G.R. No. 87266-69 July 30, 1990ASSOCIATED WORKERS UNION-PTGWO, petitioner,vs.

THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION (EN BANC), METRO PORT SERVICE, INC.,MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC.,
ADRIANO S. YUMUL and 10 OTHER INDIVIDUALRESPONDENTS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. EPIFANIO
JACOSALEM,respondents.G.R. Nos. 91223-26 JULY 30, 1990MANILA PORT SERVICES, INC.,
petitioner,vs.HON. ARTHUR G. AMANSEC AND ADRIANO YUMUL, PABLITO REANDELAR, MACARIO
DELUNA, JR., ADAN MENDOAZA, SMITH CARLOTA, EMERECIANO VERGARA, ROMEOABACAN, LEONARDO
ROMULO, ELINO JOSE, and CATINDIANO CALAUAG(COLLECTIVELY CALLED AWUM),respondents.

FACTS:

1.On 26 October 1984, petitioner Associated Workers Union ("AWU")—PTGWO, the then bargaining
representative of the dockworkers at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, filed a Notice of Strike against
respondent Metro Port Service,Inc. ("Metro"), the then arrastre contractor in the South Harbor, on the
issues, among others, of unfilled vacancies andunion busting.2.Ministry of Labor and Employment -
forbade the holding of strike and lock-outs and order NLRC for compulsoryarbitration.3.One of the
demands raised byAWU was that Metro terminate the employment of Yumul and 10 other individuals
whowere rank-and-file employees ofMETRO for they were expelled due to disloyalty and, pursuat to the
closed-shop provision of the existingAWU-METROcollective bargaining agreement, sought the
termination of their employment.4.Metro resisted toAWU’s request to terminate the individuals due to
the fact that the termination would be prematureas the individuals had not been afforded due process,
and that the termination would be violative of the agreement.5.However, due to the threat of
strike,METROmade a compromise agreement to just suspend the 10 individuals.6.The labor arbiter
ordered to provisionally reinstate the individual respondents.7.Hence, with the orderAWU filed for a
petition for injunction againstMETRO praying for the issuance of a temporaryrestraining order against
the implementation of the order of provisional reinstatement.8.Both AWU and Metro filed separate
motions for reconsideration of the consolidated Decision. Meanwhile, on 21 July1986, petitioner Marina
Port Services, Inc. ("Marina"), by virtue of a Special Permit issued by the Philippine PortsAuthority,
started operations as the arrastre operator at the Manila South Harbor vice Metro. On November
1986,individual respondents in a Motion/Manifestation prayed that Marina be included as party-
respondent as sanctioned byPar. "7" of the Special Permit granted to Marina which states that "Labor
and personnel of previous operator, exceptthose positions of trust and confidence, shall be absorbed by
the grantee."9.NLRC rendered decision that Metro/Marina and AWU will be held solidarily liable with
AWU except as to the timethat respondent NLRC ordered it to re- suspend the private respondents and
the case to be remanded to LA of origin for writ of execution.

ISSUES:1)WON a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union before the onset of the freedom
union.2)WON MARINA should be compelled to recognize the legality of the organization and registration
of AWUM(now MWU)?
HELD:

1.YES. While it is true that AWUM as a local union, being an entity separate and distinct from AWU, is
free to serve theinterest of all its members and enjoys the freedom to disaffiliate, such right to
disaffiliate may be exercised, and is thusconsidered a protected labor activity,only when warranted by
circumstances. Generally, a labor union may disaffiliatefrom the mother union to form a local or
independent uniononly during the 60-day freedom periodimmediately preceding the expiration of the
CBA. Even before the onset of the freedom period (and despite the closed-shop provision in the CBA
between the mother union and management) disaffiliation may still be carried out, butsuchdisaffiliation
must be affected by a majority of the members in the bargaining unit . This happens when there is
asubstantial shift in allegiance on the part of the majority of the members of the union. In such a case,
however, the CBAcontinues to bind the members of the new or disaffiliated and independent union up
to the CBA's expiration date. Therecord does not show that individual respondents had disaffiliated
during the freedom period. The record does,however, show that only eleven (11) members of AWU
(individual respondents) had decided to disaffiliate from AWUand form AWUM. Respondent Metro had
about 4,000 employees, and around 2,000 of these were members of AWU Itis evident that individual
respondents had failed tomuster the necessary majority in order to justify theirdisaffiliation.

2.NO. What was in fact eventually established by individual respondents was a separate, independent
union called MetroPort Workers Union (MWU) which was not entitled, during the time periods here
relevant, to recognition as the

bargaining unit in CBA negotiations. MWU cannot have its own organization because it is still within the
prohibited period and not within the 60 FREEDOM DAY PERIOD and thus still bound by the CBA
Agreement that has notexpired yet. And with it they still cannot be recognized as the bargaining unit in
CBA negotiation