Such dismissal, however, has no bearing in the instant case since the third
9 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
the documents they signed were for the organization of a union, and (3) they wish to withdraw from it. This withdrawal reduces the membership to 20 to 21 (below minimum). Conversely, the union presented duly accomplished membership forms of 4 additional members dated 08 December 2005.5 ISSUE W/N EREU misrepresented, gave false statements and committed fraud in the adoption of its constitution and by-laws, the numerical composition of the union and the election of officers for the application for registration. RULING NO. It had 30 members when it applied for registration on 19 December 2005. It has sufficiently explained that the discrepancy6 was due to the 4 additional members. Admission of new members is neither prohibited by law nor was it concealed in its application. Art 234(b) required submission of the minutes and list of participants while par (c) merely required the list of all members. Any seeming infirmity in the application and admission of membership, especially in independent unions, must be viewed in favor of valid membership.7 The 26-25 difference is merely a typographical error and an insignificant mistake. The affidavits of retraction of 68 were not presented in the hearing and are, therefore, hearsay while those affidavits presented by the union were duly re-affirmed in the hearing by the affiants. The employees withdrawal from a labor union made
NOTE: It also presented two sama-samang sinumpaang salaysay and the union legal counsels sworn statement attesting to the orderly and properly proceedings of the organizational meeting. 6 between those who attended the meeting and the total members 7 It was alleged by petitioner that the applications for membership did not comply with (what petitioner called) sine qua non requirements in the constitution and by-laws. 8 Facts stated 5 but the ruling stated 6 members.
5
EAGLE RIDGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB vs. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS Petitioner1 had 112 rank-and-file employees. On 06 December 2005, at least 20%2 organized themselves into an independent labor union3. After being issued a registration certificate, it filed a petition for certification election (CE). Petitioner opposed it, followed by the filing of a petition for cancellation of the registration certificate. It claimed that EREU declared in its application for registration that it had 30 members when the minutes of its organizational meeting only showed 26. However, only 25 signed the certification that ratified the constitution and by-laws while 26 signed the document, thereby making one signature a forgery. Also, petitioner contended that 5 employees wanted to withdraw from the union, executing affidavits4 claiming that (1) the meeting was a drinking spree, (2) they didnt know
In the business of maintaining golf courses. 20% of 112 is 22.4 3 Named Eagle Ridge Employees Union or EREU 4 Dated 15 February 2006.
1 2
10 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
RULING No there was none. Before their amendment by RA 9481, the then law provides the following requirements for registration as legitimate labor organization: 1. 50 pesos registration fee 2. Names of officers, their addresses, principal address of labor organization, minutes of organizational meetings and the list of members who participated in them 3. Names of all members comprising at least 20% of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate xxxx 5. Four copies of its constitution and by-laws, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of all members who participated in it. The law further provides for the following grounds for cancellation of registration: 1. Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws, the minutes of the meetings and the list of members who participated in it. xxxx 3 Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in the elections of officers, in the minutes of the election, in the list of voters and the failure to submit the [necessary] documents within 30 days from election. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to show any misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud committed by EREU to merit cancellation of its registration. ERUE submitted all the necessary documents required for its registration.
11 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
PICOP RESOURCES vs. TANECA FACTS Respondents were regular rank-and-file employees of PICOP and members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Picop Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (NAMAPRI-SPFL), which is the collective bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of petitioner. PICOP has a CBA with NAMAPRI-SPFL. The CBA contained the following union security provisions: Article II - Union Security and Check-Off Section 6. Maintenance of membership.
6.1 All employees within the appropriate bargaining unit who are members of the UNION at the time of the signing of this AGREEMENT shall, as a condition of continued employment by the COMPANY, maintain their membership in the UNION in good standing during the effectivity of this AGREEMENT. 6.3 The COMPANY, upon the written request of the UNION and after compliance with the requirements of the New Labor Code, shall give notice of termination of services of any employee who shall fail to fulfill the condition provided in Section 6.1 and 6.2 of this Article
Atty. Fuentes sent a letter to the management of PICOP demanding the termination of employees who allegedly campaigned for, supported and signed the Petition for Certification Election of the Federation of Free Workers Union (FFW) during the effectivity of the CBA. NAMAPRI-SPFL considered said act of campaigning for and signing the petition for certification election of FFW as an act of disloyalty and a valid basis for termination.
12 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. However, in terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA. First requisite There is no question that the CBA between PICOP and respondents included a union security clause. PICOP, upon written request from the Union, can indeed terminate the employment of the employee who failed to maintain its good standing as a union member. Second requisite It is likewise undisputed that NAMAPRI-SPFL, in two (2) occasions demanded from PICOP to terminate the employment of respondents due to their acts of disloyalty to the Union. Third requisite We find that there is no sufficient evidence to support the decision of PICOP to terminate the employment of the respondents. PICOP alleged that respondents were terminated from employment based on the alleged acts of disloyalty they committed
13 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
Clause of the CBA even after the expiration of the CBA; hence, the need to terminate the employment of respondents. Petitioner's reliance on Article 253 is misplaced. It states: At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. Applying the same provision, it can be said that while it is incumbent for the employer to continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent even after the expiration of the freedom period, they could only do so when no petition for certification election was filed. In the instant case, four (4) petitions were filed. Moreover, the last sentence of Article 253 which provides for automatic renewal pertains only to the economic provisions of the CBA, and does not include representational aspect of the CBA. An existing CBA cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for certification election. When there is a representational issue, the status quo provision in so far as the need to await the creation of a new agreement will not apply. Otherwise, it will create an absurd situation where the union members will be forced to maintain membership by virtue of the union security clause existing under the CBA and, thereafter, support another union when filing a petition for certification election. If we apply it, there will always be an issue of disloyalty whenever the employees exercise their right to self-organization. The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented, or compromised.
14 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
1. NO. We cannot subscribe to LEGENDs proposition that the cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance. LEGEND claims that KMLs petition for certification election filed during the pendency of the petition for cancellation and its demand to enter into collective bargaining agreement with LEGEND should be dismissed due to KMLs lack of legal personality. Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, a certification election may be conducted during the pendency of the cancellation proceedings. This is because at the time the petition for certification was filed, the petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal personality to file the same. There is therefore no basis for LEGENDs assertion that the cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of KMLs activities, including its filing of the petition for certification election and its demand to collectively bargain. 2. NO. The legitimacy of the legal personality of KML cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election proceeding. Section 5, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V, which states as follows:
SEC. 5.[51] Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only in a an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules.
15 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL vs. DOLE FACTS There are two private respondents. First is the CBTSI Rank and File Union [RFU]. Second is the CBSTI Supervisory Union [SU]. Both the RFU and the SU filed separate petitions for certification election before the Med-Arbiter of the Regional Office. RFU alleges that it is a legitimate labor organization since it was chartered by the Associated Labor Union. On the other hand, SU alleges that it is also a legitimate labor organization since it was chartered by the Associated Prof, Supervisory, Office and Technical Employees Union. Petitioner, the Employer of members of the RFU and SU, opposed the petitions for certification election contending that both are not legitimate labor organizations. The med-arbiter dismissed the petitions, without prejudice to their refilling. The med-arbiter ruled that the RFU and SU were in effect affiliated with only one federation because their mother federations are one and same because they had the same set of officers. On appeal, the Sec. of Labor reversed and ruled that the RFU and SU have separate legal personalities and are legitimate labor organizations. The Sec. of Labor ruled that the mother federations are separate and distinct labor organizations having separate certificates of registration from the Dept. of Labor. The Sec of Labor thus ordered the conduct of certification elections for both the rank-and-file and the supervisory bargaining unit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Sec of Labor finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion. ISSUE
Do the unions have legal personality to file the petitions for certification election? If so, is commingling of the officers of their federations relevant? RULING The Supreme Court granted the Petition for certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter, whereby the RFU and SU may re-file the petitions for certification election once the prohibition on the RFU and SU joining one Federation is removed. 1. Once a labor union acquires attains the status of a legitimate labor organization, it continues as such until its certification is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation. The legal personality of a labor organization cannot be collaterally attacked. Hence, the lack of legal personality of the labor organization cannot be alleged as a ground to oppose a petition for certification election since it partakes of a collateral attack. 2. However, the [old] Artilce 245 of the Labor Code prohibits supervisory employees from joining a rank and file union. This prohibition applies as well to a rank-and-file union and a supervisory union of the same company joining a federation. Here, the common set of officers of both federations to which the RFU and SU are affilitated is also a violation of the prohibition. Hence, as long as the RFU and SU are affiliated with their mother federations that have common officers, they do not meet the criteria to attain the status of a legitimate labor organization and thus cannot file petitions for certification election. Note
16 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.
25 June 2011
17 Aman. Reyes. Martin. Chan. Calalang. Manigbas. Fajardo. Diaz. Cruz. Hadlocon. Fabia. Morato. Machuca.